^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
<V
-■*.
<v
CIHM/r^Mlfl
Microfiche
Series.
CIHIW/ICMH
Coilection de
microfiches.
\
■-\
it,^
.Ji''' ■
SJ-
ts .
Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroraproductiont / Institut Canadian da microraproductiona hlatorlquaa
/
"^1-
t«cl»nlcal and «blk«griphk Natw / Nolw twIwIquM tt blblioiriplilquw ^
Th* Imtitulii hat attamplMi to olitafci th* Imt orif^nal .
eopy availabto for filming. FaaturM of this bofiy whidi
may ba MMiograpliically uniqua, wrtiich may altar any
of ttia imagai in tha raproduetion, or which may
•iflnif icantiy changa tha ummI mathod of. filming, ara
chackao balow.
□ OokNirad eovtra/
Couvartura da ooulaur
□ Covart damagad/
Couvartura andommagfa
□ Covara rattorad and/or lamfciatad/
Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palliculia
r I Covar titia mining/
t(tra da c^vartura manqua
I n CokNirad maps/
Cartas gtegraphiquas an ooulaur
□ CokNirad ink (i.a. othar than Mua or Mack)/
En«ra da eoulaur (i.a. autia qua Uaua ou noira)
□ CokNirad platas and/or illustratkNis/
Planchas at/ou illustrations an ooulavr
Bound svith othar matarial/
JBiMjMCd'aMras doGumants
r~7| Tight bkidkig may causa shadows or dhtortkm /
LlJ along kitarior margki/
La ralkira sarria paut eausar da I'ombra ou da la
distorskNi la long da la marga bitiriaura
□ Blank laavas addad during rastoratkm may snMv
Within tha taxt. ^Whanavar possiMa. thasa ha«a
baan omitiad from fibning/
II sa paut qua oaHakMs psiii UiMhat i^outias
, tors d'linarasta^ritionapparaissani dans la laxla,
mais, lorsqua caPa itait possiUa. oas pagas n'om
pasMfiktiias.
L'lmtitut a mkrofihn* la maillaur axamplaka qu'il
liii a M possiMa da sa procurar. Las details da eat
axamplaira qui sont paut-«tra uniquas du point da vua
MMkigraphkiua, qui pauvant modif iar unaiimaga
raproduita. ou qui pauvant aidgar una modHicatkm
dans la mMioda normala da f ihnaga sont kidk|u«s .
□ CokNirad pagas/
Pagas da eoulaur
n
□ Pagas rastorad and/or. lamkiatad/
Pagas rastaurtas al/o(^icuMas
Pagas disootourad. stakiad or foiiad/
Pagas dleokNiai
0^
'• \
□ Quality «r print variaa/
Qualiti kiAgala da llmprasskm •/
-\ • "^
Q^mkHious p aginat i on /
Ajl M iiQii eontiiwML i
0lneludas kidax(as)/ \
Comprandun(das)indaii
TMa o^ header taken from:/.
U titia da I'an-ttta proviant:
□ TMepagaof
PH*<totHia
da la liwaison
I I Caption of i^MM/
I 1 Titia\dad«partdalalimlson^
I I Masthead/
LJ QMrique (pModkiuai) da la livraison
AddMonal comment s ;/
slq^Mmentaires:
%
Inckidas soma text in French.
This itein is lilp^ at the radueiioh ratb
Ce doGumen|lMt fihn* au taux da
10X / 14X
18X
ax
2iX
3dx
12X
1SX
V
w
»x
24X_
28X
32X
Dn
I •
'K
rn
Th« copy ftffitSd h«r« has bMf| raproductd thanki
to th« g«n«rotity of:
Lm Library,
« Untvarslty of ■ettam Ontario.
T»)| imagM ■ppoarinfl horo oro tho bMt quality
poMibIa considaring ttia condition and lagibility
of tha original eopy and In kaoping with tha
filming contract spacif icatlona.
Original coploa in printad papar covofa ara fllmad
baginning with tha front covar and andKig on
tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa-
sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. AM
othor original copiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha
first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa*
sion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad
or illuatratad impraaaion.
Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficho
shall contain tha symbol -i»> (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:
<!■;
Ex parte Ward 406
Fairbanks & Barlow, and
O'Halloran .; 3H2
Farquhar, Nurmor v 110
Federal Bank of Canada, .
Grants 4
French et al. & Mc(iee et al... 59
Fuller, Pattison &' 349
Oilman iV Campbell.. 291
Gilmour Jfe Hall Jl^'i
Goyette, Canadian Pacific Ry.
■ Co. & :no
Grant & Federal Bank of Ca-
nada 4
Gr^goire^ Grdgoire..... 228
Hall, Exchange Bank & 409
Hall, Gilmour & 374
Hall, McShane & 42
Harris, A Imour & 439
Harris, Heyneman & 466
HefTernan & Walsh 482
Heyneman & Harris 466
Holland, Ross & 316
Irwin, Montreal City Passenger
Ry-Co. &..../i 208
Jones & Cuthbert .\^.... 44
Lajoie, Bouchard &.,.......«... 450
Lambe, Mol^ioo &... 381
Lambert & ^cott.. .• 340
Larandeau/Malboeuf &... 66
Lareau, Central Vermont Rail-
road & 268
Leclaire, Nordh'eimer &. 446
Leclerc, Gopeland&.... 366
Levesque, Daigneau &. ;....... 206
Lewis & Osbom... .- 363
Macdonnell* Ross 249
Mardougall Hi. U^em HO
Macfarlanc & Corporation of
StrC*»aire...., 180
Malbu:uf\' larandeau...< 66
Martipfau, IWIivcau & 133
McCord, Wad8Worth.& 113
cGce et al., French & ,. 69
[c(,;rcevy it Seii^cal...... 471
'cMullen, VVadsworth & 113
cShane &- Hall..;.. •. 4?
dhon & I.ambe..... ....881
[onette, Evans & 248
ontreal City Passenger Ry.
Co. & Irwin. ..' 208
orris & Connecticut and Pas*
sumpsic Rivers RR. Co... 303
Nordheimer & Leclaire 446
Normor v. Farquhar... 110
Norihwood & Borrowman...... 286
O'Halloran, Fairbanks & Bar-
low, and .TTTT..,.. 332
Ouimet,Cadot & 211
Osbom, Lewis & 363
Papineau & Taber lOT
Pattison & Fuller 349
Peters & Canada Sugar Refin-
ing Co. 420
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
{ O)., Boyce & 323
Pierce & Butler. 234
Ransom, Vineberg & .....346
Riendeau & Desgroselliers.... 236
Robinson & Canadian Pacific
Ry.Co 26
Rolland & Cassidy 238
Ross & Holland t...' 3J6
Ross. Macdonnell &. 249
Ross et al. & Ross et vir 1
Ross, Steams & 379
W
iS^Ofi^.'
)-.-
V
TABUt or OASIM RKPORTID.
Scott, Lambert & 340
Scn*c«l, McGreevy & 4171
South K*!itern RR, Co., Con.
necticut & Paisurop^ic
Riven RR. Co. » 105
Stearna Sc Row 379
Stephen & U Banquc d'Hoche
„' '»8« 491
Stewart, Brady Si ^ 272
Taber, Papine'au & 107
Turner, Cox & 278
Til
Villeneuvc, Cie. d'Asaurance ■
Mutuelle Si 99
Vineberg St Ransom 345
Wada^orth & McCord, & Mc-
Mullcn 113
Walsh, Hcffeman Sc 482
Ward, Ex parte 406
Wheeler St Black 139, 159
Windsor Hotel Co., Cross Sc. . 8
TheModeofCiUtlonofthe VolBmea in the Two Seri«. of the Month.ai
Law Rbpohto, for Itm, ia uk follows :—
*
In the Queen'H Bench Series, '^. ■■■■-"
M, L. R., 2 Q. B.
' In the Superior Court Series,
M. L. R,2RC.
/ '■*,,
»
, • ■
. . ■ ■ .; - ■.■;
... ■ , . .- 1'. . ■
1 ' —
\ ■
. .'• ■;. r^
^"^^;"' '
■■>■#'
'#■- -
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<l
3
404
477
24A
KM
'»Q.a i>.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(i<i<-«i«l. •|»«t'ial proff*
•ioa it mail« for th«i inacriiHioa In B«ri«w froa noil
ord«r whMt r«n4«rvd in viHM of tli« Srd Vtai Srd TtlU of
th« Coda of Pron^nr*. In Ihb t-tm, lh« apiH'UmU in
li«n of m in»iHhing in rfri»w inatilutMl an appeal <<•
plmmt to th« Court ofQuovnn llitnth. Th« law mU»» no
proviaioa for thia, tad Ui« appMl thoiUd thervforn h« di»-
mi«Md.
i'agn*'^' V Ofor app«llant« :—
▲rl. IJei O.O.P.. aJbwiconcurrimt jariadic>tion 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«<l by thia rourt in atmmt $r
Francit, (') and Mi-Orarkm 4* Li>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<A,j wiJFi^^
l^^gm^TaUlon ^ amin, at lorn ^yifbT Appall a,, ti.,
K0T, Omtm Sf UoUtd^ altonwjra for E«apoBd«iita. ^
(W8'
■sir
,^
'3
I
interest on the diabt in contemplation by the .agreement J
of 28th June, isfl. He says, I tendered an account show-
ing the financia^sition of* the Otfmpany itself. I never |
rendered any stafement to the plaintiffs
When on the "Zth June, 1888, Ross wrote to the'appel-,
lant, " a eonsiderable time ago I informe<iyou 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 meantl
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 expecti
interestas soon as the funds were sufficient. The rea-I
pondeiyts^ade a point that some of the creditors accepted]
■t'B-i^'"-lJfi ' - -J **.',^ *»lV'u
11.!.
U*' "
I' < IMi '
Thr> aitltriUllt ha.! t» • iJ
a aim of II.AM in». montff t» llbi baiiiU b«l<Mifftn« loon*
UfXuai Um lUfoiMUiil bttbijr An •lta< hm««il bavltttf
b«Min •#ri'wl 0|»*m •|*|»flUnl.'' h« d^Urwl ihM h« »m**i
l4»v»lt^ nuthinff Hubw^tiurnilf «|tt«NiU«ii« w«r« |Hil l«» Mm. i
Mid nwaii i;lkilMl that ih» a|it>«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
d<N'Ur*lton of tb«. frarnlshno, and Um Court raudared lbt|
jodfipont How •pp«^«k1 frooi. , v% I
(h^tim, Q.<1., (brthi* appellant. < onti>nd<Mt that fioJiidir|
miiil «»ald bi« V'>t<1'*i'«*<l ut><>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«*<J wUhout baini
baanL " . ■ " ■^*" ■
'i
^'%'.'
' \
.umot,«y6.04 for interest on the said sum <^f' 11686 88
from the let of July. 1877, to the 17th of DTcember 18M
a the rate of 7 per ceAtum per «.num wi Mutr;^^^^^^^^^
December, 1888, date of service of the action •
01 July, 1881, when the revenue of the Oomoanv HaH
h^ome sufficient to pay insurance charges Id TnUt^
on the loan mentioned in said affreemenT 9nS /k wl
;5^^.cipaI.omr^f!^i^
the sum of 12,404 which thr«L'' f "'''*^ *^"*^*''
Uk . r. ♦f »»"». wnicn tie said respondent h&d naiH tn
MMRhr fcr 1^ bMMit or yi fUvtW) . r».ia«r.. .ml
Mitfi»hy had n«a« • d«-d of .lU* lo (Imiil ol .ir«rUi wi4
. rwliU of Uv«ttt«' <«i«i« ftnm whUk Onuil aamaM IM
iMd c<ilUr«Ml a .YttuiHj«r«hU aam. tu. || aiN)a» jmi4 H
•l»P^»«a Ikat lh« (U«l by whU h th*. ir«ii««w WM ii|«<U Ui
km hml h^m^j^dmk^mmii brotiffhl acaUiM kip aM
Mnrphjr by tb« FMl«ra) tknk. ^ sj.
Th« Hank did nM rmttmi tb« d«< tainUon m&i» by 6r«M,
»ml triNUinir th« anawwra to pm. ur««l f^wm bitn m i^H of
kk dnilamuon m li^ri mm^ in* rlb«l lh« <•«. *, ;.«r#« anil
obtainnd jttclgmonl ord<.rtnff Oraal to p*^ tb« Ikuik
ll.iSeo 20 with cotta, within ttfUm dayi alWr Ui« wrvk*
»»l»on him of th« Jtulfrm«nl. ».
(Irani baa apti«ial«<l fVom fhla JQit|riii«nl. and .Ymiandi
thai tb« Hank ba<Wn» right in Ihia manner t*rlak« an ««
/«»<# Jndlfin^ni airamiit blm In tba Imwt of bia d«. I a rat ion
Ibal k» owad L^ataa nuibiny and bad nothinf in bia
' '■.... , . ".»" > - •. -
■V
<i '
V J
1 .
M
pay no interest on the balance due to the said Mary Ann
Campbell during the extension of time granted for the I
payment of said balance unless the net revenue of their
property should be sufiiciont to pay the charges for interest
and insnrailbe in connection with the said loan of #860,000 ; |
" And considering that it does not appear by the evi-
dence that at any time before the 1st of July, 1881, the I
net revenues of the said projperty exceeded the charges to I
^ . bo paid out of said revenue in preference to the claim of I
the said Mary Ann Campbell, the appellant as represent-
. ing the said Mary Ann Campbell is only entitled to inte^{
est at the rate of seven per centum on^his said claim from|
^^ the 1st of July, 1881 ; ^ ' ,
" And considering that the snnii of f 622, and |1,882,|
. paid by the said respondents, were so paid for assessments!
--"r imposed on the immoveable property which the saidl
respondents have purchased from the said David Torrance |
, and others,' under and by virtue of an AcC of the Provin-
'^
wPV'
\m in* ^u»ttt«*« tiMy mm* htfkw Ih* UMKritplhatt fat i^^
Wimni •* fmti* •! t^ ia«t*ii< e of ih« I'wUrvi lUnli \x\nm
IVi J»dfw«iil ijM* MIowt >">
** 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<i
bav« hadUiM rlghl to oiplain the answers whl< h.h« gavr
to Um InUrrpffatortia p«t to hte il| flHM •f Art 61i»
a a P., Mid \» abow (if mmH w«« Iba tkoi) ikal^ owail
^
Davidson. O^^ JL n^ .. JodfirmentWeiwd.
{y^ ^ ' **'^™'y" *''»^ Respondent.
€
>
-''^
(') 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<ir
a balance of a larger sum which, by deed executed rfoefore
Hunter, Notary Public, on. the 28th June 18*77, the Com-
pany acknowledged to owe to Mary Ann Campbell, widow
m. Elifi^a Lane, and which balance she has transferred to the
'^;"\-- appellant by deed of the 15th of June, 1880, and the re-
mainder for interest at t p.c. on said balance from the let
of July, 18*7*7, to the 16th December, 1888, date of the
action. ^
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
CroM
.1.^ *u" t"f°^' ^^^ Company has^eaded, in rabstance.
that^ they had paid eighty-seven and a half per cent of C'T
the debt mentioned in the deed of the 27th of June 187r ^'-^T «»»«»
leaving the balance in principal now claimed by the a^
pellant ; that according to the agreement entered into by
m f ' lu^ 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.
0<i.
Widening of Stanley Street, and at the sum of |1.860 for
the opening of Dominion.Square. cwm
*t'^n?!n*''^° *'*""* ^'**' »"*«'««* amounting in all to ^^'"•^-*«»'«'
K LTt^^^ ^"^^^^^^ *^y *^« Company, who was
thtTK"?. *^' ''^'' '^'^' ""^'y^ ^*1 n.w claims that
this habihty was an unliquidated charge upon the pro-
Inml^ t^^^^^^e of the sale of the property, and that the
sums so paid with interest accrued since the payment isto
be set off against the claim of the appellant as represent-
mg Alexander H. Lunn. one of the vendors of the
.property. ^
.«3^*?T*'°'''?"'^"^ ^'^^^^ *^««« f»«*« «^d the issuds
raised between the parties are:—
Ist. Is^the appellant entitled to claim the payment of
interest from the Ist of July. 1877. or merely f^iThe 1st
ot July, 1881, when the^Company hada net surplus after
^ Inumo'r' "^^ ^'^'^"^ '"^ connection with the loan
^ 2nd. Is the Company (respondent) entitle^ to oppose to
the appellant th^t his claim is compensated and^xtin-
guished by the sums the Company has paid to the city ?
On the first question, the appellant contends 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
28th of Jupe. 18W. ,By thatdeed, Mi^. Lane ind the other
creditors agreed to extend, for a period of six years, the
term o| payment of the bailee of the principid, and to
wave their nghttd claim ikerest until the net rWenue^
of th^ Company sh(iald be/ sufficient to pay the interest
^OO^T^^'^fJ''^ *^' contemplated loan of
th^delay for its payUnt,/in the'case of the Interest, they ■
h^e waived the right to/claim it. imlintentio; hi
V.
.--^L%
- \
14
MONTREAL LAW REPORm
18M.
CroM
■ II
I'
been merely to postpone the payment of the intereBt, the
"w.„..o; Hot,,?*'*''" ^^^^^J^}^^; ™»de use of the same expressions as
o«. they applied to the payment of the principal instead of
waiving the right. to claim it. By the agreement, the
Company is only to pay interest^ to the extent 2{ 's^ven
per cent, per annum, from the tima the( net revenues of
. the Company are sufficient to pay the charges connected
with the loan, which necessarily implies that no interest
Woul^ accrue in the meantime. \
„^ "2" *^® second question we are with the lippfellant.
T|ie effect of the two judgments of 18t6 an4 vm, setting
a^e the original assessment rolls, was tq,free the Property
Kold to the Company from, any charge or liability for the
cost of the i^aprovements in opening Staiiley StreeVid
Dominion ^uare, <and until the passing/ of the AcF
18t9, the city had no power to, enforce the liayment of tarn
portion of the cost of these improvements, which^but {6t^.
. this Act, would have remained a charge, upon the general
revenue of the city. The Commissioner^ appointed under
the Act of 1879, were authorized to determine what were
the properties to be benefited by the improvement, ind
which were especially assessed for it. (Sect. 4, $2 refer-'
ring to $8 of 87 Vict. ch. 51, sect. 176). This they have done
by determining that t^e Company, respondent, was fnter-
ested m the improvement, and by assessing its property for
its proportion of its cost. There is nothing in the proceed-
ings of the Commissioners to affect the foriner owners of
the property, and nothing in tl^e law to give a retroactive
effect to t|ieir awards and aissessment rolls; nor to reserve
to the actual owners of the property any recourse against
those from i^hom they had derived their title after the
improvements had been made. ...
The outers 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 roUs, h&ve collected from the auteurs ot the
Company, the amount for which the property of the Coni-
pany was assessed, since the Companv was nlntia n^ ^ ^- _
K*^-
/
y
15
. * «>URTOJ 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^"<l that of thoir auteur, who only sold to the Company
one-bighth share of the property, and would only b« bound
to iiMemnify the Company for one-eighth of the assess-
ments claimed to hare been paid for and to be due by the
vendbrs ; there being no stipulation of Joint and several
warranty on the part of the vendors, the obligation to
reimburse would clearly be divisible. Troplong de la vente,
after discussing this question of divisibility, says, No. 240,
" Ce point u'est contes*6 par personne." /^
As we are of opinion that the appellant is not garant
and owes no indemiiity to thv Company for any portion of
what the Company has* paid to the «;ity» it is unnecessary
to determine what would be the extent oi; his liability if
he were his g-aran/.
The judgment of the Court below" is therefore reversed
and the action of the appellant maintained for the sum of
$1,290.63, with interest from the 1st of July, 1881, and the
claim for previous interest rejected. , "
Monk, J.: —
" I agree with my colleagues on the main questions.
There were two assessments, one before the sale by David
Torrance and others, which there was no law to support,
and there was a clause in the deed giving to the vendors
the advantages derivable from the Nullity 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, Ijut 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
burdens; 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-
poraticTn for their outlay, they did not require to be parti-
cular as to' who were to be the suflTerers, prodded they
got sufficient power to levy their ii^demnity. «
I'.
't'i.iii
f
4^
*•*
^ .
'//
ootrw OF QUEEira bench.
'■\
lY
IMS.
CroM
It WM con.equently impoied not on the appellant «n,
on Torrance and other* Kn* «.» " """ "PPO"»nt nor
Company, who allowaH;. . ^" *^^ ^''^'^^^ Hotel Cy.
anvcall nZ T !"" ^'^' ^'^^^^^^ n'»ti<^ to or '^'»<'X «-^
any call upon Torrance and others or the apDellant t
was made long after the sale by David Ki ^
other.. They had accepted a new creJ tor r^HK*'**^
'^1!^ r ^. -- -d differe;: terms anTeJr:,"
creditor.. David Torrance and others, had disX^^^^
froa the scene. Bat if they still conld have had «^n
tTnWr"^!!!!*'" ^^^^^ -posed u/itlXr
in au ^wkword paution by not replyinir to aDDell«i.f.
XitW "'" ""«•"'"«» -Wok »ho«ld b. taken a.
ri88], md they ra«e this pretenaion under a clanae in rti
Miiows .— ! The partiea of the first and second oarta h.~.
by reapeotively relinqniah and wai™ aLy rigM to «^
1 ontil the net*eyenuee ,f the property of the .^^01
r per centum per annum out of auoh overplu. of ZZZ
STntil a fa^ "'"'; T"™ "" "«"" «• «»«* tote-
Udni^?!"?:;'''^ •affluent to liquidate the
fnS:iHt^r"^ " "«" « the current -
"" "vlirTr"^ " ""ft"^ "' right without .
/,
'' , J|
->-
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«<l from thn laid
Wto-toS^Hoi I ^'^*** Torraii.e and othorw, to defray the coat of improve-
(S. "•' menlii nwuln in Stanley Street and Dominion Hqoare bf
the City of Montreal liefore their Maid pun^haae, and^ for
which the iMd appellant, as reproiienting one of the ori-
ginal vend^a,wa« bo«ind to indemnify theni{
"And considering that it appoara, by the imfd deed of
agreement, of the 28th of June, 1877, that the Raid Mary
(Ann (^ampbtdl, the autmr of the appellants, for the con#i-
derntiona therein mentioned, haa cx)nflented to relinqniah
a»<l waive lay right to exa<;t or require interest upon the
balance coming to her until the net revenue of the pro-
IH^rty of the Company respondent should be sufficient to
pay the annual li&bility of the said company for interest,
insurance, et^., in connection with the loan of |860,000
mentioned in said deed, after which she would be entitled
• to receive interest to the extent of seven ,per cent, per
annum out of such surplus of revenue according to its
, , sufficiency;
" And considering that the true meaning of the said
stipulation is that the said Company respondent should
pay no interest on the balance djae to the said Mary Ann
Campbell during the extension of time granted for the
payment of said balance unless the net revenue of their
property should be sufficient to pay the charges for interest
and insuraiiee in connection with the said loan of $860,000 ; |
" And considering that it does not appear by the evi-
dence that at any time before the 1st of July, 1881, the
net revenues of the said property exceeded the charges to
be paid out of said revenue in preference to the claim of
the said Mary Ann Campbell, the appellant as represent-
ing the said llary Ann Campbell is only entitled to inte^
est at the rate of seven per centum on. his raid claim from I
thelstof July, 1881;
"And considering that the sums of #622, and $1,882,1
paid by the said respondents, were so paid for assessments I
imposed on the immoveable property which the 'said I
respondents have purchased from the said David Torrance I
and others, under and by virtue of an Aci of the Provin-
■;,--4:--
\
i.
^.
or QURg^^feKNgH,
|r.
n
tell":;'" """ '«**• -*= ^^ - ettt'
^^1S,«^ ^t^";f *'^™*y'' *■*»' Appellant. '
""'"^^j^ A- Abbotts, BitomeYs for ReBpondeni.
■ Ml
r-'fr-
^•^^
i
■ > ;
(') 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 %<a agaimrt the plaintiff
without her having a word of intimation j^at there was
, such a man as Scott in existence. On the prinoiplos oif*
pleading, on the principles of the fair administntticfn of
justice, can this evidence be allowied ? I am strongly of
opinion that the evidence should not be admitted^ When
;^^lil the machine arrived, it came on Shedd<3n's truck., Scott
was not there. It was She4den'8 driver that^ brought it.
Xbere is not a etyllable m the record to which the (Evidence
can apply. If the case is to be treiM^ la th^* ^fVi
T
/
V
- - . ^
COURT OP QUEENB BENCH.
27
xm.
evidence of matters aot>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^<XlltK,
and upon thbiiyustice tlTmigh/^M^
Upon this subject I would referto p«^^* '^^
29, 85, 87 and 42 of ch. 10of the Wort V h^ a^*
For these reasons I woul/JreLUt^ Jif ' ^"^^
there has been a niling^ f^ ^el^ ^"^^^^
^;^;«.ihat ^notil:t^i^^
^rei^Ujustibehas^n done, is no^nST^at^.
tnal (See c. 8, par. /d, 12, 18,) But JwoScrl^r^^
here because I oannof feel satisfied that suLwitSl
lice can, with any rtasonab e certaintv T^ i
-until the eyidenle tendered hlwTeL t*'"'''^ *'
^^fraiiifrom enteringVto tL p^rt^;^^^^^^
dence, as disclosed in iis affidav,V k! ^'^^ ?^*»** s.evi-
motion for a new trial on this ground onlv ««/l *
*-
iDinfon '
|>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<r,'n-iii-'j
OOURT OF QUEEN'S 9ENCH.
81
Jh«0»n«UI«n
Paclfla Jty.Oo.
gCtrf '^ " ""• J"''*??''", -""d leave W« "^
a. Abbotti for the resppndent in adriiHnn *« *l
or,m.„ «.d „the„ of the J„y „ha rliJ^Zr^:,
m Ihi. mme committed certain .fct. of . n.t»n, to wl/
rant a 6n,picion of partiality of tke verdict -^ J I
other thipg. „ked the witL.'. ^rftM^-^CS
ing to .-how their partiality in favor of the diS^ t
moreover, after the rendering of the „id veS'^' y^'
.r^.'4"::sferLtx\-t:iz^^^^
former caneed by an accident altribnlable to ttT^anh tf
L Uje r^lway company. The c.«, „„ ,^.1 ^y 1 jW nd
I JX™ ! •^'^"* *■" ""' P'"»«« The Oompaiy^;;^
that the aiMignment of facte did not cover IheTKni:
by the fanlt of a fellow-wrvant of the deceakd wlth^
■t w«, .mmaterial to imtfrt .pecirily "rZooZf W^
seema to be w«ll kattUA : ., . J^ ■ " '^"" pomt, for it
u. iTki! r TL ®^ ^'^ ***" country that the employer
w iiable for the wautof aIHII «p» «,.ii -"ompioyer
«milale the w^T" Sr.f fte */"""■,"'• ^' "■
fectiv, plant. a054 O % ** *> ""i""''™^ *" ">-
di.tincti«i.mrfe(42'&48Vic^!?? ! ^?^ '""'^'^
o» the elem«ntTl*S;^-^i,';;^'^«™J»%-
^^<i-^ —v '^ " ^;-"av p'*-^ i?**'!;^ I
. "^:.
82
MONTREAL LAW REt'ORTB.
Jt
il
'jSL
'*^ employora' liability, except in a particular oIms of cuet,
> 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 •<il»od.bythefattnI:;hrrr^^^^^^ ^^"'-"'*-
own name, to <»raDon>»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 <an U^ more evident thaii thia, thit the artiole adopt-
ed by the legislature an law wan nt^t preclaely in the
termn of the law .u* it existed at the timefef the dcmalon
in Ravdry S( Tlie Qraml Trunk Rtiilway Co. Where it
wa« fabricated, when and by whom. I d&n't know, but I
presume it forra« part aJT the wtraordinary law-making
Whiph only bet^arae complete after the local act, which
declare, tht^ printed copy of the code to bo the equivalent
Of the roll of parliament. However thin may b'e, it la the
law now, and it Heams to be modified ao as to give force
to the ruling in Ravarj/ Sc The Grand Trunk B^ilway Co.
The alterations the most obvious are : that the action
is by the party suffering, and not by another for his ben-
eHt. and that the action can be taken away by indemnity
rm satisfaction being obtained by the deceaijed during hii
life Nevertheless it is still a serious question whether
this article has not abrogated th© common laiiv action ;
and, at any rate, whether an action takw. as this one is,
under article 1066, is not a special action, on a right trans-
mitted by the deceased and not an action accruing to the
wife for a wrong to herself If it be only the damageil
suffered by the deceased, the anguish of mind of t^e aui^
viving i«litives cannot form part of the damages to bel
considered. If. on the other hand, it be the wife's actio^l
how could it be settled by the husband? . Under the old
law, it would seem, no settlement with the deceased
could have taken away the consort's right* or those io
any other person interested. 2 Date»u, ch. 7, No. 9.
In Ramrp Sr The Grand Trunk Railway Co., Mr. Juitic
Aylwin is reported to have said : " In or4«r to interpr
•^ a statute it was always necessary to look at the commo
" law as it existed before the statute, for a statute con
" only be properly expounded by reference to *!»»*•" J^J
is very true, and if the learned judge had suggested tl
w
»..*»
OOUBT or QlTKll^ BEWCft
M
MM.
th« leffl.l.tur« .hould perform th« operation of looking
■t th« common kw bofor« Ieffi«Utin«. h« would h«v, n--
•mo whillMH/tm.. ^A„i^.. II it! . . Th. g«i».||,n
«dd.Hl «om« whol«««mM ««lvic«. 1 1 thin mlvi.u, wer«7on-
fru d« " ."". *'• '" '*•'" """ '^^ '"^"^ »» -«'» for •
ir«t<le. /« hu quae contra ratumcm jurin cmHituta mnt, non
I>««.«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<objection, we do /idot think there is any
ground for supposing the jury were moved by any undue
sympathy for the plaintiff or any animosity against the
/ , defendant. It is hardly wonderful that the foreman
should rejoice at a verdict in which he concurred. Nor
■ -,.' . ';'■■' can there be any reasonable objection to the jury adding
to the solatium the amount of their own lees.
As to the fourth objection, we don't il^ink Scott's evi-
dence would have altered the case, whether we consider
his own testimony or the probability of his giving a clue
, ' to other evidence. It signifies not whether the machine
was Scott's or in his possession. It is alleged, proved, ■
'' and not specially denied, that the deceased was in the
employ of the company, and if he was taken off his re-
gular work to do extra work, in the pefformance of which
he perished, I cannot see how it can take'avBay the plain-
tifi^s right. >
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, chil<l»or parent,
cannot be taken into consideration in the estimation erf
damages. But, in England, there was at one time no action
a^ an at common la w, and a special statute had to be passed
Lord OunpbeU's Act) to establish what right of action V ^^
aereshou^dbe. In the United St,»tes, the rule differs in "-
JflferentStates. Some dlow damages for the feelings of -y-^'-^-'-'m
ttte widow, her grief and anguish of mind, and othera do - '
not^T^€««.ihedeci«ons are apparently largely
by the statutes mdiflerent States, and their interpretatioiK M'
Iross, X:-^ . # ■■■',-, ^:: Si:: f\\,^C'.:' ■. /.-:X::.^Z::.,
lp'^i^?^^'**^^P«»'*«^»PP«^fromajudgmentoft^^ -
Uurt of Review, setting aside the verdict of ajuryand v
iffr^ nting a nety trial mder th e following ci r eumatMtoes • —
\-
The appeUant brought an aoUon against the respondent^
>a
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«(3<r««rf 2Vt,«A was
tried, and on appeal to this Court, it was in that case
determmed that the legal renledy existed in Lower Canada
before the passmg of the statute, and that the jury could
award general damages tea widow as 'a toUUum to her.
and for the benefit of l^erself and those standing in relation
to the deceased, as specified in the statute, in eflFect decid-
mg the question raised in the presMit case, that the lurv
m estimating the damages, could take into account the
anguish of mind of the surviving widow
^ The statute seems to assume that the right to be exer-
cised by the surviving widow and the next of kiii was the
identi«a^ht that the deceased could himself have exer-'
cised had death not ensued. In that sense, if anguish of
mmdhadtobecompenBated.it would be his. the deceased's "
anguish of mind and not that .,f Jhe widow survivor, but
It her anguish of, mind could constitute an element in ^
augmentation, there miprht be no great difficulty in com-
bimng her own claim for recourse with that of the devol-
ved nght ao9?ulng from her deceased husband, a^hei^is. '
nevertheless, a serious objection to this theory If the
husband survived, he would be the legitimate claimant
J
V.
iX'
im.'
r'
40
MONTBEA
LAW BEPOEm
"<'
BubinwHi
Tho Cuiiwliiin „ j
PjMiflcHyCo. ^V
\
for disown anguish of mind, whifch would in no way affect
orJgpseu.the anguish o^mind of the wife, nor hw conae^
l^t r^ht to^compensation for this cause, sup^sinir it to
be a sufficient ground-for pecuniary compensation. «>nse-
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 <m thHl,.! «• 5?'' -^ '
■.ettat the .dW„ee of m^rirS^An-iJtiSraT' '
judgment for the lippeUant. • ^ f 5 '''^."^^
A further que^ti^n Wm raised, as to the fifflt fn ». ^> "^
«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 wh<r presided at the trial to re^
Robiniion open the eVjdejQce lni Order to take hls testimbiiy ', .
FMifloiS^o? " OouHidering that there was nothing in the charge of
the honorable judge to* Justify the Oourt of Review in
setting aside the verdipt in this cause and ordering a new
"" And. considering that the amount awarded by the
jury is not exwessive, and the verdicf is justified by the
evidence: ' ■ i ' ^ '
" And considering that there is error in the judgment
of said Court of Review, etoi';
" This Oourt doth reverse, etc., and proceeding to readfit
the judgment whidh the (jourt below should have ren-
dered, doth maintain the diud verdict, and doth condemn,
etc." ■;■ ■■'-■':.■:■.■::--'■; . ^^^V •■■.-■' ■.■'V^-,- ':::,';
Judgment of Oourt of Review set aside and judgment
for plaintiff on verdict.
Hatton 4* Kavanagh, attorneys for appellant,
r Abbott, Tait ^ ANfotts, attornejrs for respondent.
. *^
September 26, 1886.
' .' ■ ■ " ' ■
Coram Dokion, CJ., Monk, Ramsay» Oro8S» Babt, JJ.
-■■-.. --.ts, ■,
JAMES McSHANBjjR. -I
(jf^Mftit^ m Oourt below).
Appellant;
AND
SAMUSL S. HALL et al. \ f;
{Plaint^s in Court beloi^, I
"Respondent^.
Charter^rty—r'
Tlie appellant, in January, 18
'9, ac^reed to charter a steamship, for th«
carriage of live cattle to Ebglaad, and the conditions^o/ the charter-
party weie that the ship sfoold proceed to Montreal with aU oonve*
" between " the opening of navigation of
itiigularly between Montreal aod L^bdoni
nient speed, to arrive then
lti79| and thereafter to run
B^'ection of contract.
-f-^^^^f:^:^7i
• ■■ - . ■ ■ ■ ■ f
[OOUIW OP QUEEN'S BENCH. ^ • ^
•nUto be dispatched iW)in Montro»l in regular roUUon with oth«r
.^te r^L?!""* ""*^* ^-^ ""«' ""* ^•^- ^'^^ J-
, IfM (followi^ Jfi^Aaw ct ^««fer«,„, M. L. R, It^ B. 264) that there wa.
, shift and the appellant w«, enUtled to thro^Tup tlm chwETparty
The appeal was from a judgmVn! of the Sup^io^r Court,
Montreal (LOEANGKR, J.), June 18. 1888. maintaining the
action The j«dg9ie«t of the Court below is reported in
Legal News, p. 195.. . - \- .- ...^ v. .r— ■ ^"*" * -g-
jnie circumstances of this case are similar to that of
McShane ^^U^^son, M. L. R., 1 Q. B. 264. except that the
6, as m McShane Sr £^iderton.
W.H.Kerr^Q.C.,^ the B^pellmt.^^ V
iT ilMo/^ for the respondeat. "* .
Oross, J.;-! ". , \ • \ /:- '■ ' ' 'l, .,.
.The present ^ase js not so favorable to the apj^lUnt m
aruS''' ^r "b ^/^'^ "^'"^^ ^"^ considerably
^ w *r^^ T **~* ^^"*« ^«»»:« ns first, it as barely
possible tHa 4iew more favorable to the ship-owner
might have been taken.'bpt upon ihe whole there is no
substantial ground for making a distinction betwe^i the
tw$ cases. Thenuture of the cargo sWws that delay was
very senous I aai. therefore, of opinion to reverse the
judgment and to dismiss the action of the appeUaiits *
.RAksAY, J.:-^ ' .;..- ,•- '--\ ■ ■ ;■: .-■'' :.V :• W^^ ..
!;««« with thi^d^nt, and ifthis ca^b had e^ . •
up hrst. my view would have been the same. There is
nothing to prove tie pretension that there was to be a
suctfespion of ^teariers during the season of navigation •
1' JS?r'" "' ''^'***'^ '^"' '^^ «»«*" »o concert
amongst- them. ,--i» -^
4
reve
>Tse^#
^
_., 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<l into this province, and
' which WM not affected in this particular by the Imperial Statute of
i '^J.1. "'' *" ^^' ''"* "*■* "**" *» '"o"* •» August 1798, when
the wIlHn question was made, a substitution created by will was
limited to two degi^ exclusive of the institute.
2. Degrees of snbstitntiijns are counted by heads ("part«e^), and not
. byroota("parsouches"). When the share of one among several
who took conjointly passes to the others by his death, such trans-
. mission IS reckoned an additional degree as regards the share lo
transmitted. '
_^The appeal was from a judgment of tie Superior Court;
Montred^CMATHiEU, J.), Jan. 8. 1886. ihe. judgment of
the (^ourt below is reported in M. L. R , 21 S. C. 28,,
The case was submitted on Jhe facfumsl May 26, with-
out pral argument. The pretension of the appellant iJ
stated itit the factum as follows !-?- T 'I
. " As appears by the judgmeht rendered by the Superior
.©ourt, the questibn submitted to this Court is solely that
of determining whether the two degrees of substitution
according /to the Ordonnances of Moulins and Orl6ans,
^-f still tdj)e aceet)ted as the rule limiting substitutions
m tl^is ooiintry, previous to the Code, and if each of the
reVipients of property' substituted toust be held to consti-
tute m degree, when the substitution is mad^ to the
issue <^r generally of the firsi gr«;^,or institute.
OOTTRT OP QUEEJTS BKNCH
-*^-T'
" Th« Oodifiera apparently reported that hv the woli
of 1801. these restriction, to the mle of disposing of pr^
perty in perpetuity were repealed. - i^^ngoiprp-
" Th|appellant having purchasW the property which
ills father; and two-thirHn r^fnrW<:»u . -«"«^w irora
♦!.» J two-miras ot which reverted to him hv
01 the said C. O. Onthbert, and the Curator^ to the substi- ^
^t.on having contested thd right of the said G O Cu^h
bert to dispose of the said pro^rty 'free of the subst tuUon
for^he two- hirds transmitted to his father by the p^
decease of said appellant's brother and silr. the present
price of the sale by reason of suc^ pretention on the nar?
of the 8u|«titute. If their pretension is well fornd^d tL
sale made by sai^ respondent to appellant wouM be nl
property ^o^hiche he tad no abso'L ti^" n] ^1^^^
quently void.. Appejto respectfully submits thaTt^
sale cannot be maintain^ and enforced airain«f T'
J..thisOo^rtcanfirmthejudg^^^^^^^^
wim jftpeot to the abrogation of the restrictions relativn
to substitutions to three degrees, as provided hTihlnJ^
nances of Moulins and Orl6anrf." ^ *^' ^'^^ ' '
Fot the respondents it was contended as follows '-^ ^
/nniJv'? "T"!^"' ^°^' ^^'^ ^~ t«kament. mtte de-
TO la loi a limit6 toute substitution A deux degXoutrt
hn8titu6.^t que, pour la part venant de Bmeule^ll '
am a ^^Z'''^^'??.' '''^■^'^^ '^ ^^^^ deTase^e
"I-'Hade59 est dima Im termMsniviints— 'W .wx,..
Jonei
Culhbert
'^Tv^
..-*■»
^
-*>:
*»- •'!
•-(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 <fttte ann6o-l4, avant 1« atatut
de laOl, lequol, par cona^uont, no a'applique paa Aeetto
icftuao. 11 n'y avait alora quo lo atatut do 1774 aur lequol
on pouvait a'appiiyer. Or il a 6t6 d6<^id6 par le Oonaeil
"^iv6 dana la cauao do Durocher v. Betiuffien (807, Stuart'a
teporta) quo le nifitnt de 1774 n'avait paa fitondu la li-
boi-t6 da toatateur ot que le atatut do 1801 avait seal eu
cetdffet. Lea codiHcatoura eux-mdmoa ao aont appay«H
aurtout aur le atatut de 1801. Lea effeta du teatament
doivent 6tre dfiterminfia par la loi on force en 1798.
" Maintenant lea dogrfe aont-ila 6puia6a ? Autrefoia if
y avait diviaion.parmi lea auteura aur la manidre do
compter lea dogria, et la jurjaprudence ae reaaentait de
cette divergence d'opiniqi Lea una vbulaient que loa
degrfca fuaaent comptei! p^ t«te, lea autrea par aouehea
L'Ordonnance de 1629 d6bida le point conteat6 en ordon-
nant (article 124) que lea/degrfea de ^abatitutiona aeraient
comptfia paf tdte et non par aouehea, c'eat-A-dire que cha-
cun de coax qui auraient appr6head6 et recueilll le fid6i-
oommia, ferait an degrd^ ainon q«ie pluaieura d'eux ena-
aent 8acc6d6 en concunrence .c6mme une aeule t6te, anx-
quela car^e aeront coinpfeW qaapour un aeul degr6.' -
"Lea ^arleme^ta de Prance, k I'exception de celui de
Totiloaae, ont ac«ept6 lea diapoisitiona de cette ordonnance.
La derni^re di^ition de I'article 124 de I'Ordonnance
de 1629, doit a'entendre dana ce aena, que ceux qui re-
cueillent concurrjBmment en mftme tempa et en vertu d'un
-^^
'»■
iti, il He faiit
«)URT OF QUEEN-B BJSNCH.
>, »
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<mot dKHHaulhw .S*
quo \m degrOn Mout .^mpt^., *
ou grmeratioiiB. do telK, maai "
oompt^M) pour «„ d„„p6. A U.ruamAf^n ii •. „
tution finit de droit « ".nHlf ' '^""'" **"" '" «"^««-
Kile a pareoaru ru4r;rttua;dTr;: '7' '^^
l«it un doirr^ Vo.r ^ cessivemont 4 titre de substitutiou
.. part, v.iU 1. tromira.i^'[^"f^f>^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 « *«<!-
the reversion of tCa^d est. ./ru kT "' ''" ^■'»"'
tain accordinir M tk. ™" ""'o"* ""d apper-
whieh„,:y £'° ;''.,7,'-'.<"f/™-nt or sncce^in
maybe leUrj^n"^' '"/""^ '» »"ch as then
{be «spondent*:'d'S;^^'C:sor 'Sr r^'""
^rn^s^itrh^rrfr '■■''^^^^^^
«oJd to theappe Lt Jo^,t f ""« '»»P<'>'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<i /•• <a,-«^„ » «_ v V *"''""*'"Ott oi the
Pans, but If is impossible to 8T,Ad the^o^.f .u";'
he^ho^ht P„is, beibre 462Mi/^ :L?::™t:
JODM
Cathberi.
V
f»
:■>
'^
<.
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<l iii^d anb8eiiiu,ei;itl||^l\at .the Gourt
/hoiiUl htt\'^ aNwtoted Areo experts ■/ i|;i^v>/ * .
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$tfou of laW mvt)t%d' in the casQ was the pre-
X, ;"( ' • ■*' ■' ■>% "/'.■ .' •■' '■ ' "
Oi tiu)lu divfcrsitjfi ile aQntlmem, ni cntre les auteura, ni entre
%;^rlomdnt»; touycouvtennentque le^^^fans etpiline, les ^tranuera,
\^n substitu^ conJ|)inte^§nt pour recaeilreil^'n lini^fitQ tempis la m^me
'. auccebsion, ne^ ferment qu'«n <letrr<5, ot tell0 ^^>la 'd^c'isbn precise de
* ^ f artifice CXXIV de I'ord. do.J628i,.>a laquelle iWidfi^tiy des arrfit^s de
I ' M. le ^I.'r^Bident^ de lAmofgnoh, titre <,des ii(16i-coimjii^,:;e8t enti^rement
J covlbrme."
">S't(r la ncondf < qa^cr, deux sortea de parlem^nts, ceu^^^ n'ont pas
sepleinent pruvu la difficult^, etceuxqai I'ont sentie.^
" Tela sont Grenoble, etc,
« " Lea autrea ont pr6^u,,od'(!u taoina ^itrevu la di
cord^ent point entr'eux'^iuf decider qu^ quand la
titue^ i^aase aux autres,* cel<^ fait un (legr^ pour
comt^te autt ylH^ degr^a tl I'^gard de chaque
q,ui<enpiD£ijfflHnicce88U'9faent, Flandrea tri
The chan^lop* then goea m to ^nention t
pliedly -adopt the view of Flawu^a and Paria.
of Tonlouae which <adopta the' rule of counting i
et >K>n par Utea; and Alaace which adopta the same
L
.»«
^it'ila a*k8'^
■^■n des
eji q\ie I'ola
personnes
ent BT ^ABiH flb
ments which im-
'era to the view
par sot/chet
'*».
utiscence t»
& ofaeMe expert wa« ii-
^aud^ment appointing a£ single expert wai, in dWi con
|in^»on to. articles 322 .n^ 828 of the Xt^S^
01108$,' 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 r<iview, and there'' the judge^-^Snir
^^ly dissatisfied with the conclusion S^Sf
^dge m the first instauce. orde#l W S. ty a
s%le expert, the result of which was iilti,S3 ' ^'^
fornhtY' with thn iWVTffTn n iit . mi.^.^.. .i ^?' ^y
M8&
Malbmuf
Larandcfu.
'*'
y<t
■"*:*« ■
,■1
.■:(►■
%..
■" ifl
MnUarar
Ii«rtiid«aii.
/ /
■J
' \
m
^
•M ;.. » MONTbEAL iJLW BEfOAm C
Sjaperior QouTt and now appealed fVom. The ezpffirt foond
that the work was hadly executed^ very imperfect, and
'would^ cost to complete it $100.
The report' of. the expert was objected to by Malboenf,
and is stilUobjected to as one of the reasons againsTthe
judgment now api)ealed from. The appellant <;ontend8
that the first judgment was based upon and justified by
the evidence ; th^t there^ is besides proof that Made. Ia-
randeau offered td pay the' entire . demands less the costs;
that, the work hoA been really receive^ and accepted
tirithout objection; but principally that the «iij>erti$» 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^ * - <l«t»8 in^posed upon th«m hf the last .will and testament
ol'swdJaie Jwues MqCJee, and has plw^d the mad estate
#
n.
%:
t*'
r:
A
"^
\-!S-
^.■
jr" _ OOPRT OF qvRBtpn bewh.
:# ■
oat of thoir control, ,nd th. mid pUinUn \ud <road r.^
•on to iwmplun thomof; ,*"-»""■ "M good r««.
"And con.id«riiig (hkl ..id d«fM>dai»t. h»vo bv IM.
^ •*,"<Ji.o'i, Deing in thu proportion of iflYT n *
..ohjof „ d pUintitfi. (bht whkh money ZJ'J;*''" .
into Uourt thoairh no Rtnfn/i i« *i. i ,. wrought
thiriibeth« f„Il K "***^** •»*»»« P'^'admgH). .claiming «
inuno f»e th« full share duo said plaintitts iiii«n»„..^ *
"%e of Kiid „,tai„ than .h« wm I„m,llv ™7^,i„j 5 fj
mS bolBfe oHbwd « and for Ih" ^,^.1^ i"' '*'''
.nd being wholiy i«.«ffl.4 tt t'i'dtl AZTrch
>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<mtor, doth in conaequence diamiaa the
pleaa of aaid defendan^s^ filed by them aa i^ their quality
of executors, and by them Separately, with costa, and doth
declare aaid plaintiffs entitled from aaid eafiite, according
m to the proof in thia <!au8e, to receive the aaid Bum of $8,-
892.80, and adjudgea and declarea and condemna' aaid de-
fendants, as well in their said quality as individually,
jointly and severally to be iiidebted and to pay to plain-
tiffs the said sum, etc."
W. H. Kerr, QC. for the appellants, submitted :— 1. That
they Were acting for the best, in giving a power of attor
neytothe said Alfred Sogers, to transact the business
[ connected with the estate ; 2. That the said Rogers was
an intimate friend of the late James McGee, knew all his
affairs, and was a man of experience, and of implicit ho-
nesty ; 8. That if any delay occurred in settling^ the es-
tate, it wat caused by respondents themselves ; 4. That
the money had b^en withdrawn from the bank for the
V '" express purpose of paying the legatees ; 6. That respon-
' dettts' action was brought prematurely, before the expir
ftti^n of the year and a day allowed by law ; 6. That their
action is unfounded, theur recourse being by action to
"account. ' - "^ '^
^ . -^ William WhUe, Q. C, was heard on the part of the ros*
, pondent, in support of the judgments ;,y
-/,
\
ill'
%u
#.
4-
(}
^ tsoirirr OF QUEKN-s mncm -x , gg
Rammat, J. :— 7' ■■'- ■■%/.-'!';' Vy ■ X; '
ae b.„k .„d kept t i„ hi". ' "!!'" '■'■"" " ■»" »'
b..»«o which t^ri. r.:r to"';";" :'"",""'
tiff, and whkh tk., «„ j f '"' ''"*' '° P'""- ■
mal« apnellaht' til** ♦!.-«- —»"»••"« wmow, the fe-
that could ioe te ,4iSl .r.r ^ K """ ""'»""'•
lion of Iki. iri!^ ■ . ""' "'y ; ••»' "> 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]POj<rDENT.
-"^ Prit^cipnt and A^nt^-Poivers of ^ffent-^Acquiest'eace and Ra-
^ . ii/ication -tff PriwdpaL " « " " ' ^
^ Apii^lqiit and' BBSiwndont aro banks, — the former a savin^^ ba»H, aiul
*", ' tKe latter an ordinary banking institution. , On tl»e 13tf!"'Sept.,187."., '
,C., tespondeni'fl cashier, obtained a loanlin'liis own name from ap-
. ^ {lellant^ontho secivii^f shares of the leapondent bairic,, standing also ^
' v_ in~ his'own hame. ^one shares declining; in value, C. siibstiti^t^l
' there^jr notes tlie ptopetty of nwpondenf, i.ntiniatihg that the loan
wag made to re8|>ondent, and not to himself jMjrsonally., On 41<o 23td
June, 1875, the transaction^ Was entered *on the books of resftondent '
, "'a8li)eing a, tranbafctiph of r^pondont and not of C personally, and
on the ^OtljL^ July, W5, the pass-book between appellant and respond
. 'dent was |ilte«ed tn accordance with tl)b%aine proti^ni^iorh
Hniji :— That a jlrincipaLmay, by siiligeqiieniJ; ratification, or even by ta< it "
am^uiSscouce, reader himself responsible to a third jmrty for'the a<:t -■. \
■ oNiis aj^ut iii excess of his authority ; and that in this cjise tlie res- ■' \
pendent, bfeing \jAl aware of a^jpllant's pretension, and having
acciuiescedin it until 5th Aiigust, 1876,. «%d obtaini6d further loans
from tlie' appelant, iniisi be held to have r^tifiod th& act of its agent
C, And became bound thereby, -''.'-. , . , :
Tlie af)pedl was from a jtidgmeat oif^the^^HorCourt,
Montreal (Mathieu, J.), June ^9, ISS^^BStaijIifi^, the
resfiondfiut's action. . , » - ^
mission filed in' the case, the question''- waiS re-
siricted t^^he iespdnsibility of the resp^dent for a loan,
~ bfai$id oi^^ the 13th Sept.^gji^.hy Cott^,
iIM?ndem>jroiu 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*' ^» <Ji*« <*«-
'. Tnnii/' ?'^^T ■ '**' e^^Pi-unt personnel A lui-
du mandant oLaue 171^,^ I , ?" P«"o»ael I'affaire
• tiE et l^prX ! ^*^^^* '^ ^« H^^^e^de lairansac- .
^Conaideraijt que Je- dit ^'tlott^ n'Stait t.«» * • .
Hme at^^dit d donner A U^Tf% ?^ autonsfi
defenderesse lore du dit emprxmt • ^^''"^ *'^*'' ^*
ment le trahap^rt derd^ b ilTT- '^^""^^ ^^'««"-
ProL SlTJl^r '* ^^est Patf non plu« 14galment
".^oiisiderwft qu'au contraire'U' fest 6tabli n^ i- A.
direeteurb de la dAma*.^^ 1^ ^*.®^^w» a«fe Ie« dita
par le tiT'^l tlt^, ^Z^^ ^^"^^ J>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 . "" *" »<i«»tical u b* ,„e
"early $500,000. ^^vL X^^^^^ simflar manner. "--<'-'-
contradiction, thafthe gistoo '' ""t '"^^^^^^^ of , '
and that they went int!^;! ""T ^^"'^ **" *^« ^*«*^i«< • ^
which was tWove d- 1^1^^ ^"^""^ ^* ^^^^ t>«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. Ju8<fe[U'4 ce^& ^p^que*la, la Banque d' fipar^es avait
'i con8id6r6 ce prdt dpimine ayant ete fait i M.-Cott§ jner-"^
'*spnnellenient?'';^r/,«i J ■•■■,. j ' '.. ^[ ' i " ..,
" R, Qui, moBs^S^nr., " , :
" Q."^^ 'Et'ee i^'t%ue.lors de cette d6(laratio^'4e'M.,.,
* •' Cott6, dans SJ|si(oi» de f&yrier, IStS, < ue la Banqttfe
*' d'Epargnes^aiCj^sidfire ce ^rM oomme Lyant etfe fait 4'
r ♦' La Banque Jacques Gartier, ]>ar 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!'
<le»l, I think. tW. no anaj^W tt <rf 5/ kl" '" '
«onld alttt- the relation, «T^BUu^ w J^l, f^"
ia»t«. both. / tliink, the^l^iJX BafC" '
v™ managing the J«,,n^ Cart^ BiLrnX^'l^g^^
-to Mr Cott6pemumt * "^ '^ **" 7 ^**^* ™ » i«to
^ -as tran^rer^ j, tke>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<iue» s lur j^^ affairs wore i^i December transferred to a new, and ij;
must be^ presumed, a vigorous administration, yet it was
not till the 5th of August following, that they repudiated
the debt entered, on their books on the 28rd of June of the
previous year. Admitting to the full^, extent, that Mr.
Barbeau's. position in the Banque Jacques Cartier, so long
as he remained there, Xvas a disturbing element in estim-
^ ating the presumption of acquiescence in a ^nsactioU
entirely in favoi? of the Bti'nque Jacques OaHier, how can
we account for the silence of the administration during
more than nine months ? It will b^ conserved that their
omission is not alone a failure to ^ ee an entry in the books,
out of which the appellant is seeking to construct a title.
This title is based on a fact — that the appellant lent $25,000
of his money on the ahsolute transfer of the securities of
the Banque Jacques'Cartier. We have thus thelegi^l title
of the appellant in possession and the reason of that title^
Respondent answers.: I was ignorant, not only of the t^ntry
of the 23rd June, but also of the fact that my treasure was
over the way in the hwds of 4py solvent neighbour until
the 5th of August, 1876. As a matter of fact, this answer
may be true, 'but the question We have to consider is
whether the legal result of. this is acquiescence in the
transaction, as appellants cohtends i# was, or nqt. — -^y
Several* other minor matters- have been^adverted to
whi6h have not escaped our attention. Onl0 is that several
of these notes given as security for the loan were renewed.
This necessitated i^eir withdrawal from the Savings Bank
and the substitu^ic^ of an eqtiivafeut. This- seems very
probable, and, if proved, it would strengthen- the argu-
ment that the directors cannot be presumed to have been
ignorant of all this movement I Copfejss, however, I
hkve not been able to trace these renewals stttislactorily.
Again, it has been insisted on that after the directors
should have. known how the matter stood,''ahd before they
repudiated the. entry of the 28rd June, 1876, they acttiaJly
"^M^-'"
a^of the J
to bom
how th
amiiQinj
their ov
B^nk b
pretenti
must ha
There
be the b(
the fund
elapsed e
Jacquek
hais yenfci
Jacques _(
he allo-vi
other, poi
entries; 1
v||ture i
bionc misi
no jury c<
the explai
For all
fullest exi
the Court
We are, th
to OigyBct thj
evAs^ doub
^.nditseeqis.t
arrangeowpt
-m
/
\'
OODRT OF QUEBN'8 BENCH. 71 i«
bj^rowed th^ ife tOsay^ ou the 8rd May 1876 in mn h
fags.
le samelorm as Mr rv**A u j , ^' '°'*'' '" much
^the Saving, aST To ,L <":»».• JPIr« «»m , from
nseii. We, however, Imve to look furth«r tk i *^°
^^^ ™ra'; 'rr '^•"t -■"'« 'h" ^.vw si:"
how tWatXwi^ "•m»l money, without examining
lli«ir own books'^™ „^"' u "' eiamination of
bel":^tlrMf^„rt!,-, " "r -P»->»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 colle<ted by them. The claim
iH n^ade lor i!>48,988.46. 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<fut
the shares becoming de'jprociated^^l^ '
US'" f
Five of jtke directors have been (examined. They deny
havfng given Cott6 authority to make the loan of |26,000,
or <*»- transfer to other banks any of the promissory not»*H
Id by the Jacques Cartier Bank, or that they had author-
the entriet; in the book's at^kuowledging the loaiik^or
btte 1^ informed them of the history of the |25,000
Tw6 of them, however, Lapierre and Galarneau,
it tMit they knew such notes had,), passed into the
hands of ^hers, and one of them, Q^alari^eau, admits that^
Cotte was sometimes authorized to purchase shares of the(j
bank from, insolvent estates and to prevenit th^fr bocomiugj
depreciMed. This witness, when asked if Cott6 was rioi
authoriaid to effect a loan in his own name, says he doeN
not recollect, and in regard to Barbeau having informed'
them of the $2%P00 loan, they say they do not recollect,
One, however, Hiidon, denies it positively, but he seems
to refer to regular meetings of the directors. It is to b«
expected that after the failure of the bank, the directors
would feel inclined to throw the blame on\the cashier,
while that officer would seek to excuse himself by show-
ing that he had the concurrence of the directors in what
he did.
It is very evident from thp testimon;^ of thq directors
themselves that Cott6 was allowed tp conduct /the a^airs
of the bank much as he pleai^a, and had general control
of its affairs. They all agree that they reposed the utmost
-i_
«.
«
fXWm or gUEKN-H liBNOH.
n
7^1 ^^^n^d airhiVr«port«;«d o^i
of them, UpieJ-ro. «tftt«« thut h„ oven * •—'---''*
.of 8 per <'«nt..oii« Vnoiuh or two J>
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^ ,^"**° ^*<J ^een viewed up J*B.„flno
me lime oi the reversal of tho r.nn«« ^^ • i '**'pi'w»««
approved of. ' ^^® ''^T^ previously ^4„„„
- Jaoquog Cartier
DoRioN, O.J,:
I have only a word to add. Without dn„Kf *i,
a very difficult one hn^ *k« u i -^-^ *^® ^^^ w
Is it proved that thr« T ''^''" *^''"'"^" ««™«« *<> 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-<i«-
from the imt J Jy mt M^/A " '^^^
the 9lh November 18?? dft. f T^ "' »»"■>»»»«). »»
Appeal." ^' '°'*' ^^^'^"^d i« tl^e Court of
^.^. Branckaua, attorney for appella^'^'"* '^"^«^L
respondents. '^***"" <r ■'f'-OMcatt, attorneys for
(JK.) * V ■
-3'^t
m-
1 v^'- ,;*<;,; T^f ,
80
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
A,
W
\:m
1 1
m
i^ — "
'V
Jannary 2t, 1886.
Coram Dorion, C.J., I^amsay, Tkssier, CRogH, Ba«y, JJ.
d/me jane bell
(Defendant in Court below),.
\ Appellant ;
•-«;^" AND
I. ' , •
JAMES COURT fts-QUALiTli '
{Plaintiff in Court belotp),
Respondent ;
- ,■ ■- ^ .- :. 'AND ■ ---_■—--.-
JOHN MACINTOSH,
', Respondent par ref/rise (Tinstance.
Lessor and lessee — Interruption of lessee's enjoyment — Compen-
sation — Damages. *
Hbld :— 1. Where s leasee was entitled by a clause of the lease, to be-
come proprietor of the premises leased on payment of a specified
sum, that when sued in ejectment he could not plead that this sum
had beent»)mpen8ated by damages suffered by him through the in-
terruption of his b^sine^s. '
2. In ahy case the damages which sonant can claim for non fblfllnient
of a condition of the lease must be the immediate and direct conse-
quence of such inexe<?htion, and will not include indirect losses, e. g.
m damages alleged to have been suffered owing to the lessee's inability
'^ to fulfil contracts, or for waste of wood prepared for his business. -
- The judgment appealed from was rendered by the Su-
perior Court,<=|fpntreaI, (Jett^, J.), March 4, 1882, as fol-
lows :-,f^:^^'^^ ■■. , .;
, " La,Cour, etc. *'.*
" Atten#b que le demandeur en sa quality de syndic 4
la faillite de la banque connue sous le nom de la
' Mechanics' Blank,' poursuit la <16fen^resse en expulsion
d'unji^ cert^ine manufacture de bobines, appel6e 'The
Calumet Spool Factory,' et des machines, chaudi^res et
stensiles servant k I'exploitation de la dite mt^nufactnre,
1^ tout decrit comme suit, etc., au bail de la dite manu*
>^
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<dgrt sea l!rr„ "^^ dfpoaaM* la
"Q"e ™r ;e. 1. d^fend^. '.' P™**"'"""" ;
de rantoriaeri rre!:eft^''enpSr„*:.r!'»'-. ^
centre tone p^cMft ponya^t^lZ .U . '• g«.nto
.v^w 4 1> 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
<le Lachi
ion autc
sable: e
antres it4
"Consi
de I'execi
la fabrica
snr lesqut
banque n
dans le ca
facture, pa
fenderesse
dans le ten
bois requie
naniere k :
"Consid^
pas ete pro
tiondes dit
-3»-
.:m^^^mwwm.
msxuBsisiiiuimii
■*\k
- ^■wpisr'*y^'^''''^T^*^^?^^r''"'^'^T^' '' '^y^
CX)nilT OP QITKEN-S BENCH.
88
lie. dont le demandeur da-an.l.fA ' * i
d.fe„dtrf;'::.r.r in,"'" '"""""«"■ <"■• ■•
f.ndere»,e n'. pronri Z>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 ;
•' C6iiHi<l«''raiil, quant k la neconcUi hypoth«iio, qu« biBii
<|iuj la <U<f«iid«reMi»i ait t«»nt6 do prouvor que la Haisie (!»•
la mannfaoture a pu pour oflTeJ (hi r««inp<^ohor <lo mh prn
ruror li* hoiN u^cMifMairu, *>ii 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 <im», <1« Jail, la dito manu-
latluro a ('U' en operation juH<iu'a la tin d»^ V6iii, recevttn't,
par rouHoquent, l»' boin n6<x>HHairp piMulant toi.it <o tempn ;
enlin qu'il n'est paw rtabli que lo prix du hois aurait dt(;
plus elevC5 apres la reprise de poBneBHion^qu'avant ou pen-
dant la <lepo88eHNi(>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 dire<te du fait gf^nerateur de la reHponsabilitfe de «;elleM i ;
"Considerant, ipiant aux doinmag«!H i>our 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
<!oncaiTence <!« isoo nn'ii «•„ i-
r««, : ProuoniA, „„ (.v.uir d.. U dC.f™d«-
fend^."!'"'™;!.."" .■"";':• T'" '" ""■"■'•' """*' <»" '■^d''-
qUBde dn,rrk 1.1 Jl'"T" '"[■'""'"" '•"''•" "' '»»y™-
-I. „ „ "" ^''''""» <l'"'n«it«, etc."
I- P. Bullar for «pp..||«i,(
■ S. P. £^.„j „„„ ^^„^^ y p ^^^ re.p,„d.«„
Cr088, J. ;—
J nripL^: S h""' ''""•""" B'"' wife of ci"
«P»l.i«n being stated to be the ■ 3n Sfe-^ " "'
which the property w„ held b/n™ 'fclr Tfu'
"oa-payment of the rent of ia^wi .^J ^™*''»°''' «■"• 'he
be paid bir her tL l "^ """"" "ipa'ated to
-oUry'-oo th:4.h W Mrh^mr'n'"' '"5" ™"">-
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 an<l contracting for and procuring a supply of
suitabi
waste I
her bti
ropdr,
manufu
proflts,
lo the t<
uf the
pro[>ert;
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^.
<r
-J
90
MONTREAL LAW REPORm
m
43
k
d'AMoniica
Villanaur*.
-7
comme gprev6e de raj^titation, et son manage ; que la de-
manderMse, par Jobin, son dit 6poax, aigna nue demande
d'aHsurance 011 btanc, la data seulement " 5 octobre IKSiif "
6taat riuniplie, «i laissa c» blauc de demande au secrdtairf^ '*
ue la defenderesse qt^i lui remit un btanc de billet de d6put,
|K)ur le faire signer par la demanderesse ; que le lende-
inaiu/ 6 octobre, Jobiii ^pporta le billet de d6pdt, sigue
par la demanderesse, et indiqua verbalement au secretaire
de la d^l'eudereHse, le montant pour lequel il d^siraitobte-
nir iune assurance comme suit :
la /La tnaiaon, rteidenoe de I'Uiurfe ItiO Rue Drulet, Montreal $1400 00
:io. /La cuisine d'«t« i 60 00
3o/Le hangar ;.. , UO 00
<Lea meublea de in4B!a(^ hardoa «t lingcs. .................. 2000 00
Qu'il
ToUU $3620 0(1
netl'ut pas question de la bAtisse ou se trouvaieut
/les itaeubles de m6j}age, .hardes et linges, que le secr6tair«'
' de la defenderesse prit note des details, calcnla la valeur
du risque ejifixa le, montant du billet' de depot & |174,
remplit le billet de ce chiffre, et declara A Jobin que la
prime k payer etait de $8.68 moins le bonus de $4.84,
laissant une balance de |4.84 qu^ Jobin paya alors, lais-
sant entre les mainis du secretaire de la defenderesse la
demande d'assurance en Mane, sanf les mots et chifires,
"18620; 1174; $8.68; bonus, #4,84; balance, |4.84,"
qui furent alors 6cTits par le secretaire de la defende-
resse, ein presence de Jobin ; que le 9 novembre 1888, le
feu deiruisit et endommagea : lo. Les immeubles ainsi
assurer au montant de #270.00. 2d. Les biens meubleH
se trouv^nt parti« dans la maison, partie dans la cuisine,
et partjie^^ans le hangar, au montant de $799.76, formant
, la somme totale de $1,069.76. .
Quej lors de cet incendie la demande d'assurance n'6tait
pas eiicore remplie, et la police n'etait pas preparee ;
qn'aprds avoir refu avis de cet incendie par la
demanderesse qui parait avoir rempli toutes les forma-
lites exigees pour faire connaitre cet incendie k la
defemleresse, cette der^dre, par ses officiers, remplit, le 19
novembre 1888, la depiande d'assurance dans les tennes
,J*TJjS »~
w i m^ ^ W^w
COURT dp (iUEEfH^'^BENCH.
Hu^an^ cjuant aux moubles; '40. meubl,. de m6nage
hardea et ling.,., miroir.. horloge.. argeuterie. vaillt
verrene hvre« imprim6e.. cadre- «t. grrvures. prov.ron.
. do bouche. bo,8 do c^uffage et charbon. |1 540 • anr „„
piano. 1400. ot Bur uno machine Acoudr; 160 le' tZ Z
P« de 1 W,e et contenu dan« U dr.lt ,«
la police d asHurance, qui eat dat6e du r. octobre 1988 mai-
qmpa^it avoir 6t6antidat6e et qui n'a H^ J^Zei
tran«m,se A la demandereBae que lo 19 hovemb^ggS
con^ient Hussi la description suivante dea Teublef L'
miroirs. horloges. argenterie. vainselle. verrerie, livreHlm-'
' P"in6«. cadrea et gravurea. provisiona de bouche iola,
chauffageet charbon. 11540. aur un piano 1400 «ur „„!
ma<.h.no..coudre ,60. le tout la p'«>prLTlw"
et contenu dans la dite mahan^ ■ que les mots ' J!!l.
<ians la dUe yi^n^ qui ont Wm'is di^a rdlandHr
Hurance et dana la police y ont 6t6 ina^rfea par lea em-
ploy6s de la d61enderease hors la connaiaaance e Ins Te
et aux meubles k #799.60 ; * y fowOM,
" Attendu que le 19 novembre 1888 le secrfetaL de la
d fenderesse, en transmettant A la demanderess^ ll polic!
ae 1882.26, montant qu'il considfirait alors 6tre le seul ani
fut convert par la dite assuitince • seul qui
^ •• Attendu que le U Janvier 1884, pit le ministdre d«
Mtre Morin. notaire, la dite d«enderease aurSXlVl
h demanderesse que sans aucunement reconnaitre nt
-dme ttreleschitfresdela reclamation de ladZand La"
eHe etait dispos6e A lui offrir une somme de^720 pou;
parfait acquit desar^lamation, laquelle somme eik'u
Jffi^deniersd.c«uver^^^
'' I
91
A AMuruM
•t
VlllaMUTa.
,-.>
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 <lomiA a«iw t«'l fiMi tti«t nujwl MIX mMna* rormalil^«
<<l ii U'H niMiWH .•tr«ti» et privil^gt'ii «|u«» «l»nn leu «••« owli-
iiainw, jwarvu qu'il noil niRti^^i imr U* gr»n A d« iiub».tilulioii
•* ('otiMid^riiiii <|u'il a »'l«' inlmin qn«» l« billwl <l« d6p«l a
^M aign^' par la <lMmaiuU)r«»aa«» »*U«>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 <l»' la ditu wrtioii 21 i\m la dit«
aitMuraii«:«< du dil imra»MibIo fiit valido »'t U^galw ; '
" ConNid«<raiii (jiw la dmnaiu^rMMH" ii'a pan di'vUrd for-
iiii>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«r<mMH uiu- dtilaratioii implicitt!
n cet »ili«t, inaiv<iu'au mntrairw on ixmiI pn'«uin«^r quo la
d6f«ud«re«B« <oniiaiMHait qu'une parti»» d«'« ditn <>bi«tn nuy
biliurH iu» m'rait pan wiiHlammtmt dans la <lit«^ inaiHon ;
" CoiiHid«*rant qu'on p«ut adin<'tt.nv<|u«* la d«'r»!iMl«r«m«.i
otait «on8»'« rortnatitn^ <ia« Ift iUn»|"id^n'HHo dviM)««rail
(-(^riainR t^lMn parpi ««uf qai'<6li^i*nl ainjiur^H danw la cm*
Hine AHitk etdans *le hangar, ot qneiQAni^ certaiuH ««iretn ue
pquvaient par l«ur nature «>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 <V.n
k«n,n. t.nt f«t qui p,„i i„ai,«„ 1. LuZml^;'
*. n-q,., omp«bh« de IWm^ „„ inHno'^tV. U« "o
4 AMafMMt
VllttHU**.
y
Jc.-
f
Cnjill-J^. > t
V'::.^^'
w
MOKTaKAt LAW RBTOiail
III
I ;
if
I
J-
#4
it '
dm •ITKt* ManriM <Uiia !• huiffar i»t U fttUin* d'AI*. U
ijiwiMiiT d*ri«ndi«r«'ii*i«« ««ttl .oniiid^r^ «•«» riwim* «omin«» inA«'«*«»pl»bli».
viii^Sm**. ■«"<• • ••• t ir« otiilant en, maw quf Ic »oiilr«if«» i»»r»il plim
prohabli* ;
'• ConiiKl^raiii quo lorn dii dil iiic'i»ndi« l«^ l»l«*iw mfuhiM
•I iifMi»'mof>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«»
<iuMMHd«' IHHI.ot d« U ii^ptiinn' rondilion df U dJln
police ;
•• Aticndn qiir l«ii irbitri»(i nomm^w p«r l«'ii'|»rtl«t, mi
twin d.* In ii«li«m 3W d'u »hapUr.» «i dm •Utut* d« Qnf
b««- d** IHHl, «mt. par l«ur rap|M»rl ••ii dato dn 14 iiovwmhrf
18R8, cnni^tf qaiU ttvaiwnJ fail IWIiiiialloii doa dotn
magtm .aua** par !»• dil liiowidi*- hiu hiUiai.«'« iwnurt'ea »»l
que ceit doinin»ni*n a>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« <t«'i' *"*' ***""" '
que la duinanderMHW a auaai Houffert di-n dommagea au,
montaiil do $28 pour un lapia <itti ho trouve avoir 61* omi«
dn dil rapporl, formanl un montant total 'do dominaffe
^ pour lea dita efTetii mobiliera de |71»R.76 ;
" Conaid^rant que par la Be<rtion 44 du dit chapitre «2
deaatatula de Qu6bec do 1881, il omI d6t;r6t6 que lefaitde
I'arbilrago ne conatituera paa une renonoiation par cetto
— compagnie k aou droit d'invoqner toute cause de dtohi*
anc9 otonnne Hei^lement depuiajla nomination dea axbitres^
" et qu'il rfeaulte de cette diapoailion que le fuit do I'arbitrage
conatiine une renonciWion» A 'son droit d'invoquer toute
-oanae de d6ch6ance' connU? ayajit la uominfttipn dai
r »rbitrei ; ^" *
l^^ ^
^.
"''PI *•■«*'
nomin«lion ,l«m dUa ArhiiM. ««•«« "»n«i«*iii •rant la Ml
^•n. !• dit h.„,.„,. Ion. d« d.l u...„d . Ci ;t itl '"•^
• •'▼•inaiioti dim doroin«g«ii c^ubH mi ki«n. « Vi .
.«.««.• .u„. u ,.,„.,„;„ ,. h.r,.'S'. •""" -"••'-:-
«i d- .ftuu d« gu..K„ d. .HM, ,r 1 1/?. 'tu^"'-
" Cr»niid*r»nt ^w Um dAfniiMiii d** U .Ur.,«A
ami foiid^wiPt „H« i,^i ' T t V d*f..nd..r««Mi tonl
biiin fond*« ; «««ra.nd..r».ii.« ^.t
^ 'i • mdnfnn .t m«.„ti.,„t I Vtion d« l.« a .diml
^TT '• """•":•' •■'• *""'»''^ '-'".'." *;« ::
-it.* .„t. i!rdue.t.;:;:j: '-^-"^ ^^^^^ p-^^ht*. p.r
/.. a Dnvui ponr la d6fend*^rea«e.
Baby, J.:— • # ,
, WfiS en argent. ^ ' ^* ■**"""« ^
;^
•fife* vv'-
s,
109
jgpvnuuv h/^^ titfovm
.fs:
^
:v'
P» )Li» moaiAnt df I'aMunuic* Mall d« tll,AiO ti m Mmm-
^MUm l>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 p<if
lift! fiir.*nt rt-mplb p«r l«'« oHi. UVr* a.* U('oinp*«ni.«. «"l ••*«
a«>ti« «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<M'Ur« quf •«» intention, aiimi qu« UCon^papfni'* l«
Mvait fort hi«Mi, a«it a'aii«un«r touii Um ro«m)il<ni.\linK«M «l
hardiii qui mi trouvaif nt a«iii l«'* bAtin«»« iawnfA*ii. «t noii
* pM n«nl»«ni«nt ceni conteiiun a»ii« Wi inniiioii «6iiiitnuto
Xs^ «<n hri<iu«««. . .
i;»pp«Uirt" ••'^tmil mihnAf|U»inin«ul r^ftW-** ai>
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^ <te
n^du moinii, un plmi haut Uui d'awuranr^' lui
a«||^d^^c.; qn'elln n« |)Ottvail reolani«*q
£^|t>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 <Ut« 4« I'MattmA, 1^ m ****"^ 1
u.Il7^ '"^ ''"'■'-"- •"•"*»•"«- ««^ '•qu-ii"
pl«ldoy»r dan. I«qu,| ^11- r«,m>, 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<l«. c«tt« fob. I« d*boot* d« IVtJou par «t ,ia,p|«
On !• vou. I«. d/.r««».«, d* l'.pp«i.„f ,H.«rtnt fo i4.«. ,
■•r... <•«. dm.. protH.«it/«ii. ; loX- „.„blf. pott^ Uiti '
\i on r«ol.in« ..« .<mt pw muv^rt. p,r U pohm dW
d^. 1. m...on,en. „« pouv^it l«. tr.„.port«r dtn. Tit
' •u.in« aani. U jH,rrai«ion <^« lappeUnt. ' !«
•-'o Dailleur.. U ,H,Ii... ..t r«lical«m*„t nufla. fcutt
U Ooar d« pr.mWr. iB.taiic« . ,^,i „„ prtt„atjo '
N„„.d.vo«.,„f.lr..„Unt, „„ „ iribonu 1« .Z,'
M quel. I, But, Matimfa „„ « pHv.it ual|.m,n, dli
cun« ,„r„„ d«. li.„ «„rt. ; ..'tui. *^d"m»"
h,. «„t,.. d« co„,r„u„t. .1 «,1. ,«.„H. d. IWrnbta
»*■
iiior
1^-
w
»a
i
?x
.'r'.'.
'1
X X";
'1^ .■... ./,*•■
«^
:-€*>
«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 ^<ir |
upon the
)oration is '
eowiT OF qiOEmitimm.
105
a dismemberment, cannot acquiesce, so as to limit its ' m-^
general powers, and this again depends on the weU-known b™^
^^^-jw publicum pnvatonmpactismutarinmpoUa. WecSH
are therefore, to confirm with costs, reserving to the ap-
pellant any rights he may have as to the stripof land said
to be taken by the Corporation, or to any damages he may
have suffered owing to his deprivation of thet nse of it.
Judgment confirmed.
£rfi«»»fc, Qlobensk!,, BisaiUan Sf Brosseau, attorneys for
appellant. '
J. O. Joseph, attorney for respondent - ^ - :_ <
iJ.K.) ._ .: ■
*:>..?■■ -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
'<i«^^<-
RR. Co.
OOUBT OF QUEE^re BENCH. / . .^^^
i^wnre he has waived his right to obtain /security for .; ^
costs An attempt has been made to draw I distinction h,^«%4'«.
that ,t was an exception to the form that he^leadT But Z^.
he was no more obliged to file an exception toX forL " " "
than to plead to the merits; 86 Vic, c. 6, s. 6. The Z
tjon for leave to appeal is therefore disinissed.
Motion rejected.
Campbell Lane, attorney for plaintiffs.
ffattOH 4. Kamnagh, attorneys for defendants
(J. K.)
December 30, 1886.
Coram Monk. Ram8ay, Te8sier, Cross. Baby. JJ.
L.J PAPINEAU
(Defendant below),
AND
Appellant ;
-\
P. 0. TA^BR ET ux
(Plaintiff's below),
Rbspondsnts.
, A ^''"^-'Damaget—Costs.
order to bring au action of damaaea the Caart .<ii " "■»'™»»» "»
which have uo r^u^hl.TlZ^saTJsl^'"'* ^^^
poaed «a a fine by a magistrate. "" """"^ ^ ••"'
The .ction wmtot »2,000 danugto for «i .^nlt u
JPP^red that o«e *ve,u»g „ ZfeLk ,i,«Z Jj
Wmotherwere proce?dh>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 fli<wnteiro Mfi^: n)g
Jl^nfrtn"/ !;; \* "»•«*"*'**•• W« 'ednce the damage.
pay the costs in appeal, as well aa in the Court below,
for otJjerwise the plaintiff would be punished.
Tester, J, who was not present at the delivery of the
judgment, was m favor of confirming purely and simply
Th«i judgment is as follows :—
'\The Court, etc
thZ?H^'""^ ***** a;n assault has been established, but
that ^o damages appreciable in money have been proved
fin/ «»nside„ng that the imposition of a moderate'
hue would under the circumstances, have sufficiently
punished the appellant and vindicated the law •
ie.l^".1l '^^'*^f "»• "f««^«'' ^^ the respondent re-
je. t^ all offers at an apology or settlement •
action"* ^*«»«<Jering that the w^pondent had a right of
" Dofh confirm the principle on which the judgment
appealed Irom is based, to wit : the judgment i^idefX
884 Tr; .^"'^ f^« •' ^Jrlmer. on the 5th of M^"^
1884 and doth confirm the ««ue, but doth modify the
!ntlW f T*"' *^ '^' '"^ ""^ ♦20. whix>h 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<rted by the Superior Court, the
defendant petitioned for leave to appeal.
J. S. Hall, for defendant moving, relied upon Exchange
Bank v. Craig. The inscription was not an inscription
for proof and final hearing under Art. 243 ; it must there-
fore be considered as an inscri'ption for the adduction of
_,^ evidence at length, which requires the consent of all the
^parties, as held by this Court in Exchange Bank v. Craig-
Mignault, for the plaintiff, cited Gregory v. The Canada
~ Impnmem^ Co. ('). In that case it was held by Mr. Jus-
P ,■ ■ ,,-"'■■ '-><~?- ,
<>)♦ 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 <fc 2V (w!
>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« .,.♦ ^
<Jo<il»c, en date dn 20 du mS^^7™ ' . ■ ^ «''«q<<e<ie
■linwche denser ».L ? w"^ °"^ P«»i««Ie d«
'#
JW'
\.\
^^^
>•
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>«"". <i»'"» 1« IUut('ana<!ii, d'aulre
Fleming, Q. C, 1kO<l|l&<» K. hiftainme, Q. C,
ptUlnitl. r ^ t
fbr"". «»»<* mtrnatd, Q. C, for thf r«iiiM.iid«i
rnow, (I.:--
Th« decidioii of thin .an** tMnin upon a «iu4tion ofdom-
iiilu. Jain««H Watlnworth, a laboring mail, in the «m-
ploy of aluralierwr namod McMulInn or Mullen, whow
chief seat of pp«<rationH Wan on the river yBonne.h^re in
Upper Canada, waa in th.^ habit of iiH«iRtiiiff to take down
hiN employ»T'H rafts itM Quebei . MoMuUen having di«d
in the year in queition, Wads worth hid charge of thV^J
raft of the season to or at Qu«'he( . Theh'he mot his ert'
ployer's widow, Mrs. MrMuUen, then ^ith her daughter
Susan McMuUen on their way back to/Ireland, the native
country both of Wadsworth and Mry. McMullen who«e
maiden name is given as Margaret Quigley. Neither of
them had any intention of remaining permanently at
Qaebe^- They pi^.t up at the sa^e boarding house at
Quebec and after a'ihort interval, were married. Wadn-
worth in the register was described as " de ta vUle de qui-
hecy this descript^u was probably adopted to con form
as near as possible to the rules of the Church requiring a
previous residence (oir some de^nito time ut the^pfaoe of
the celebration of the marriage. It seems iiertaiin that
neither party contemplated other than a vtjry temporary
90joum at Quebei;, and moyf certain still that neither of
them had a*'-quired a domicjle atl Quebec. After the mar-
riage Wadsworth proceeded to the scene of his operationg
on the Bonnechire, leaving his wife on the way at Hull,
in Lower Canada now the province of Quebec. He .:oii-
tinned his lumberiiig, operations, and having built »
dwelling more suitable f«r his wife on a property in
which he was interested, he sent for her and her daughter ,
to join him. They lived together there for a number of
yeaw. where sevei^al of their children were ttorn. Atl
w
-IT-—-
^-
<i^
vm
I ■»f
ooiTftp or qukrithb';^ '" ' J
rn-r. in Lower il^n^^Jul^f^t ^ '" ',"^ '^"'"t *« Ayl- U..
h« dM.. ^ "'^"" ***" """^Hiic« «o OtUw whew '^•H.
l«y. <'l.i«n thai thl w«^ l:r ^r' ^*^«^*'''* Q"'^-
'-«n their .r^oihT.^rZl' ^l '^'"^^^ ^
'tin riffhtof heirship wV-^^^ *^''' "»'•'■" «f • ^
«;ft h. pro,.rty to ^h. ltd '':ir^.^d"'\
•Iwm, <Hmtending that ther.. wu. T «««Pnte« thin .
pro':;:" X^:.:r!i'-::ii^T '"-.«.„ .h. • ,
to wh,lh,r . oommunitv of „™ . " "" """"""n " ^
I.y the p.rli«, ; the q„^t„ i. ,1" ""' '" '"^^ """"^^
Jomkile, .„d whether Ih." ' ir ,^1 " ' T"""!" '
warrant th« mn.,lu,i„„ tL w j^ ""^ °""' "w
him ,nd Margaret Qairiev ™..K ^«^J "5?* *? •*'*«*
pl~-e either bT the law of / J ^i """S^'O'tr h^ing no
*.micae or „^„: ^h^f jXArr.^ ^^
Ontario), the domicile of their ad^in«Ku?^* ^"**^
new at the time of the rn^Z^rll7,u^t ^ ^'^ '" -
-n of the parties themS ZT^'^/?^ r^-^--
these two countries. ' ^™ ^® *ne\Iawof
I , ^*^o«ling to all reliable anthoritie. mi ffc ' u^f ' *'
find them, when a per^„ chtges ^t dl""^^.'^ ^'
Na8t, in order to acauire n na^^ ^ domicile there
the intention as w^l al the f T T ^' ' ^««<'«"ence of
\
-zrf
■ m
as.klife^^i25
«^»sKs«?^egssgi
..^J
<\ki
Ilif
p- '
I''
r
rif ,
Iff,'
'y
18BS.
Wadfworih
ft
Mot ord.
r
I
>•
1
. > - ^ -^^
•
<r^
*.^~ -r
1. -^
116
IIONTBEAL LAW BEFORTB.
In the present' instance the domicile of the origfin of
the parties Was Ireland, and that remained their domicile
until they acquired another, which the facts show was
at the Bonnechdre, in tJpper Canada now Ontario. See
how this matter is treated in the Rep. de Merlin^. Do-
micile, and in siich books as Phillimore on Domicile as
given in his first three or four chapters. I deem it unne-
cessary to cite decisions because, as I understand the au-
thorities they are all to the same purpose on this point.
There is a modification of the rule that the domicile of
marriage decides the question of community, Itis^this:
when parties marry with the intention of changing their
domicile, it is presumed that the domicile of intention, if
adoi^ted by them, is the one by which their marital rights
in regard to community are to be governed. This quali-
fication favors the p^retensions of the appellant.
I cannot say that I am too well satisfied with the rule,
but the matter is not now open to discussion. It is the
one generaUjr adopted by the countfies on the continent
of Europe, and certainly the one by 'which we have been
for a long time guided in Lower Canada, the province of
DoRioN,' C. J. :— - ':
I also differ from the judgment about to be rendered.
As Merlin, vo. Domfcile, say8,4here is nothing more diffi-
cult to decide than questions of domicile. This was said
in France where the population is sedentary, but the diffi-
culty her? is greatly increased. Here is a man who left
Ireland a grpwn up person.'^ His domicile was in Ireland.
The law is clear that the domicile of origin. Is the real
domicile until another domicile^ has been acquired.
Twenty or thirty years may intervene, but if the person
has not acquired another domicile the domicile of origin
continues to be Ids domicile. There was a case lately in
Ontario (') where a ma^ had been twelve years away from
IJlis domicile, and it was heli that his original domicile
was styi his domicile,
in the present case, the domicile of Wadsworth was |n
(') llffH P « rw V MH rt i m . 3 .B. 570; 11 Q.B . I78t ^
r^ 1
OqUKT OP OtTEEiro BENCH.
117
wZt^^ work in the woods. >«•
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 TrAlati<i •*. ♦u^
judgment should be reversed. P«>P«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., <qu'il faut
suivre,' la loi/du domicile matrimonial, et il continue
comme suit , p. 706 : " L'application de cette rdgle soufire
de la^difficult^ dans la pratique, parcel que les conjoints
ont pu changer d'avis, et ^tablir leur domicile dans tout
.autre endroit que celui qu'ils avaient eh vue au moment
4u mariage." Ainsi sa|>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 <olleague'
Mr Justu^e. Tester has remarked, is conclusive that hte
|-ould not have thought of returning to Ireland.: But wa.
his dotaicle .^l the time of his marriage a Quebec or an
Ontario domicile ? It is said that McMullen was of Qn-
tano. and that befor« the marriage, Wa4sworth beihg em-
ployed by him. must have been of Ontario also" No
doubt McMullen in the octedemaHage was describe^ ai
of Nepean in Ontario, but there is no proof that Wadjs-
worth was employed by McMullen in Nepean. SoTaf ai.\
there is any proof at ^1 where Fadsworth was working
before the marriage, and there is very little evidence in-
deed on that point which can be relied on. he was wbrk-
mgin the woods in the vicinity bf the Bonnechdre river
not as a servant, domestic, but as a lumberer.
Then, we have his own declaration in the a,:le de ma-
mge a declaration signed by himself, that he was of
Quebec. It is stated in the pleas that the declaration is
"l^'^^'^'J^^^^^r'^nd that Wadsworth 4id not under-
stan^the French language. But it has not been proved
that Wadsworth did not understand the French language
.The presumption is that during his six years' Jsidence
m Canada,- he |iad learnt the French language, iujd Mrs.
Colton expressly says that he understood French', spoke
It and read it. Now. will any one who was acquainted
wjth Father McMahon believe that he would have ob-
tained Wadsworth's signature to a declaration which
was not true, and which Wadsworth did not understand »
Whether this declaration of Wadsworth can now be con-
radicted at all may be a question, fiut as a matter of
1 ***** ^®** contradicted, in my opinion.
There is nothing in the evidence which is i«iilly incon-
sistent with the truth of that declaration, and no plL
which can be mentioned that had a greater, or as goodi
title to be caUed hia domicile as Quebec. His letton
I-
^,
\:
\-^
■^'^^^T^^T; ^ " "V '•■r^^^^f^t^^ il^* -\ 7 V
• • Y^-^^^^
m
MONTREAL LAW REPORm
IIM.
Wadiworth
■■•t:
were addrPMed to him in Qnebw, and Qnebw; h« mnni
hav« visited «ivery nuramor, wh«'n hn brought hi* phi-
ployt^r'R raAs to market. It in fertainly impoHiiible tbr
me, with the facta in evidence, to believe for one moment,
that thia lumberman had. b«'fore bin marriag**, in the
woodK on the Ronne<'hdre river, any hj/ftxe or ewtablinh-
ment where ho intended permanently to reside.
No doubt although W»dsworlh> 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 <!a8e, or for
any number of years, for that matter, has no permanent
settlement in view ; and when it is con[sidered that after
these seven yearp, Wadsworth bought a fat m in Hull and
and settled there ; when it is further borne in mind that
it was in Hull that he had left his wife after his mar-
riage ; that it was in Htlll that, when his wife joined
him in. the. winter following, to share his shanty in ihe
woods, he left his siep-daughter to be educated ; that it
was in Hull that he caused his children,' who |^ed while
he was in |,he woods, to be buried ; that it \^ in Hull
that he most have transacted any busine-^s which, as a
member of a civilized community, he might have had to
transact, the conclusion is irresistible that his real domi-
cile after hia marriage was in Hull, in I^wer Canada,
fi^d not on the Bonnechere rivei^, in Ontario.
;''.
iS "
•mfr,
..r'-r
OOOBT OF QUEETB BENCH.
m
of Wad«worth .„ the aei. de maJge l^oulcl b« contra-
dicted, without an iHuription de/aux, «o far a. thi« caae ia '
concerned i i« an unimi>«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«<inrortli
MiiAii4.
■ii
T
/
^
IMA.
Wadiworth
Ma&tH.
■ /
..^ - 1
!
/
',"■'1
MONTREAL LAW HEPORm
partiM, the curt i» hoand to verify And McArt«in thn ideu-
> 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 r<w{iiire<l a residence ui'
twelvH monthii where the partieM oatne from another die
ceiie), the following article V-\2 enai'tn that if i)w IhhI do
micile in out of Ix>wer 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<mment which tho law
oi x)w«r Canada recognizee aa an acte autheniinus TK
declaration ,n that act. auikeniufu. if it b., con^r^:*
raer« nnunciation in Niill «»• '^ " "..^' <^on««er«d a« a
between the rrtie «« in th "^"** '^ ^^^'•«*«' -
band in thi« oi^ c"«M n" h" '"*"''^" '^"""^ '^»'« »»«-
i« thi. ^^""""''•f P^P^'ty trailed from th„ „i^»,
BiBY, J.:_ '
,»e..i«n de domicile. PeuiLn^'orTLT "^
Cependant, dans re«n4^« i! ' ^" ®"*' ®** 8oul«v6e. f
prompte, si le, deSmtinJ. .. ? "' "olotion aaaei
Utioo^ a„ive„t'*in™d,f ter;"" -r-
worth, encore bien ienne Zl' . "' ^°' ^•*'-
lemment de^'y fixer !?«. ^ ""^ '"" '''''*«°«'"' *"" ^
^•.0 -«rch„7d!^^i;r.:u:.Tr:'/«i:^i7 ""'~
Vouii, Q.B. ' *^'^"P™«'"epou8e la veuve, .
/^
't-w
'»'!
1
f
•^-">^. -
&
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.«<u„j:;t;,t.^;:r "— "■"iomicUee.
J^ ionymm qui onl trait* de lamatiere «mtUmH^^
»^«en. Or. le -nt^rj^eat ,^,, «.„„« „.„
D'aprta moi, il n'eat ni juste, ni nuaonnable de dfcider
d«4om,c.le duj.e pe™,naJ. tel qtfon a vo^ln ™^t
aatre ordre de chosea, dwia lesquela lea condition de cH
mat de moBur. et d'oaagea „nt fortaonveot toS« «tt
q»e ea „„t^,, .4 fe^t ,,» ^t^^k et fixe e« queW^rtT
qoilUtaitautemp, ofl Wadaw.rth commencait s« cn^
nere),,lyaeBo.retantdech«e.amattr«,.,X cT
ment compter par exemple, lea habitude, uomad* dZe
partie notable deuotre population avec celleaTjden!
ta,«» deapay. du view monde. et seriona-noua d«a Tj
m. en .pp,.qu«>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<Misid6rant que les dommaires an« r« ^.. ^
""^ _.jLjy«gra POT B uit o du dit accident et dea ble>.
__.,.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"
-/
> <Wi» or Qumrg BMrcK.
-.f
>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' •<t'tf' f
iT^^mm^u
^M
ji^', .j^ ,-A
14*
MONTBEAL LAW REPOBTS.
u
I' "(i k
1f r
nadi.
' 1
--•J * ■
, IMS- enfoni, dons le ba^tde permettre aax demandeurs de faire,
wh^ qtiaiid la ii6ceB^it6 s'en pr^sentera, tous les travaux et ou-
yrages n^cessaires pour la conservation du dit canal
d'^gont et de la dite servitude, et spScialement pour y
flEtire actuellement les dits travaux de rjeparations, la
preuve constataat que t^ls travaux de r6paration8 y sont
actuellement n^cessaires, et ce dans le d^lai de trois se-
maines k compter de la signification du present jugement,
sinon et «e d^lai passd sans avoir fait disparaitre telle
parfie^ la dite grange, il est orddnn6 que telle demoli-
tion et destruction soit faite sous I'autoritfe de cette Cour
aux frais et d6pens du dit d6fendeur Wheeler ;
" Et la Gour autorise p;Eir les pr^entes les demandeurs
a faire faire cette d^molitioii dans le cas ou I'^ventualite
susrindiqufie arriverait ;
".Etil est ordonn^ au d6fendeur Wheeler de nevphis
troubler les demandeurs k Vavenir dans I'exercice de'l6ur
dit droit de servitude, taut quant a son usage qu'6 sa con-
servation et entretien ; ' ' »
" Et la Cour, quant au d6fendeur Coker, renvoie cette
partie de Faction demandant qu'il soit restreint a recon-
niutre la dite servitude et a d6molir la construction y
erig6e, mats jnaintient contre lui cette partie de Taction
demandant des conclusions personnelles contre lui et le
dfefendeur Wheeler ;
" Et en cons(k[uence la Gour condamne les d6feiidear8
solidairement, k payer aux demandeurs la somm«|(de $50
a titre de dommages-intdrdts. " ,
" Le tout avec pleins d6pens d'une contesttttion a la
Gour Sup6rieure confre le d6fendeur Wheeler, et avec les
d^pens d'une action de $50 seulement contre le d^fendear
Goker, 1« dits d^fendeurs n^anmoins, quant aux Crais
d'enqudte des demandeurs, c'est-ai-dire tous les t^moins et
assignation de t6mqins, devant en supporter chacun la
moiti^;" . -v. '^ ■:;-:■ ■ / ,-■
" Et distraction W accord6e des dits dSpens k lAtK
Girard, avocat des demandeurs ;' ^ '\^:
* " Et la* Gour, quuit a la r6ponse en droit T»ite par les
dtfendeuTs k Tencontre de cette partie de la i6ponse»:des
. . la
''H
i,v^ v m j.tjt '*ji*
x.
sun de faire,
avaux et ou-
u dlt canal
lent pour y
>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 <K»n8truction of said bam did in any way interfere
Ct r'^'^f of-«* drain, if sucLadLnelts
Therefor^ the judgment, so far as Ookej is concerned '
siould be reversed, and the appeal granted with costs'
2nd. As to appellant Wheeler, the judgmfentWuld also *
mgthesddsm.tude. was not re-^^st^ed a^.reijuired
L^ml "f '**»«!»5 »real«ght.itwa8 subje^tl the
formality of re-registratipn imposed by bur laws, inorder
I^""' T f^^ "^""'^ ^^^ P"««« ^^ eoo^ faith.
And appellant submitu ^^ ^ '
U8B.
Btaek.
n-'i'
• -X
im
MOMTREAL LAM BEF0BT8.
n
Bl&k*
Mr
• «
* ~ ' '
Iftw does not apply hei^to wit : that it is not neeefeiary
to register the Jus in re, bnt only the jus ad rem. The obli-
gation of registering and re*registering real rights is es-
tablished by statutory law, and onr statute does' not
majke any distinction, but says generally that all mort-
gages, hypotheqnes^ charges, incumbrances, and servitudes
upoii any immovable property should be registered and
/e-registered. «' (See ch. 37, C. S. L. C.) Therefore, the de-
fault^ of renewing the registration of said pretended right
of drain is* fatal^ and the servitude cannot be claimed as
against third parties, to wit, the now appellants. It is
also to.be noticed that the propertv,of respondents was
sold five or six times, and. also sold by the sheriff, and no
mention whatever was made in said deeds of the existence
of such a servitude.
Moreover, even supposing that this servitude exists,
and is regularly registered, there is no reason or ground
'^ why the bam beneath which said drain passes, should
be demolished, as ordered by the judgment of the Superior
Court of Iberville. This barn does not dimini^^e use of
the seWitude or render its exercise more in^hrenient,
and therefore does not constitute a change in the condi- .
tion of the premises in the meaning of the laW.
' The declaration of plaintiffs, respondents,. alleges that
*'the said bam jrests on stone foundations. It is clearly
proved by all tbe witnesses that it is built on wooden
posts. v"%.^**-.:.-- ■ " . _
It is also proved that there is no solid floor in said barn ;
that the drain iould be raised up and repaired' in the barn
just as well, if not better^ as outside of the bain.
It is also in proof that; appellants are willing to allow
respondents to come- into the said bam to raise up said
*" drain to repair it, and appellants urge that they were ne-
*ver notified, before the construction of said bam of the
existence of such a drain, and were never put en demeure,
and were never asked to allow the s^d drain to be raised
^ under said bam. In fact there is no pronof on the part of
req^ndents that the said drain required any repairs, or
thftt \^*fj p*ft««»«d to make any repairs, and the preten^
■&\
li.
*jC^ '
oouw OP qnmsm bescb.
fir
^ of reipondeits seems to be thiit them^re fact of
wiere with the worlmg and repairinir of said di*i«
tix^T^''^'^^-^^^ iof'tr^^
rthis ctth r^'^^'y to law. Appellants submit that
m tlys case there is no change whatever as meant byJaw
s^l^^T'^'^Tl^'"'''' of th^premises m Jbe su^'
as would^immish the nse of the servitude or rendef ks
IX: T^ '"^^^^--* (See turasson Ctd^
^ Actios. Possessoires. sec. Ill; No. 65. page8%290 et 291 '
« laid down as to the interpretation of article 70 oJc
N correspondinir to article 667 of our Code; that the
change complained of must beni^trary to tl^e right of
Ms'S' Th'' ««-^*«\-<lit^*t it really diminishes
questions in issue, contended as follows —
^wiT'^Tf^* *^" **^^ «'««*«d '^^ not interfere
with the right^ of servitude. In answer it is opposed tW
this 18 contradicted by the evidence. Provl says' "I
n y a pas moyen, d'apres moi, de nettoyer cette partie du
canal qui se trouve sous k grange, sans ejle^^er cette
partie de la grange qui la couvre, ainsi qpe iqu'il pent
y avoir dans cette grange." i .^^^iH^ P««t
_ Weilbi^nner says : " Ce canal a besoL d^6tre nef y6 et "
T6pare. Je ne sais ^as d quel endroit de *on parcours ce
canal est enfonc6 oi casse ^ans 1^ terre. noifplus. 3i
quel endroit ,1 pent 6*re^urri : pour le voirf il faudf ait
en faire la levee d'un bout d I'autre. et il est tout clZ. .
Z.lf*°^''''^"'f**^ «erait un obstacle ^ux r6p^a-
uons & faire iL ce canal." • ^ ^ *^-
ton of this iMge b>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^Pr<S>fw<>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|h<B^ 17th
y^jSfii^ember, 1880, the plaintife had full use and,^ip|jdyment
;t- \!
V^/
If;
r V of t^ie privilege c^ed to them, that then, appellaints con«
f . r , ; I Infracted a barn covering the pathway undc^r whi6h the
" ' d^ain was constructed, that this barh covered the whole
drain, Jthat it was 100 feet , Jong and 40 wide,^iid had
^; stone fjoiu^dations. ThlTdeclittatioft ftiHber alk
lo. f Que leii dits d^feilde^rs ont ainsi consti
Mi-^'
m-i-
^ ^gfanfiT^ ^QB la
4 mandepra et'
. mode p<|>urrefl
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
■</;-,
OOUBX or QUEEN'S BENCH.
!»>
' 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 ■
<iuundta nicmU4 »'en pr^sentera, tons los travaul et ouvra-
Ke8n^Hj««8a,re8 po^r la conservation, du dit canal 'd%out '
« «/ /« da^tramuz dtr^para/«>»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<pPl61|p almost unaUeredlrom the
; « P^ ^t^lusin law, a^d t^akafe^pa^ made a comjj^ilatibn of 1,029
mjff •' te^ fiQm th|C9i7Nu/i(rt:''relating to them. These I have
J^ <^^ s gjtami«ed ^i^ully,.«ad thefe is not one that sustains tin
t . „, doctiine'iow l^id^Sowin by the Gofurti It cAunot be said
-'^ thatany one dik«otly e<J9tri»dict8 it, for it doee not appatt
'••«•
..•8:-'
QOUBT Of Qt7ElN*B BBNC^.
166
to »»*ve^oocttrr«l to any writer or litigant that .uoh a doc «
with th ^^.•^^•T^ =^* -«^«"» »«»• ^re inoompatiblo ^^
with the e«stenoe ol nuch a doctrine. To deal with the .ub- ""^V
ject m an orderly mann«r it may be uaeful to reodl .ome ^
,?eaeral principles .Jludod to in the opinion in di.«ent.
(1) The <^er of a servitude «.nnot angment the .er-
v^tude «. ;Wabl|«hech Dig. viil.t. 1. 1. 9 (2) Nor can * .
h. owner V the land charged io anything to4ter'
r^ % i ^f'^^^/y "f the right. Dig. viii. t. 2, 1. 20.
u i W*"''^ ^ • »nt* »o ft ,proprietor cannot build
wherehehaiAcededaright of way. Dig. viii t 6 1 9 -
etc, (8) The owner of the servitude haM fcliedly all' that
m ii«co««ary to its eiyovment. Dig. viH t 8 1 8 iT
Th^tbre^) the own. of the Jlv:;:l:ie h!!; a r^l^ to
rrrt^'J^'/T ^'^f- «M. 1. 1. M 11. Jaure, '
J^■48f.^,^^^ *•'*"■ ^'^^^^ And«treams.
l^Jltuu . t '''' ®l* ^"^ "*y P>«'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«<m this teit miu\
the on« already cited (Dig. viil, t. 6, I. 9) uaturally baa
given riiA to considerable controveriy. (Hee Merlin, Don
de N O., p. 140. Potbier, Pand , Br^ard-N 16, p. 500 )
Fotbier, following Cuja«», adopts tbe view tbat tbo latter
law only applien to BU«^b now workit tm indirectly affect
the use of the servittide. (lb. and Onjas 10. 118 0.) If
t|ii» be cofrtH-t, it seems incontestable that tbe latter law
is an iini>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. <!..;» 1 . f • """ '**" '^®*P<>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$smtimteXK<>n-^-
isay).v/ ' -:'■'.-■;■■'■ '■'-/.'■'■ -l-if-'.' >-
Judgment co^firmed
Roibertsoik, )SiUMe~if,FUet, Attol^eys for J^p^^ai^ts.
^4: Rutfret, for
.:-^-;
1(9
<XfOkt OF QTTEBira BENCH.
(In OhambibsJ. .• '"
:; January 7, 1886'
' ' Coram CROBd, J. ', ^' "
f i - WILLIAM W. WHEELER et al., . '
'* Appbllants;
- ■ AND * " . ■
y JOHN BLACK et al., ':
' ' . ResP(»IDENT8 ;
■■'•■■'■:'*■.,. '/ :■/<■ AND . ". , . • \
■■■*■ -. , ^ r
THie SAID AI>PELLANTS
'^7' r -Petitions fob leave to appeal.
Appenl4o Supreme dc^f^j^^ rigfUs~Servf4ude~ Securiti,
SiaMw^^ifv r.'""'' ^""'^ property Tthe
ZTi^ll^W^ «»pondeiit8, ana order«i the appel*-
tat to 4emolBh a portion of. bam boilt on the serSl ~
plunliff, o perform when neceseary aU the work ieW
;^ai.^erV.tio,^the «ai^^ ^'li:'^;;
TheappellantepBlitioned for leave toUo^l t^ ih^
Mn^tregi»rea,M|not$^ 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<jrteur8 dv ce» mfemes debentures, et dela ses exigences
M sages. Quand la «;ompagnie sus'-nolnm6e a accepts
Vaide en question, sous foyme de debentures, elle say^it
bien quelles en seraieutle^ conditions, car elles ayaient
6tfe r^glees par le conseil i la Paroisse de. St. Cesaifie, et
pais r^tiBees formellemSj^jir ks'cpntribuables de la
paroisse Le demandeur appelant ne pouvait non pjus
ignorer que les dSbentures qu'il acceptait de son cessiOn-
naire 6taient des debentures munkipales, c'est-a-dire, jaites;
en la forme voulue et rigdureusement exig6e par ie code
municipal ; il n'y a done ici ^ueun prejudice. ,' .-
' La Cour de premiere instance I'a ainsi jug6, et je lifepttis
d6couf rir aucune raison*t6gftle qui puisse faire^infirraer
ce jugement, ainsj qutf la majorite de ce.tributt*! at dis-
pos§e de le faire. Je dQis done e'ntrer raon.disseh^imen*;
'< \
>•
. \ 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'*' ^ <l^cJ«ed valid and appenaiA
■^ bqndir^ndered-contairi a declaration to th^ eflfe^t •
1 That th^ «aid Railway Company ahall^^taiir^i "- .
.ratiora branch of the said railwa/fi^j, ,^1^^ ^, * ;/:
> ••:#•''
^^^
. 1
•<SJ.
11
# -
'- ;!
4i
■■fl
/
" -iix
./ *
~y^
/
'■ 5
MONTREAL iiA^^rOBm
/' '" --^ - ■ " * ' ' .
St. dsaire to asta^ of the «aid Company at ot near
ai««f«ri.n. MarieviHe, shall^n at least two trains a day ^h way
'5i\9*iL'«f'''"to and from.StC68aire, said trains to connect wfth the
trains passing at MarieviUe ;
2 The Railway Company wrll not charge a higher rate
for fare pi passengers or for freight shipped from or
received at St.'Cfesaire to or from any place beyond Marie-
viHe than the rate charged, or to be charged, from Marie-
viHe to Ho^real and the United States ^ropprtion to
thenumberifmiles travelled^; <>
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;<g, seeing tiiat the debentuiMs _ V
would have to pass as^oney to.pay for the construction
01 the road ; and ii;t|^i8 restriction were placed upon them
It would practically render them almost valueless, their
negotiability being ^d^pendent on conditions which.the
debenture holders cSuld not be expected to undertake
and which to them wc>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<?t^o^s les demandeurs n'aient 6t6 que les manda-
^res du d6fendeur, cependant ce mandat repose sur une
cWse illicite et cdntnaire aux bonnes mceurs, et les deman-
^-yea ssmi sans droit a r6clamer aucune somme d'argent
en yertu du dit mandat ;
ponsidferant que les demandeurs n'ont pas prouv§ les
all6d:u6s de leur declaration ;
/Benvoie I'action des dits demandeurs sans irais." ^^
Wie action in ^hich i^e judgment above cited vr^M
^ndered, was by brokers against a principal (the r^*
|K»Bdent) for 11,239.99, money laid out and expended, etc ,
and commissions on stock and com transactions in Mont-
real, New York and Chicago.
The case i^ appeal was twice argued; first, on 17th
wid 18th September, 1886, before Dorion, C. J, and Moiik,
Kamsay and Cross, JJ. A re-hearing Was ordered, which
took place before Dorion, C. J., a^d^ Monk, Bamsay Tes-
sier and Cross, JJ., on^the 2l8t, 22nd and 26th January,
.\f886. - "■• ■ , :■ ,
Hon. R. LajUmme, Q. C, and John Dunkp, for Appellants
^JMhm and /. N, BeUeau, for Eespondents.
'■ im
MMdoii«»ll
D«n»n.
, j
1
1
r 1
t ' t
f
i K
1
1 £, ^
l!
1
4*' •*•"'
Mm-
r
^JfrTr,,;
is f
ri^.'
172
MONTREAL LAW REFORT&
li.
'J'
m%
I
■X-
.4
MMdougall
■.4
h. '
Ramsay, J. (£{ms.) :—
This is an action by a broker and commission merchant,
to recover from defendant, his principal, the slum of
tl,289.99, on certain transactions in grain. ':-
To this at^tion thja defendant pleaded spedially : (1) That
the operations were fictitious and simulated, and that i\n'
debts contracted wore gambling debts, which could not
be recovered by action ; that there was no obligation io
deljver, but only to pay a ditfe^euce, and the contract waw
gambling or wagering ; that th«sgopds were not delivered
to defendant; that they were nevOT in the possession oi'
plaintiff, who was not in a position to fulfil his contract;
that the plaintiffs sold without authority, and were guilty
of gross negligence, and niust suffer any losses sustained :
(2) It is pleaded that the deft)udfhit neither authorized the
purchases nor th^ sales.
The pleadings are completed by a <;^i»Me; <^/»/iiit^. v,**l
In a breath, then, the defendant says : " I made a con-
tract with you exactly as ybu say I did; but it. was
illegal and void ; I had transactions with you, but I never
authorized you to buy or4o sell, and you mismanaged my
affurs ; and, lastly, I never contracted with you at all."
It is not necessary in this case 'to eojUMnpon the ques-
tion as to how far the ruleexpressedvflH^ brocard ''qui
excipit non cmsetur canfiteri" goes, or h9wl)pn[t is affect^ 'by
article 144, G.G.P. ; or whether it rests on the same, prin-
ciple as the indivisibility,of theat;eit,.or is co-extensive with
it or lelated.to it in any wsp, It will, however, scarcely
be questioned that the existence' of a specii^l exception
admitting a transaction will tend to give credibility to
evidence of the existence of the transaction. Taking this
view, three questions present themselves: — 1. Is the
authority of appellants to buy and to sell established?
2. If established, is the contract shown to^be other tfian it
purports to be, one on wi^ch no action ^ill lie ? 3. If\the
"original contract was gambling, would^^this affect the col-
lateral contract between a gambler an<|'a non-gambler?
At the first argument here.appellatfV lack of i^nthority
was not very seriously urged, except as to its e^sah, and .
.■.■.:.:■■. i ^ - ■ ' ■
■\ . ■;■■./■ . ■: ■ ■
■ ■ ' ■■ - .- f
• ■>*■
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* <mt perdue* nu /w<." He then
ffoes on to Hhow that the ord. of (^harles IX. excludei the
action to recover by perHOUB of the age of majority, even
for " de* somme* r<mvi/4rnhle*," Ih., No. /iS, and he maintains
that the control dujeu n'e*t pa* mauvai* en lui-mAnc.
Whether he is right or wrong in the cdnclusion he
arrives at, is, perhaps, open to question ; but it was this
view that dictated Articles 1027 and 1028 of our code, so
^ that it appears indisputable, that the gamblinj^ contrin^t is
not null, but that the law so far disc^ourages it as to refuse
the gambler a right of action. Actio esVju* persequendi in
iudicio quod sihi dehelur, but no text of law says that ther**
is an wtion for everything that is due — notoriously there
is not, but of course this is exceptional.
Perhaps it may be said that the French writers and
courts have decided on rules as to the interpretation of
statutes different frmtrtilose w^hich guided the English
courts. There may be some slight differences of a super-
.ficial kind as to the interpretation of statutes, but the
rules governing this matter are everywhere borrowed
from the Koman law, and principally from the title de
legOms. Now we have three laws of this title bearing
specially on the point in question. They are 11. 13, 14
and 15. The first evidently applies to general laws. The
retteon of the rule there laid down is that a statute of this
kind cannot comprise every incidental fhing, 1. 10, 1. 12,
and therefore it must be subject to interpretation, or spe-
cial constitution of the prince. 1. 11. The second, 1. 14,
Il ji
' ■«-_ S5w*=?«sg«f^^^
tt." He thoii
COURT OP QUEENS BENCH,
refew to law* which are not in ttcoordan.« with iK
of Uw. the«e are interpreted .^^7*: J^ „ot ' """:;
a.ain.t the tenor of the ^SnZ Taw'^".! '^'^"^ '"
(f/**^>'i nihil aliud est aunm ,,.nr..i *"2 'tmmuni,
, I havH hoard ft >whiAni>r<u1 "
i' might, nerhaim »M .h i?"' "™' ""«> "^
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«<na(iill
l>»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«*o<l(MiiAn llnd JiiNtinian crKtHH wern on-
tiri'iy «uin{K>H«>(r of Hlatut«N. X^** <li(l«*reii«-t« mimutiniuii
iiiNiit<*<if U|H>ii MH ^xi||inf]^ bt)twtt<*ii ih«) intorpretation oi
NtutulcN in Sootlitnd and in Knfj^Und NiH>m> to bfl ont] of
<l«|i^r(*f* riither thun oj 'principle, ami thflroTore it almont
i>Nriip«>H tht> t*'Nt' oi' rloM^ aualyRiH. I rannot., howovflr, he*
liuvt' tliui lh(« law hrnigne cim:t»sa iini xh «>xt<>nfl«<l to othor
rAiu>N in Siotlnn<l. U m, it in not iii a<!(-otllani«4 \«rith the
doctrino ol" Pothii'r on this vi^ry ■ubj«ct, mentioned
iiliovt*. Tr. du <*untrut du Jim, No. r>8. An haH bt't^xi alr«>ady
Naid,.th(>n> in no fundamontal diti'«>rfln«-o botw«t>n th<« ino<l«>
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»<<i ny th« av(*ratr<> 6hl-
.t: ; <f^ . :" ";"„,f :'"r' ''""■■ -^ "«""■« '•"" »-•
!«».. of ;iulUvl,,d "*'■?"; """«''• '-"^' '•'«' '".'•
H..t, in i,»u. '"""'' '". "'"'""•''••"liUB Ihe
.i.».pi»n,..do„b? A;d;s;'t:t;: ?,"""'-;•' ■
.i.a determine whether they wen. I .„h K il '"""'"' •
deliverable M the montZ>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. <n.intained h»" K . ™
tkere did not eifat^nr'^^iiT "' ^"' ' •*"•'• "•«
P'.o.^ the ar«o.e,^,„ ^, ^Ztd'twltio'n'; '
<\ ■•-
lit.
I ^ 1
iiil
■ . -^ »i
'^^
' *■■"..(
SB
% '
yi
■-■ m
ife
i'T*'
• •>
;/'■
»
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<luHi<)n thut the contracts upon
which ap|)ellantH' c|aim in hoMed were in their naturt*
gambling 4;ontra(;tfi. The underMtanding nhadowed forth
in the correspondence was for options which in the courNtt
of dealing were never exercised nor apparnntly intended
to be exercised, save by sJittingotf sales against purchasi'H
and vice nerM. The Wlt^b^ course of dealing from th»< com-
mencement to tht) conclusion of the atu-oimt was but a re-
petition of this process. . The iudetinite terms of the con-
tracts as to the time and plates of delivery and payml^nl
shA/ved a disregard of essential details of real transactioiiK.
No deliveries being ever tendered or called for, margins
being the only exe«;ations, of the contrui^ts ever sought for
othe/ than adjustments setting o(t' purchases against saleH,
thus settling dift'ereiK'AS ( ib'^rokers^' language, dosing the
deal, and Ma<idougftll Broiir'pwn^ent at Chi«;ago never
calling ior the carrpng Qti^ii'of the transactions, but merely
asking for margin, airib so niany circumstances indicating
the true nature of the dealings between the^parties, added
to whicK^ there is the extreme improbability of a small
country dealer such as Domers, having or being able to
control either at Chicago or Montreal, such ain amount as
40,000 bushels of corn at any one time, besides other con-
siderable values ; also, the present suit itself being brought
to recover differences occurring on the close of the July
corn deal, oven before the month of July had arrived.
But it may be asked, how could the contract as between
Macdougall Bros, and Demers be a gaming contract as re-
gards Macdougall Bros., who were only to earn their com-
mission on thf transactions ? A wager implied a liability
to lose ancllEi chance of gain, but the brokers in this respect
stood neutral. The answer here is that the brokers dis-
closed no principal ; they admitted that they bound them-
selves, and even no Chicago agent was mentioned until
the 2nd May, a considerable time after the sales, and then
only an agent. No purchaser was ever disclosed, and as
o
iikiM^ih&iMk^
'•^^^
. '■ f
COURT Of QUUITS BVf(m.
191
Dtmn.
•ip.!. on the other .ide. and look th« ri.kof th«K«nblinir
.nd m thng h, diir.,on,»» If .-orn h«l f.lU*r„ tS
rr^ lhron„h M«:d,mwll B,.«. would h.v« b«,n .11
>.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 OM<Z
moet h.Te been .„e of the .«n, g.mbling n«nre b«. J
he loo only^led for m«gin md not for deliverV,
he 40,000 buiAel. of corn to he doUveied in July. The
literal me«jng of the contract w.^t Demer. ^C
'P
•"r^"^^'"rm'r'mv^mm
i "
in
MOHmilAL LAW REFQIOa
'III
fl
56
■•),'*
f
dtilivur 10,000 huiih<4|« of corn in July, «u(l im no principal
WHM diiioloM4Hl anii Ma<-<loii){iill Kroii h«lcl ih«mN«lvfMi p«r-
^Moiially r«'ii|H>iiMihl4>, 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<l not Nutliciitnt marKin in hand to mMuro thiuii
from tlu> chanr«>N <»f loHH. Ntuthor party coutcmplatnd u
ri^al trauNat-tion, which waM probably tho rcuMon of thii <!X-
preHiiion by Demers inliiH lottwrof tho 17th May, "Hhonid
" you winh to go furth«<r I am prepared to mttot you.','
An r^gardM thu law appli«;ttblu to. the cuhc. By articlt*
ll>27('ivil('0<l«N thoro iiino right of a4;£ioii lor thu r«covcry
of monny or any othur thing rlaimml undw a gaming <-oii-
tract or a Iwt, but if tho mom^y or thing hav«i beon paid
by tho lofting party, h« cannot rucovor it back, unluHS fraud
1)6 proved.
The like provifiionN are made by articleR lOflii and lOHT
of the Code Napoleon ; the deciniouH and writerH in France
under theHci articlea dre of aMBistance iu the cpustructioii
of our own. • ,
It has been Ofgujed that altl^ugh the party to the learning
contract cannot himHelf recover under such ^ntract, yet
he may aathorize an agent to ms^e a gaming contract for
him, and that agent may' recover from his principal what
he pays for his principal under such gamidg contract, and
numerous English ceases havt^ been cited arising under a
a law similar to our own, which go far to sustain this pro-^
position.. It is contended that as the balance claimed in
this suit VBffor monies paid by Macdougall Brothers for
DenArs, in execntii^ his instructions, th^y have a right to
recover the ambunl, there being no illegality or prohibi-^
tion in lavir of jt^^e gamfng contract, but only a denial of
the right of actioli.on. the gaming contract. Among other
7f"^
.'/
t ^rM^aeeJim^^i i^fluawva&^Ei&iifi^ ...Mm^msd' 'i, U
.^A^ « »,iSi,f •^J'^, »^
^UMt Of QUEINK WcU.
IM
Dtmmt,
prorWon. .iraiU, to our .own Uk. TiT* .' ""«
P.r.11.1 of ,h., ,„„..„, 'rLqlTtTon .t "".'"'! '
•b" .uk.h.id.r could r.f„!:.i;' i';:.^': z:';:'.'',"
wmnor. or r.th«r, h.,in„ „^/;,„ "V" •'"•• '» "■•
Ik" (owr of the but ,'„,.l 1 ""°"'"' "" ''•|x»"or.
thoimou^of htTdZf 'T^'l """' ""• •'•k.h.ld.
■ ou p.r l'hoim6tel« ''*"""'"' P" '•■ '«'•
r-" "re!:t«'u— - -chV.^L':^
•.enoJp.,^trrp„'r,*'''*'^*'''' '='""•»'"'''>"'
■••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''r<iAi%mnM«i««ni
" oontrv le mAQdAOt, pare* qi^ t« ificond luandat &'M«ni
" qua U <;oiu#<t|viono« mAinn lo cot^pUiiK^nt du prnmior,
" Mt i«nta4h6 du mAmn/rifH', auMt ««mprononii-noua A mer
" Tcillti qu«« I'arrdt d« U Cour d'Aii a 6t^* cam^. La ddct
*' tlon g<''n4^rali>m«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 tog<l| ^g^j||j|i i hla commii-
aion from hi^>rincipal, 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 ,^'"^"* %
•»I<Itho
Tn AJnw V Aa^,m,, Vi,«-Oh.nc»»of Stu.rt hm«
"iij£l Vjt ""^ ""*'*'"** '" "'*''**"*^ '^"» t»Mvhold«r of tU
jrjO| Thi.cMti. how.vw. ii no longer •athority, baring
mp 169.) ike MMt«r o^ th« Roll., Br«tt. rtm.rkM thtt
the true con.traoti«?n of th« .tatnte wm that it aflWt«|
■only the contract that mad* th« b«t That in that cm
three contract, had be<.n .ugg«.t«d . o,.« wa. that the
defendant came to an eipreM agreement that the broker
.hould enter into tran«iction. of the Stock EicbangiL
whirh might end either in gain or loaa. bnt that whU
••!I1 S"*^ '" thebrokeriie wonld only claim differ^
ence. ftr<to^^r pay d^nce. to the ilefendant In that
action The aecond w... if the t,roker only made time
bargam. on which he could no4W, legally held liabli,
" i ?fi. 7^ "fr**** ^ ^^'^ ***• defendant had
employed the plaintiff to make time bargain* with th!
•jobber, on which he. the plaintiff. wouM 1^: perllnl
hable ; he would m that cane, be liable to hi. broker I
make good Buch time bargain. ••
tii\?!^ Ik ^rt ^ ^ • * ^ ®' ^ ' P «««• »»y Mr. Jut.
t^ Lmd ey tht broker waa held entitled to recover ftom
I hi. principal, although he knew a. between them thatV^
tranBaction. were to be of a gambling character, knowing
^ the jame time that the broker would require to bind
himeelf pereonally for contract, which he made with third
wa. entitled to b<, i,«depnified by hi. principal for the
^DHequenoi. of contact., on which he wa.^r.onali;
bound to third partie.. although, a. between himeelf Ind
J^tnT?^' Ki •'^- ^'^^'*y «»4fx.tood Ui«y were in the
nature of gambling tranaaotioai. \ / •
"1 -*
m
'f-^Ev
?v-.-T
v^
•1^
^c
■ax
'•..ha
in*
•If
ii'if
:v
■ t '?*:■' ■ * '
1^ ■
W
.,
1 ifo-:
ifi iifiiiti! -!i'«-
M
'§'■
m
IT
vf
m
n
■»<-
'n^ONTBEAL LAW REPORTS.
^ In.Mea4'y^^nd«rson, h. R., 10 Q. B. D., p. 100, a case lified
before Hr. Jusike Hawkins, without a jury, the plain-
tiif Was^a commission a^ent for taking racing bets, and a
menlb^r of Tattersall's snbl^ription room. He was
- il\8truoted by the defendant to take bets on horse racing ;
the bets were lost, and he paid the winners. He brought
an action against the defendant to recover the. balance due
hiiia for such payment. The defence was thjit the debt,
heiii^ one which accrued Under a gaming contract, could
not be recovered." It was held that the bets were not illegal :
consequently, they might bo paid voluntarily at the option
of the loser, although the law denied the winner authority
to enforce them; that an authority to bet iiigtplied an au-
thority to pay if the bet was lost. This implied authority
might be found from usage or from the nature of the deal-
ings between the parties. He found, as a fact, that when
thedefendant gave an authority to bet he gave an implied
authority to pay in case of loss. Also, that the defendant
did not rev^oke the authority to pay ; he only desired to
"■ raise the question whether the bets were honestly made,
and held that it" a person eihploys another to bet for him
in the agent's own name, an authority to pay the bets if
lost is coupled with the employment, and although before
the bet is made^ the employment and authority are both
revocable, the moment the authority is fulfilled by the
making of the bet, the authority to pay it if lost becomes
irrevocable. This applies only to dases where the agent
by the principal's authority makes the bets in his own
name, so as to be personally .responsible for them.
In appeal, L. R.,' vol' Is Q.6. D., p. 779, it was held
that the employment of an agent to make a bet in his own
name on behalf of his principal may imply an authority
, to pay the bet if lost,' and on the making of thta bet that
authority may become irrevocable. , T-^!, ^ r
The plaintiff, a commission agent, made a bet for the
defendant, v^hich was lost. He paid the bet ; his failure
to do so would have made.him a defaulter, and worse off
than if he were exjpbsed to an action. It would have been
ruin to him. He would «have been liable to the winner
m
.^m
OOtRT OF QtJEfiN'8 BfiNCH.
lit
Mr Jnrti^, wl 1 • * ; ^' "■^- ^n™""! m afflnning
r 1 J The tWo former Justices held .that there was an
K 'T* *■" "■' 'S"""" indemnify himseTflom-
the c^sequenJes that wonld have resulted to him had h"
n,l^edtopay :h^het; that he had placed hiZlnn I
h«l .mphedly .ontn^ted to indemnify him froi,th;r„„°
«qneaces wh.cl, would ensue in the ordinary 3se of
lb. T.» f ■" '""""' ""' ofk" -"mbership of
fte Ta tersall's r^m, where he 4id hi, business on whi."
hu,hv.ng depended. BretMhe Master of the RoIlT dis
™ed, holding that if a principal employs an W i
lie agent will be by law exposed to loss or suiTering the
.uthonty cannot be revoked. But in the case undef 'cot
"deration no c urn could have been lawfully enfor^
Mhe P bSf • ..-^Mhe-betting contract iT^X
nytlle plaintiff 1 J his own'namc on behalf of his nrinci
Wl, -vertheleslit could liot be enibrced again hto
ta could not havt been compelled to do so. But it h^
MliTrri"* T """"*'" 'W'™"' be ime. the law
pru It into the piwerof the plaintiff to enforce paymeJI
V tke defendantkthe amount of the bet. beSnseTno
^untiffe business, although it may not be. illegal is
««. of which the law ought not to take notice and?lhere-
^»^' rT™''""*™^ '"»•''"'''' the plainiiff St
Mffer ,n hi, objectionable budness, form noLound tS
ZZ^t - "thority wiuoh the plain.iff^':^';ft':oMo
'me given. The cases m which an authority cannof ha
revoked onghVto He confined to those in X'hThTagent
w^lUpon reTocation. suffer what the law deems to b^n
t S ^wk T. '^"^^^ ^« ^- of opinion that M..
JOfltice Hawkins' judgment was wrong.
' IMA.
Maedouca
*
DcDiei^,
Mil
••••
w-sswssess^
jj^Wf-jW^Wf
'^ itfei
lC«edoutftll
Utimn.
f
.. \
1«
108
V
X'
>j!
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^f<H'f\*'fe^
ffWr
I
I I
m
1S86.
MMdoat»U
3c
Dcmcr*.
ii'
/
20«
.MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
that it was part otN^he contract that a margin, of 10 per cent,
should \>e 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 <e point les motifs du recours sont les mdmes que
" ponrlles marches au comptant snrtout lorsqn'un supplg-
" meAtj de garantie avait 6t6 promis par celui-ci." .
186. 1" Mais une difficultfe sdrieuse consiste k savoir si
" ne voulant ou ne pouvant pas avancer ce qui Ini man-
" que pour lever les effets achet68, I'agent de change ache-
•' teur a le droit de les faire revendre aux risquea, perils
" et frais de son client. Suivant nous il est n^cessaire
" d'Stablir cette distidction ; ou le terme du maroh^ est
" 6ch^, on il a encore quelque teibpa i cpuviir.
" Dans le premier cas nous pensons que I'agent de
'I'change est bien fondte k faire opSrer la revente comme
" si I'achat eut lieu au comptant.
V No. 188. *'Nou8 avonsd^jiL dit en effet que lorsqne le
!^march6>^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
<k
leu
fi04
MONtafiAL LAW RfiPOlrr&
MMdouffUl
: II' -
•-. 'fif
• «
M
mm
n ■
v«
DoBiON, C J., (after stating facta) :— ' v
Demera is a trader in a back parish, and he enters into
transactions amounting to nearly a million of dollars. Ho
contracts to deliver 40,000 bushels of com, but manifestly
there is no intiention to deliver. The correspondent'
between ^im and the appellants shows that there was no
inteiition to deliver, but that this as well as the othor
transactions were to be settled by payment of diiferoncuN.
The case is governed by the French law^ and 'according to
the well-settled principles of that law such a transaction
is a fictitious contract. Numerous decisions in this sense
can be found in the orrAs of the French courts, and tho
authors are all agreed, Not an arrA can be cited to the
contrary. No action lies under the circumstances, and I
agree with Mr. Justice Gross that the judgment should be
maintained. ^
/
Tessier, J., concurred.
Judgment confirmed.
Dunlop ^ Lyman, attorneys for appellants.
Pellelier 4' Jodoin, attorneys for respondent.
^^^
1
kkdk
/
a|iwJ*K?K
OOUET OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
/ .
. January QT, 1886.
Coram DoRioN, C. J., TEsaiER, J., Cross. J., Baby, J.
OLIVIER DAIGNBAU
{Defendant in Court below),
Appellant;
AND
ANSELME LEVESQUE I
/ {Piaint^ in Court below),
^ — — r RbIbpondent.
Lessor awl Ussee—Repairs to leased preiniae$~pamaget—Re'
^ iitiation of leate—Mise en demeure.
Held, 1. (Affirming the doci8ion in Review, M. L R„ 1 «. t 414) :— Where
the leaaor, in malcing repairs to the leased premises, used material
which emitted a disagreeable odour and damaged ^he stock of the
lessee, a grocer, that the latter was enUtled to have the lease rescind-
ed/and to recovor the amount of damage sustained by him.
!.'. In such circumstances the more regular course is that the lessee should
put the lessor en dttmewe to remove the cause of damage, befoVe
brmgmg an action in re^iliation of the lease and to recover damages.
Th« appeal was by the lessor, firpm the judgment of
the Court of Review, reported in M. L. R., 1 S. C. 414.
Nov. 24, 1885.] Bobidoux, for the appellant:—
Aux t^rmes <le I'art. 1641, le locataire a droit d'action
pour contraindre le locateur a faire les rfiparations stipu-
les par It, bail, on pour obtenir la permission de les faire
aux frais du locateur, et faire rfisilier le bail, a d6faut de
• I'execution de telles r6parations. Ici l'intiffi6 n'a adopt6
»i Tun ni I'autre des deux premiers recours. II n'a pas
demande que I'appelant fut condamn6 a faire les rfcpara-
tions et il n'a pas demand6 que I'intimfi fut autoris^ a les
faire,^A dSfaut par I'appelant de les faire lui-m6me. Oe
n'etaitque subsidiairement qu'il ptiuvait demander la r6-
siliation du bail, et ce n'6tait que snbsidiairement qu'elle
pouvait dire accord6e.
Bachon, for the TesjMndent :— -
^'appelant prfetendque I'intimd devait le mettre en
4emeure d'avoir A oter le papier en question apr^s an'il
*■ A>
'i I'
■IK
■i Vi'l
f
20r
MONTREAL LAW REPOBia
LtTMqn*
fnt p<m6 ; mais o« proo^d6 aarait 6t6 parfaitement iUaaoirt;,
DtiijnMa puiaqae dana le temps lea dommages £taiont faita. Voir
ane ddcisiou reudue par la Ooar de R6viBion, k Montreal,
in re Tylee v. Donpgani ('), oa il a <iii jag6 : " que lu lo<ui-
" taire d'une maisoa inhabitable «t malHaine u lo dr6it do
" rabandonnor, et par'^1^ indmc, de^ rAsilier le bail, aanii
" action, tU metlre en detneure ton propriilaire, ot cela, qnand
" bi)on mdmo la nniaanoe aarait pti dtre enlev6o k pen de
"frais et sons pen detnterapa." Nooi'oiterpna enftn la
cause de lUmillard v. Cowan et al. {'). L'auteor des d6fen-
deurs avait lou6 au dumandeur une maisdb (^ur y 6tablir
an atelier de photographic. Plus tard, ;l«9^ d6f0ndeurB
^rigdrent sar une propri6t6 avoisinanto, a «(li]^&ppartenant,
on mar de vingt-deax pieds, qui a I'effet d^enlever au de-
mandeur partie de la lamidre dont il avait besoiti pour
ezercer son metier. "Jug6: que r^reotion du mnv en
" qaestion cpnstitae pour le locataire an trouble dans sa
" jouissaace, et loi donniB le droit k la r6siliation da bail
" &i k des dommages contre leaq^^ipr^sentants de son loca-
" tear." La plupart des remiifqve»> 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^; <?"•• »• 1..8, 89.) Of .buMs there mav be
ues may exist . but we are not to weave a system ont «f
=*lHnkrthsf^
i^principle. We shall fin^. howero^ ]
are not caUed upon tb make any heroic
1880.
CMlot
Oaimet
i
m
i .' ■' I
m
1
TTT
> 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<K:anonists. Nor does it seem to have been different -
in other catholic countries ; in England, tithe came in with
Christianity, before it was recognized by positive law, a^
part of the ecclesiastical organization. It was not found-
ed on the Levitical law ; but on similar reasons. 2 Black-
stone, 25. .
The origin of the parish is more obscure. Evidently it-
is not an essential part^fan ecclesiastical system, and it
therefore grew insensibly as the Christian population in-
creased, and according to its necessities. It is not therefore
a question of ^reat importance, wh^^hc^^ ^^^ Christian
parish formed itself upon a delimitation already recog-
nized by the civil law or not. It is impdrtont, however,
to know that before the church was -recognized by the
' Emperor, the parish had an existence as part of the ex-
ternal policy of the church. In support of this we find
in d'Hericonrt this note : " il n'est pas g&niralement vrai
qt^avanl la conversion des empereurs, les prSlresti' ^latent ckargis
mparticulier Wducune partie' du diocese ; il est constant que
dans le (tiodse et dans la ville d'AlccaneHe, il y avait des pritres " |
charges du gouvememerit de cerUoM quartiers, qiu 6taient
% comme des paroisses. On en. vdU Ms letemp^ de saint Denis
iPAlexandrie, au milieu du troisiime siicle. II y avait aussi d
Borne des litres de ptHlres et de diacres. 11 y a ^ lieu de-
croire qu'U y enavaU pareiUement.dans tes diocises des gtandes
vUles. Voy. Thomassi»t Discipline Eccl&Hastique, premiin
partie, liv. premier, iAap. 12; et FUur^, Institution du J)roit
£!cdfyiastique,prenuirepartie,dkap.l9"
Mr. Justice Beandry suggests that, in France, the pa-
riishes formed themselves on the ammunaut^. It would
require very minute, and very extensive topogp^phical
knowledge to maii^tain -or d^ny this proposition ; but if
it M^rrect, it goes; to show the convenience of using
a delintit^Ci^nilrtody elistlll^ a&d W«U Kno^n/ uid
TT
/•■".
H'. it
■MM
,■ ■« ■
OOUBT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
215
one that wa« recognized by the state, and no more
It does not imply^hat the state declared that the
ammunam and f^p parish should be co-extensive
It 18 howpver not improbable that in many cases the
parish accommodated itself to the limits of the commu-
mutL Evidently the church would turn to account
any matitutioiv that it found Misting; and it" cer-
tainly found the cowiwwiMfrf^ in existence. Freminville on
whose authority Mr. Justice Beaudry relies, dates the foun-
dation of communavi6s in- Franc6 from the latter part of the
fifth century, about the year 486. This was only about ten
years before the conversion of Clo vis. More recent writers
. who have dealt on the history of institutions,- place tht-
origin of the «tmm«»a«fe long prior to the history of na-
tions, as we know them. Sir Henry Maine finds resem-
blances. much tUo strong aiid numerous to be accidental
between the Teutonic township or mark, and the Indian
village community ; and. he quotes Mr. Freeman
without disapprobation, when he "speaks of the politics
oi the Mark, as having become the politics of the parish
vestry. ' (See Maine, Village ^communities, sect. 1, pp lo
and 12.) Stubbs, in his constitutional history of Euffland
f V *o! V ?^"^" ^'""^ *^« ^"^'^ ^«^ our policy, (note'
voi. 1, p. 83,) but he.goes on to say, (76. '86.) :
"40. In a further stage the township appears in its
ecclesiastical form as the parish or portion of a mrish
the district assigned to a church or priest, to whom its
ecclewastical dues and generally, also its tithes are paid. The
boundaries of the pjirish and the-township or townships
with which it Coincides, we generally the same ; in small
parishes, the idea and even name of township is fre-
I ^T«^V** J^® P'es?'** da^. sunk in that of the parish • :
I and aU the business that i^ not manorial is dispatched in
I vestryvmeetings, which are however primarily meetings
oftheto^snahip for church purposes."
If thisHthetniehistoryof the'driginof theparish,and
It bears the appearance of violent probabiUty, the parish
was not or^inally the cfeation of civil snthoritv. Ve hav«
tWaright loaiik, ftl.Whatpenoddid it become si) ? No so- "
, 18M.
Cadot
A
Oulmct.
I
!ii
■'i
I
4i
r ;
'%
\
\
\
\
t
''\
/I
i
./ k.
tt
1 ::
„, _)
-^.,
^ ''.Tf
I r »5 " -*f^.
216
MONTREAL LAW REPORm
Oulmat.
IH
•*
,1-.
.^C'
'■'1
- I -
lution is offered of this obvious difficulty. Let us see
then how the matter was considered by the legislatiyo
authority in Frahce. In Ap^il 1Q95, an edict of a very de-
daratory kind wils passed co^cernant h jurisdiction Occtisia*--
tique. In the preamble, the king recogni4:es his (obligation
to use his authority fori the good of the church, and to
maintain discipline, ai^d the dignity and jurisdiction of
its ministers. The first-article maintains all ordoimanceti,
edicts and declarations in favout of the ecclesiastics of the
kingdom, '' concernant leurs droits etc., jurisdidion volontaire
ou conterUieuse" Then art. 24 is as follows : ^ . '*"'
'^ XXIV. " Les^ArtAev^ques et EvSques poutront avec les so-
lemnitSs et procedures accoutum^s 4riger des cures, dans les
lieux oil Us Pestimeront nicessaire. lis ^tabliroht pareillement
suivatU notre d4daraMon du mois de Janvier 1686, et de celle du
nuns de j'uiltet 1690, des vicaires perpituds, &u il n'jf a. que de$
pritres amovibles ; etpowrvoiront d lasubsistance des uns et des
autres 'par union de dixmes et autres rebenus ecdisiastiques* j en
sorte qu'ils ai^ aussi bien que tous: ^s tUttres- curSs ci-devant
eUMisAa somme de trois cent livres, suivant et en la forme por-
t^pJr no$ dedarations des mois tk Janvier 1686, e^juiUet 1690."
E^€e Ndron— Louis XIY,«vril 1695. Juris, de Off. 2».
There is nothing in any of the writers, to whose works
we have had access, to show that this is the resuscitation
of an original law which had been suspended. . By the
declaration of 1726, we find that a curiprimitif m.ay justify
the existence of his parish by Lettres-patentes du roi, but he
may alitojiiiBtify itJby Bull, or Decreide VArcheves^te ou de
VivSque ; aiid Mr. Justice Beaudry tells us that the neces-
sity fo^ Lettres-Patentei for the Erection des h6n4fices was first
introduced into France in 1748. Code des Gur^, p. 25. •
This o^mnot afiect us. ■/ , >
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 '
* <r p» ^ ,1*!^^ t '^^-^■^.iTiwiJ frir T
/^
J
218
MONTOEAL LAW REPORm
1M6.
QuMt
Onlnwt.
■ ■ »
■J
PI ::;^
mig^t be created, we assume, without fear of contradic-
tion, that the cur4 en titre, if there be one, is t)ie dicifntUeur,
and this is de droit commun, by the civil as by the canon
law. By the canon law, this has been shortly expressed r
" Decimtp. jtraediates ecclesiae parochiali debenture The civil law
is not lesH energoti<', and fn more figurative, language it is
said, '** le ciocher fait te litre du curi." By this title he «fx-
(eludes the ntri jtrimilif. That is, the title of the parish
being established, the mr^'is title follows as a matter 6f
fiourse, and he can prove h.m possession <f e7a/ by witu^Bsen,
while, as we have seen, the curi primliif could not jthuN
prove his right; t. e., the'cMr^ not actually desaervatU, fof he
must have a title by lettres pateutes, bu/le &u d^cret de Vivesque. *
:>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 <fu pr^tre amovible qui la detservail
aupuravant." This Act then r^^cognizes that the priest
^ desservant a paririk is the d^cimaleur, exactly as in France,
. Then the cwrfer are declfired to be inamouibles, exactly as
in the Decl. V 29 Jan 'y, 1686 (Ed. Jferon, vol. 2, 202);
and", further, thX^thes are to be levied according to the
riglement of Sep. 4>^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 <l chacun
des cur4s dans Ntendue de la pafoiase^ mtUesl/ Was it that
the tithe shbuld be paid only to the curfy of parishes
civilly erected ? Wh^we were thes^ parishes K'
The year after this edict there is an. arrA du Op^
-H^tMeur de Quebec (28. Dec, 1680), made in obedience to
in© King's command, directing the mode of farming the
tithes " des lieux joints poimcompoierune paroisse." (2 E. &
0., p. 86.) Was this all done for imaginary lieu» joint*
civilement ?
In lt06 the cur^s of 3eauport>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<!y, an ontnbliahed li^ tho Act in the roign
of 0|ieen ^Elizabeth, waa a saving i6lauiio, to nxohide the
,pr(#nsion of the Po|h) to oatablifih Oourta having exe-
< Wory poworn ov«r tho King'n Hubjecta It never had, or
^uld have had, any practical application to a quoation
like the present, or be the foundation of a right of nomina-
tion to, or interference with, beneficea belonging to tho
Chnrch of Rome. Tho anggeatiou that the object of the
lirst atatnte of Queen Elizabeth'a reign waa to give the
Noveroign of Kngland the aupreme power to appoint
Roman Catholic Bishop has almost the appearance of an
historical Joke. Thei^ were laws in England creating
dinabilitiea of vajriou»* kinds directed against Roman
Catholics. The inapi^icability of these laws to the ceded
Province was, therefore, atipulateU for by the treaty, and
the treaty stipulation was incorporated in the firat consti-
totional Act. In abort, the statute says : the Roman
Catholic aubjecis of His Majesty shall have the free exer-
cise of their religion, the elergy shall have thdir accus-
tomed dties from Roman Catholics, but Courts having
temporal jurisdiction shall not be appointed by ecclesias-
tical authority. Any quantity of padding may be added
to these legislative facts ; but it seems to me that what
followed was their legal sequence. Were it otherwise, it
would scarcely be a grievance tjiat England had tortured
her laws so as to give t^ widest signification to the
treaty obligations. • - -
It would have been a more plausible argument to say
that the King of England was successor to the King of
**'
1 1
CMa<
OnlRMl.
V.
m^
(^
It4
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
f
If
k
i
h
OuiBML
i
:| i'.
f',
y
S'l:
['r
i
!i
If,
I*:
i
y
J
France, and as such inherited the right of presentation to
Bishoprics. ' But the pretension that the King of England
took the place of the King of France as to Canada^ is 6nly
true withiii certain limits. The King of England did not
succeed to those rights, ^irhich were purely personal to
« the King of France, and 'so he had no rights under the
treaties mad^ by the Kin^ of France with other powers.
Thus ih^concordal of 1516 was law in France, at all events
from 1627, but by the cession of Canada, the concordat did
not bind the Pope to the King of England, or the t;ing of
England to the Pope. ' '
if George III, had interfered With the^ nomination of a
Roman Catholic Bishop, he would have broken the pledge
given by Parliament, "for the more perfect security
~ and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of the said Pro-
vince." Not having exercised the right to appoint bish- ,
1, could it be pretended that the king laid claim to
le right to interfere with the parochial arrangements of
the bishops, within their dioceses ? It is only necessary
to formulate the proposition to see how untenable it is.
It would be tedious to examine critically the numerous
statutes that have been passed to regulate the temporal
affairs of parishes since the year 1839. One thing must
strike any one conversant with general historyt who has
stuoied these statutes, and it is the influence of the old law
on this legislation. Mr. Justice Beaudry draws special
attention to it at the end of his preface, and on page 5,
of his " Code des cur6s." _
however, a definition of a parish, as resulting from .
that legislation, has been given' in the work alluded to
as article 9 : "La paroisse est le territoire diliiniU pax VautoritS
ecclisiastique avec comfirmatton par Vmdoriti civile, el dont la
habitanU aont administris par son cur 6 propre quant au spirituel,
ou tempord par unefabrique pour lesfins du cuUe, el par un ou
phmeurs consols munieipaua: pour Urns hes autresoigets etbesoim
locdux." ,
In a note he gives the definition of a parish, taken
from the "Didimnaire du Droit Canonique " as : ParocMa
eU U k ms m. q uo xkgU-
■> ,
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<iuivalent to an- account accepted |
^-^ a^d di^harge granted,\uid therefore, ^der C. G. 2268, which is
: applicable to such cases, the^ action of thepupil to annul the sale.is
. prescribed by ten yetirs from majority. . ^\
ent confirmed.
ing of account —
-?.
V
bpUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
229
P J''!??!** 7'"' ^~™ »"J«dgmeiit of tlw Superior
-Court, district of Iberville (Ohaonon, J.>, 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 <Jue Ife miiieup devehu majeur •
" put examiner s'il avait 6t6 16s6. La- jurisprudence du
" Parlement de Paris est que le mmeur doit s^ potlrvoir
" dans Igs dix ans de sa maj6rit6, contre la transaction
" faite avec son tuteur avant le compt«, et ndw visis tabulis, '
" sinon, qu'il est non recevabfe apres ^ dix ans." (Ancien%:
Dfinisairt, au mdt^utelle," p. 148,1«8. 108, 106>. >
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
Ur<goir«
%
\^~
282
MONTRteAL LAW REPORTS.
" cation de pieces juBtificatives.avait, anx tennes d^l'or-
" doimaiice, dix ans du jour du trait6 pour s'en faire re-
" lover par out6rincmAit des lettres de reBciBion." Ordoii-
nance de 1689, art. 184 ; Metl$, De la minoritfe, pp. 482,
498. .- ■■ . ;I f^' .
Argou, tome ler, 6diti6n de 1787/ p. 68 :— " Tdutes les
" transactions faitea entre le tu^eur et le mineur deVenu
•' majeur, sur la question de la tutelle, sont nuUes, et le
" mineur pent s'en Hire relever dans les dix ans, i moins
" que les comptes n'fuent fet6 eiamlu^B, et que toutes les
" pieces justificatives n'aient6t6mi8e8 entre les mains du
" mineur."
Rousseau de Lacombe, vo. Restitution, s. Ire, No.i4':—
" Mineur n'est Irecevable & se pourvoir apres les dik ans
" de la majority contre la transaction faite avec son tfiJeur
" avant le compte et non visis tabtdis."
Pothier, Bugnet, 10 vol., p. 867, No. 746.
II est bon d/d remarquer que I'inventaire compreind le
dfetail de I'acti^et du passif des Wens de^a communautfe
et de la succesiiion de la m6re, cg qui a du rendre facile
Testimation de ce qui revenait a I'intimfee de la gestion
de son pere et tijiteur.
Ilreste bien ui^e . autre exception offerte, c'est que la
femme seule a pOTt6 cette action, Bimpl?™«5nt autoris^e de
sop mari.^ , Or ejle reclame un comptp comprenant sa part
de succession' niobiliere et immobiliere. Qnunt k la ^artie
mpbili6re„le miri, coBsme chef de la communautfi, est
seul maitre de cptte action, et il devait 6tre demandeur
en cette instancy. Oependant cette obligation n'a pas
besoin de solutioitici, pared que cette cour decide la cause
sm le point principal de contestation entre les parties qui
emporte le d6botit4 de Taction et le maintien de cet appel.'
, ■" ■ \ ■ ' . ■ ,
Monk; J. {diss.) Iponcurred in the judgment of the
Court belo\f on eveiV pointr
' ■■..■■.■':■*■ ■ ■■ ■ \ •"■ . ■-■ ' ' f' ■ - - ^ .';v^^-':'
The first question that arises in this case, is vsrhether
Ilia wf inn in ^Tfenr.rihfld bv ten Qi by thirty yfears, ghe
Rt'S^^'^'i^VpiIIFW'
OOUBT or QUEEN'S BISHOH.: , 288
action IB to have declared null a preten4ed inventory
made by the father pf respondent, also her tutor, of the
community existing between her father and mother,. to set
aside a sale, so called, or an a<it equivalent to sale, and to
n!fi:der an account of a tutorship. By akicle 2248 0. 0.,
the prescription of the action to.account, and of the other
personal lictions of minors against their tutors, relating to-
the acts of the tutorship, takes place at the end of 80 years
from the age of majority. But by article 2268 0. C, the
action in restitutiofi of minors for Iqsion, the acticm ia^
rectification of the tutor's account, and that in rescission of
contracts for error,«fraud, violence or fearTare prescribed
by ten years. The tjme for this prescription; only^ runs
from the age of miyority and from the discovery of the
error or fraud. The respondent only attained to Jtho ^
of majority in 1858, and therefore, the thirty years p^
cription had not been acquired, if that be necessary.' We
have therefore to examine under which article the Resent
action falls. In a sense, it canjiot beMeni^d that this ii
a personal action of the minor, relatinjp to the acts .of the
tutorship ; but the subsequent article appears to limit the
gencralitypf the former and to reduce the tim^of pres-
cription, where the question was not d^ing l>iS7ectifying.
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 th<i inventory wid*? on a qumtionof form. ^
It is, however, contended that It ii an .alMwlute nullity
under the rod(». . \ *
In the case of Motz Sr M(weau, it was held in tho 8upo-
rior Court, f that all trauBaetions, quittances, and din^
chartres whi<^h have taken place b<!twetMi a tutor and
minors ^ho have' become of age, founded upon such
incorrect and fraudulent inventory, are null de piano."
And so alsa, " without accounts being rendered, and
Without pwductioir of vouchers." The Court of QueenV -
Bench Jield, reversing the decision of the S. C, " that the
suHon en nullUi brought by the respondent, was pre-
scribed by the peridd of ten years, since the passing of the
deeds complained oi;" 1 L. C. R. 14t. *rhis was in Man^h,
1857, and consequently before the code. The Privy
Council confirmed the judgment ; but it is fair to state,
without affirming the doctrine of the t^n years prescript
tion, 10 L. C. R. 84. (') Since then, however, there wan
the case of SyHes Sf Shaw, where the ten years prescription
was explicitly maintained. This was also before the code.
16 L. 0. R. 804.
^ In December, 18t9, (and consequently since the code)
there was an appeal from a judgment of the Superior
Court, ordering an account, where it appeared that the
adininistrator of the minor's estate - had rendered an
account, and got a discharge without observing the for-
malities of the code. Pierce Sc Butler, Dec, 1879. (') Two
(') The P. C. appeara to liavo been drawn into considering the qwation
of how an absolute nullity may be got over, to the exclusion of flife rmU
question in the suit. This indirect way of getting at the rights of iMir-
ties, raises quite a different order of ideas, and puts in quesUon legal
relations foreign to those adjudicated upon by the Courts here- There
is iluirai et du Javx in all the doctrine read to their Lordships, with
which it is unnecessary now to deal. ^
(«) In this case the learned Chief Justice of this CoBrt is reported to
. have said: "The Court was of opinipn that the n^lity referred to in
Art 311 of the Code, was a relative nullity whicl^ should be invoked.
The minor could ask to be relieved from such a transaction, but codd
not de piano, ask for another account while the d^charge existed. The
Court had aUeady held this In fitendeaw <fc DuaromUun. In that
Tif-j.^SJ
'\
28A
.A/-.
IM.
UrAgotn.
OOURT OF ^i>EE^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 th<t huifhund Hhould Im« (m rauui in
hiH own natnn. in lui far an thu ti<;tion in mi)ltUih«, and f
think biH motion to \m allowed to intvrvtuiH ithould bu
allowed MM retardaium de muse. ThiH |>oint 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 ;— <r~ 7'"
"U'Cour.etc.-. - -y-. .-,,1^. ' #.^ *; . •
"Con8id(^rant <|ue par s/an Action, riutirafie demande d
■fdire prononcer la nullit6 de I'inventaii^ de la commu-
liaut6 qui a oxinU^ ihnpii sea pdre et mi>re, J<lweph Qr6goir«
ot Sophie DupuiM, fait par le dit Joseph Grdgoire devunl
Lukin, notaire, aprda le d6cda de la dite Sog^ie Dnpnia et
' aa nomination comfkie tuteunAjBoa enfaatrminettTa;)^ rai*
aou de certainea irregularity qui-at) aeraiout produiteii
dana la confection du dit inv^utaire, et en particulior du
I'omiaaion du^uotaire d'avoir fait signer la demidre vaca-
tion par lo dit Joaeph Gr^'goir'e, le dit inventaire com-
men^£ le 24 juiUet 184^tormin6 le ^8 aeptembre et clos
en justice le 24 octobreae la m£me a]m6e ;
" GonsidC'raiit que I'iutim^e detp^ude ausai k faire pro* ■
noncer la nullity d'une vente faite par elle, alora mineure,
mais 6mancip6e par manage, agiasant conjoiutement avec
aou 6poux Thomas Girard, ^ dit Joaeph Gr6goire, son
pere ^t ex-tuteur^le 9 juillet 1856, devant Merizs»', W
taire^, de la totalit6|,4e aea idroits mobiliers et immpbilicrs
dana la successiou ^ll<i iriere, desquela biena lo dit Joseph
' Gr6goire avait ^i^M^ ge^tion comme tuteur, maiis dont il
ne lui avait ren^^auonn coinpte^eh forme I6ga^ r :^"~~
" GonsidSrant ^ae^^'intim^e demande en outre par son
action que lea appelfl^ta aoient condamn^a k rendre compte
de la tutelle et geation du dit Joseph Gr6goire, mainte-
nant mort, ce qui comprend lea mdmea bieus qu'elle a
c6d68 par le dit acte dft 9 juillet 1866 ; ^
" Conaidferant que I'inventaire fait par le dit Joaeph
,^
J^
■ y
T le dit Joseph
COURT or qUKBN'H BRNri^
387
(Jr*goire, pAre, mi vmluhU\ «t qne rdmindon rel«rT«ii pw
rilitimda «»t ooaverU p«r lo fait 400 l«i dit invmitain^ a
m cloi en pwtiw flt que I'iiitimAo a taoit«ra«ut ai^qui«HK76
k la preuv«i fait» d« la dit« «!l6turo «n Jiwti«>e. «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 <f Chasti, attorneys for appellants. ^
<» Qeqffrion, Bin/ret Sf Dorion, attorneys for respondent.
^
r
i
. II
; - 31
I •!
'?;'i
I
y^
288
MONTREAL LAW REFORTa
iiil
. I'l
^
March 27, 1886.
Ck>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 t<j complain of tlie irregularities after the award was
refidered. ;'
The appeal was from a judgment of the Superiol
Court, Montreal, Torrance, J., Jan. 30, 1884, dismissing
an action to set aside an award of arbitrators and amiables
compositeurs. The judgment is reported in 1 Leg. News,
p. "to.
Jan. 19, 1886. J. L. Archambault, Q.C., for Appellant.
LaiMste, Q.C., for Respondent. igt
Cross, J.:— ^ -
In this case Rolland sues Cassidy to set aside an award
of Arbitrators and amiables compositeurs rendered on a sub-
* mission made by t^em. Cassidy sues Jtolland for exe-
cution of the same award, which was laVorable to him.
" The two cases were united and one judgment rendered in
' the. united cases, by which Rolland's action was dismissed,
•and Cassidy's conclusions were granted, awarding him
judgment for the amount of the, a ward i|| his favor. -
"RoUaiid has appealed from the julgm^nt, and Cassidy .
defends it. ; « %
itf"' ■»
-•*■
IfelJ
/
t, and Gassidy
OOUBT OF QUEtai'S BENCH.
289
By the submiseioii executed before Leclerc,\ notary, the
2l8t Nov., 1881, it was declared that from the Qth Nov.,
„1874, they had been partners as dealers in wood with
Adolphe Roy, who became insolvent the 28rd Oct. 1878,
from which date thei t^vp ^ continued the business ;' *
that to regulate the^^airs and settle the accounts of the
partnership, they agreed to refer the same to arlArators
mdamiablescompo^tiurs, RoUa^d choosing for the ^rpose,
Qeorge Arthur Grler, and Cassitty, Louis Tourville, which
two had chosen as third, James K. Ward, who were all
three to be sworii before -a Cotomissioner of the Supe-
rior Court, who were to take communication of docu-
ments, and were empowered to examine, under oath, the
parties and their witnesses to determine the balance of '
account that one might owe, the other, neither party to be •
represented by advocate oj attorney before the ai-bitrators-;
the award to be submitted to, under a penalty of $5 OOo'
to be paid by tl»e party failing to conform, to th^ consent-
ing party, before the award couldbe disputed '
_*Rdlland, in hia pleadings, madea^eriea of objections to
the award, as to its jsufficiency in point of form, and regu-
larity, without offering to pay or deposit the $6,000.
^Cassidy answered .these objections, claiming first that
the 16,000 should have been paid, or deposited, before
Rolland should be permitted to try the validity of his
objections: and if even he could be heard on his objec-'
tions, they were all unfounded and insufficient to affect
the validity of the award. It maybe at once remarked
as regards the necessity for the payment or deposit of the '
penalty, if the award should prove a nullity as to form
there could be no necessity for the payment or deposit
ot the penalty, which could only be exacted in casfe of
contesting the award on the mfrits. This principle js
clearly recognized by Art. 1364, C. P. C. ,
, The award was rendered the ISth^ay, 1882, within the **
time agreed upon, as extended by tlie consent of parties
It decreed Rolland to be indebted to Oassidy in the sum '
of I11;094.12i, with interest from 29th Aprii;i882 It was
J>cqme8ced 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<nmthepl«mtiffwasone) weiesentby ■
.«
/ •
»» ■
'* 'I
./■
■^
MONTREAL LAW BE
1 • r*
.tion to introduce wnter fl»i
244
^ 'the<
ing wlift the building. ^ Tliis could no
nsid6 w \»ell as outaide. A ma'h po
^leie Mb plaintiif wan m^rikinti^ tlie |
a biiclJn'the wall|||nd til|i« brijp falling
A.hatnnMi- bad fallen ^fi^iounlj^dVi
doen l^^mA-i ■ ^mm -rnvm *■ • - . <. • ■ ■ ■ ,--.■>■
,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'<m pom |
mx A'4>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
MB<l<lt>l«««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<roedinjf, adoptttd the conatruction that the . "■
will gave her usufruct and to the children nue proprUt*
They also showed that the hooks o^ the estate had beeir -
and were still kept on that footing. ...
After argumeht and ,/^/i»rfrrf judgment wai rendered >■
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$irant qu^il vou^it que deux de ses en^
^> fen^ speciatement eussent to«HrTacilit6 pour se procurer ^
"#.■ une ^^ucal ion parfaiteTet complete; ,, ~ c/ •/ —
"Considerant qu'npe teller Jnt'etpr^tation .fait res8orl;iT '
la pens6e dxTTfestateur^ lorsqu'il dijt, plus loiu^dans sou V,.
r , testament, \ttuijrest to be divided among ike chtfdren," le tes-
t, tateur w>illani>ean8'aucun'doute»donuer p^r ,1a a entendre'
qu'a la m<;>rt<<le )a dite Dame Cross, ou dans le cas d*un
autre' nrafiage, lor^ de tefl autre n^ariage elle ^tait charg^e;
de ne\endre, pouf 6tre partag6e entre ses enfauts, que cfe
qui Ini resterait de sa^ sufecessipu, deduction faite des
' fonds d^peus6s pour le maintien ^le. la famille et I'Muca-' ,
tion des enfauts, et ausbi dedUcUoi^ faite, dans le cas d'un
second mariage, de la somjne ottalifiee par le testateur du>
nom de douaire ; > % . * W ' %
" Considerant qu'il ne r^sulte pas du dit testament que ^
lots du testateur " the rest to be divided among the
Vchifdrht." ne dftivent avoit d'application que pour le ca&,
bu, pji^ suite d'un second mariage,^a dite JDame Cross-
fit aiDL^me la dite 'succn^aitf:
«pi^8entant ; car a'
'•*j
^'Ji^.
s6li 4oQai!re,
telle ini^prS-'
4'-'
t ■
OOITBT OP Qimkira BENCtt'
258.
1881
Maodonn«|
&
Boh.
\
■^ ion ,lft„dta,t dft^^^e l..te,tatenrnWa|t paepourvu
h la 4i$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(cessairement<le ce qui e^t oontenu au testament '
de^^on quon ne jmm'e I'expliquer^^une mam^ pldtmbl^
sans ^pposer ceite Volontfe dans le testateur.''' .
V^^^lso 1; I>i^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<//e</ it and
"converted it, aSflt^ey had the power to "^do, alf be|ng born
aid of' age, 4gt«^'sufruct, etc. C. C , 956, etc. . ' ^^ ■
jBeZ/e, for ^pbndent :-- " , ° .'^'^
lo. The'il«^re of substitlition and ^ts charactetistips.
1. PrfivcTae laJaftnesj jurisp. franp,, § lfll4^ 6, 7 and
14i '^^ot, vo. Substiti^titfn, 453, 491. , P<)t^ie?T, Substi-
.tution 485^497, 498, 499, 541 ,
'2tf. The expi-ession /or the benefit cwaHoi here be con-
(?tftted as meaning the «sM/r«c« only ; it i? more compre-
hensive and includ€(s the proprietorship as well. The
testator no doubt had the intention to/dispose of aU his?
personal and real eptate and not only of the mufi^wt
-* thereof. In ordinary language, the . Word .benefit means
im^ advantage and pt^. Jti^ the judgment i«ip|>^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
'•* <i
=*=
'« '
a»»
♦ •
Lu* .'
-V -.--
"—11 5; —
'8 »
TTjr-
.1 • * «.
♦" • • » " ■ ■
IV-' »,•■'■.,, .. . * .
^p
,">
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<M|dent's action of damages for the death of her hus-,
. band. The judgment of the Court below is reported in
6 Leg. News,.j^, 864. The text of the judgment below is
as follows : — ^'
"The Court, etc. /" *
"Considering that the present action is by the plain-
tiff, widow of the late William Macklaier, in his lifetime
of Montreal, checker, against the defendant," master of the
steamship Harold, who is alleged to have caused the death
of the said William Macklaier by want of care, negligence,
unskilfulness, and t;hat the said defendant has pleaded in
substance denying any want of care or skill, or any negli-
gence on jthe part of himseh^r of 'his crew and servants
''on the said steamship; and by alleging that the accident
9 maa
$14 a weok
which mka the caiue of ^^ath wai oaiii«d by the negli-
gence and curulesaness of the dticoaiicd ;
" Ooniiideritig that the result of i\y9 proof
that the defendant m^t his death .
breaking of a rope fastened to th«>
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. (<ftjs.) : — t::' „ ^'v- '
j^the respondent sued the oaptain of a shij^ for dttmages
Jbf the death of her husband, wh6 was' killed by the
rebound of a rope whicjb snapped while the ste&siei', under '
appelldtnt's command, was being cleared omof port.' Thd
deceased at the time of the accident was employed to
throw the loop of the r^pe ofi* the post to which the- vessel
was^ attach;ed yand in order tjD do this he was standing
close by, or Iwning bver the post. " -— 7" ..-^-^.-^-^:ju^-
Thiacase raises merely aauestiou of f^vid^nb^. jE^ites-
lions of responsibrlit^iffor kccidents of this kind have been
80 numerous lately^-^iiM:^ the principles on which the
jurisprudence of lybie Court ijests ought to be pretty clearly
setiled. It is therefore with sop\ething mdre than aston-
ishment I hear ii said^t^atiTiift,^ idea of j^nglish law '
that the employer-^is net thei insuref^ bf his empkryi. Is it~
j^retended that it is'Fiench law that hiiiiiiB the insurer? It ''
•'I
■,;■ -»-
A
.Ar
T"
\:
^%
.-#■
- a7
.^,
.J-'^'"' ■
/.I 'V-
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
h
//
^
m
y.^
^^
6
^
Itf'-,
1.0
I.I
1.25
Jii .125
1^ l&i 12.2
ui
" "^ !■■
't'
/>
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 —
<fr:^.
8
MONTOBAL tAWREPORTa
Corner
BjrnL
« ^ an "*■< •'
/
if not always, more or less the mandatory of his emfyioyer
The mandator is obliged to indemnify the mandatory for all
his expenses or outlay, incurred without his fault. There- 1
fore, it is said, if the emploj/i breaks his leg doing his em-
ployer's work, the latter must indemnify the servant,,
whether the master be in fault or not, proyided the»
be no negligence on the part of the servant. Thero ig
however, a little doctrinal difficulty in the way of tW
proposition, which it is desirable to remove or. pooh-
pooh. Here is the way in which Mr. Sourdat performi
the task. " A cet igard nous repoussons avec M. TropUmg
{mandat 655) fa distinction propos4e par Polhier, sur fej
fondement dufie toi romaine entre les pertes ou eUmmagtA
dont le mandat am la cau§e et ceux dont U ^%urait (U\
que VoccasioH. Le texte mime de Vart. 2000 cqndamne ceUel
distinction dijd refetie par Vancienne jurisprudence." No. 918 1
ter.
It would be difficult- to squeeze into six lines more con-
fusion and inexactitude than is to be found in the above
quotation. [Jnder the C. N. art. 2000 the efforts of Trop-
long and Mr. Sourdat torepousser la doctrine of Pothier were
quite unnecessary, for the article has Jftid down a rule ex-
pressly intended to overthrow Pothier'e doctrine. The "W
romaine " on which Mr. Sourdat says Pothier bases his doc- i
trine, happens to be, two laws of the digest which appear
to be contradictory : Dig. mand. 7. 26, 6, and Dig. pro
soc. /. -74, 4. These texts Pothier teconciles, by saying
that the mandator must indemnify the mandatory if he
suffers the loss ex causa mandati, and not if hoc magis casibut
imputari debet, Mandat No. 76.
As to this distinction being rejetiepar Vancienne jurispnr]
dence, we turn with a Se&se of relief to Troplong's expoei-
tion, which is brilliant as usual, although it leaves us in
some doubt, as to whether the author is fully convinced
that the new law is better than the old. ' '
He mentions two cases, one decided at Bologna, in
which it was held that the case wte due to chance andnot
to the execution of the mandate. In the other case, it
seems, the Parliament of Paris held that the mandatory.
*'^^^~
^'.^^t ««e^gjr^
OOUKT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
209
robbe4 whie executing the mandate, had a right to indem-
|nity from the mandator ; and Troplong satirically re-
marks : On vott que h partement de Paris n'itaU pa$ auui
klacU que lef docteurs de Bologne^au texte de la hi 26, ff. 9
D. mandati. | »y/ "
It seems to me that these cases may be reconciled as
Pothier reconciles the texts, and therefore they do not show
that Pothier's doctrine was rejected by the old jurispm-
dence. On this poiht. I terminate, copying the not very
d«i,rable method of Mr. Sourdat. by saying that 9ur code
.rt. 1726. has as expressly ddopted Pothier's doctrine as the
C.N. J-w rejected it. This settles for us the argument by
which Mr. Sourda^ attempts to render the. employer the
Ihgarant onhe employed in the same manner" as Ue
mandj^tor isof the mandatory. But there are othe^ diffi-
kulties even greater, which seem to have dawned on Mr.
Boardats imagination, but which do not require to be
jxammed in this case.
On the quesjiion of the amount of damage*, if appel-
lant were liable, the sum accorded is enormous, .and the
reason given for allowing such damages untenable. The
indge says'he estimated the damage at $6000. because the
Kespondent c.ould.not support herself and her five chil-
« and aiothe and educate them unless she had $860 a
ur. According to the judge's own appreciation of the
fevidence. U was only proved deceased gained |U a week
pr 7 months m the year, that is about $40Q,.and she is
kiven the capital of $360. I must say suchftU egtin&tiod
r shocks .my sense of justice."' I believe this is the point
bfenormity when'it has been intimated a judge is^usti-
^ed m moderating the first assessment of damages .
rconcur entirely with t|ie learned chief Justice 'lii }^s
ihcism as to the tendency of our days to aggravate dam-
?«8 -Philanthropists are never so charitable as when
J!kI?? **f^' ^^''P^^'" """"^y- "^^^^ " probably attri-
tSt u?^' ^*^'' philosophy which makes the
modern French law writei^ exaggerate the scope of fault,
iwoiild reverse.^ H-.--
i8a& '<
Gonial
BynLi
*f^
jrear.
■/
X
»«■■ '-J I
■1,
■H f
o il
«fV
** -^
270
MONTBEAL LAW REPORTBl
*^,
Conrnr
Brrd.
■•: u
0RO88, J. (rflM.) :*— .
It is proved that ther^ was a wind blowing at the timt.
The deceased was too near the post ; if he h|id not betmio
near, the accident would not have happened. "There wu
no obligation on the part of the captain to employ togi [
It seems, to me a, question of evidence rather than of h%
and I find the evidence in favor of the ship.
' ' ^*
DoRiQN, Oh. J. :—
The question in this case is a very simple one. The I
steamship was leaving the wharf, and was fastened byil
hawser to keep the stern in a proper position. The hoa-l
band of the plaintiff was engaged by the captain to asBiitl
in casting off the hawtter. The rope gave way while- he I
was waiting for the proper time to cast it off, and he wul
fatally injured. His widow alleges neigligence on thel
part of the ship, Wnd brings an action of damages. Thel
inquiry is merely this : What was 'the cause of this man I
being Jcilled ? It is certain that it was his duty to be]
quite close to the post. It is a matter of every day ob8e^l
vation to see men standing with one hand on the ropeJ
ready to cast off when the word is given. It was not!
because Macklaier was there that the accident occurred;!
it was because the rope broke. Now, why did the ropel
break ? Was it sufficient ? It is proved that it was saffil
cient for some purposes, but the pre8umptiM| is that itl
broke either because it was insufficient for the purposel
for which it was used, or becausu the ship was badljl
managed and the.rope was not " paid " out properly. Itl
is proved that a tug would have helped to get the shipl
^otit. The defendant answers that he was not obliged to|
employ a tug. But if he chooses to dispense with a tngl
he must be held responsible for damages which might]
have been avoided by the use of a tug. It is said thatl
there was a wind, and that it was a casfortuit. But theTel
is more or less wind every day, and the current was thel
o^inary current^in the port. Looking at all the evidence,!
I am forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of I
the accident was either the insufficieacy of the hawser oil
.:%
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.
Stl
careleM Management on the part of the ahip'a officera in
paying it out. In either case, the appellant is respon-
■ible. It was' an accident, no doubt ; it was not wilful ;
but it was one of those accidents for which the appellant
ia liable because it could have been prevented by care on
his part.
On the question of damages, we think the judgment^
went too far. The deceased is shown to have been earn-
ing $14 a week during the summer season. This would
be al5but |400 per annum. The Court below awarded
16,000 damages. This would leave the family better off
than^if t^ husband had lived. The Court here is of
opinion that #2,600 is a sufficient sum. The judgment
will be reformed accordingly, with the costs of the appeal
in favor of the appellant.
Monk, J.:— i
I concur in the opinion of the learned Chief Justice.
Ab I read the evidence, it was not a case ot force mqfeure ;
the deceased #& not in fault ; and although the ship was
not obliged to employ a tug, yet in order to exonerate the
obtain from responsibility he should have employed a
tng. r would have given a larger amount than |2,600,
bat I concur in the judgment.
Judgment reformed as to amount of damages.
I^mme, Huntington, Laflamme Sr^ichard, attorneys for
appellant. \ '
Abbott; Tait Sf Abbotts, attorneys for respondent,
i (J- K.)
im.
't
¥
•
4
'liters
••••■"•'»■
If /;
r /^-".
♦■-•
*,
372
MONTBKAL LAW REPORTi.
M»roh 22, ISm.
Cbraw DoRioN.CJ., Monk, Ram8ay>.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, •
**<fe«l "^•'^
r^
MOIfTRKAr, UW RKPORTi.
lh« iK)int Iwforo iw. Tho dtHtrinu of tho old authors otf«n
no lolation, »tid th« niHttnr Ndomii to hav« Ihumi loflratW
to thd diacipliiiiiryr authoritj of the Courti thnn to any
po«itiv« nilo of law. Thin appuarM to in« to b« a modn of
tr«>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<Jamu8 to
compel them to acknowledge him as a shareholder- in the
society aiid to collocate him for dividends On his forty
shares, for' the past as ^ell aa* for the future, on equal
terms with other bond fide members of that society.
The only defence that requires notice is the question
raised by .the respondents' second pl^viz., that appel-
\J
' .1
^ r
facts never were
oouRT or quKxirft w^<m: ■ ^ ' at5
ifi fi!«lm WM for lltljTiou. right* ; that the aharo* h«
ottiiided t(» riaim had b«Mui to hin kiiowludge. with
how in liko iKwitiou, dH<<Itth?d forfeited by ruNolution*
ftho Mfljety for non-obMrvance of Ui regulationii,— and
Iwith li full IcnowliKlge pf thin fact, for % long time a«qni-
Si>«(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<itation of being
Lblo to eatabHah/he right by legal proceaa ; that a jodg-'
bwnthad ainoe heen rendeftd in a. lait' broiught. by an
brjginal ahareholder -in th«i aapie category, aa regards fo^
Ifilure, aa the aharea claimed on, by the appellant,— and'
It had been in that auit determined that auch-ahares had
hot btHm legally forfeited 1^ want o^ the dbaervance of
khe legal fortaalitiea n^jao^aary to eatabliah auch forfeiture.
The Booiety had conaequently pataed a Teaolutiov reatoring
loot admitting the righta of all original ahareholder*
»hoHe ahares in like oategifjr htfd be»m declared forfeited;
bt with regard to such as had been transferred, includ-
ing, of course, those claimed by the appellant, as they
Wboen disputed, and acquired by the appellant hi a
bominal price, with a view to their beitig established by
litigation, the respondents were only bound to reimburi«
be a|)i)ellant for their <ro8t, with^. expenses and interest,
Iwhich they were ready to^y or deposit so soon as the
mount, (of which they were ignorant,) could be ascer-,
lined*
The appellant replied, denyin^that the rights were
Ptigious, and maintaining that if at any time they could
We been considered such, they had ceased to be *> 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<I^Alex. Coultry $4(]|.60 for his shares; I paid Sam.
" McKee ^61.2^or his shar^ ;1 paid to Wm. Huddlesley
" iji9.25, and I paid tfrGeo, Dalrymple$15 for his shaws,
" with the understanding tha^ if I succeeded in getting
" the whole amount paid on his shares I would give him a
"ftirther amo,unt,of $16." Thus he only paid 1 126 for
shares which, according to his claim, would give him
ilf12l.l5 for dividends already declared, as well as establish
. his rights to the future dividends.
McKee saya: — "I understood that a lawsuit would
'* have to be instituted before We could get the amount,
" aftd -I sold Brady the books at_hi8 own risk ;" and Wm.
Huddlesley bieing asked whether he sold a la,w8uit,
answered, •• I understood it that way, certainly."
The appellant, without conceding that the rights in
question were at any time ' droits lUtgieux, insists, with
great plausibility, on the argument that if even at one
time they were such, they ceased to be so when the Rev.
Mr. dh'arbojaneau succeeded in obtaining a judgment
maintaining the non-forfeiture of his shares, which were
in .the same position in this respect as were the shares of
the autem-s of the appellant before their transfer to him;
and he considers himself sustained in this view of the
•case by the terms of § 4 of Art. 1684 C. C, which explains
that the provisions contained in, Art. 1662, discharging
the debtor by payment of the price and incidental
. expenses of a litigious right, do not apply when the
judgment of a court has been rendered, affirming the
^ght, I do not think the appelknt in this fairly applies
_th9 B a eaoiag oLtlug proviso.. It Ib tmo th a t thf > 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 an<f the usage of the trade in that behalf ;
"Doth maintain the said pleas and defence of defen-
I dauts and doth dismiss the plaintiff's action, with costs."
September 20.] N. W. Trenholme for appellant :—
The case arises, upon a sale of sixty-eight half chests
I tea. The iappellant found that the respondents would
not accept the tea in accordance with the contract. He,
therefore, caused the tea to be resold, and a loss of $183.22
was incurred, and it was to recover this amount that the
suit was brought. Mr. Juf tice Doherty, in the Court
below, held that the appellant had not offered the tea
hpon conditions that the respondents, were boun^ to a<^
cept, and the action was dismissed. The appellft^ con-
tends that the respondents had ample time to test and
weigh the tea. They got a delivery order on the 11th
October, 1884, with the invoice. On the 13th and 14th
October, the whole of the tea was placed in the store of
ID. Kiniry, warehouseman. On the 16th, they declared
that they would not accept the 'tea, unless the sale for
prompt cash were changed so as to make it a sale at four
months. On the 17th, one of th^ respondents complained
that Kiniry had refused to deliver them a half-chest for
examination. The appellant was absent at this time, but
I the next morning the respondents receive4 *» order to
examine the tea, and the pretext that they could not get
I it in time to fill orders \p» unfounded.
/. 0. Joseph and Hon. R. Laflatnme, Q.C.,'for>espondents :
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 8UH<lit(\ maintntiant K)clam6«;
" Atttitidu que l»s domandeurn alldguent «p6cialonn'nt
que par le contrat entre Iuh partioM, pas86 le aix juiliet,
- 1882, ir^tait stipule quo le graiu voudu devait Atre exp^
di6 par voilier, de Chatham, dans la Province d'Ontario, A
Montreal, «t ce auRsit6t qn'un .vaisseau .ponrrait Atre
atfr6t6,'qu« lors de c« contrat le demandeur connaissalt le
port de Chatham efeavait qu'il y allait peu de voiliers,
aurtout de la capaoit6 relquise en' cette circonstance ; que
lea demandours ont expC>di6 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<un?d at Toronto, it had to paiw thomio through
the WoUand Canal, through Ijokos Erio and 8t. Claii^^
and up the Thames Uiver to Chatham, which Wonlcf pro-
bably ^o<;cupy about five. days, but could have ht'«n
accomplished in a •hortor time if the voBgol had been
towtKl. The dowi^ward paasage to KingBton seems not
to have occupied an unrca^pnable time, and from KIiik-
ston to Montreal, it was performed in about the uaual
time. 8up|)OHing the voyage to have been possible in a
day or two less, it cauMt b«i said to have been materimlly
out of time. As to tli^time occupied in securing a vesst'l,
fifteen days, the delay is^ore questionable. The contract
is one in which tinie is of its essence, in which if the
subject of the contract is not forthcoming at the time
promised, the purchaser can repudiate. The appellant
has himself put tho case with extreme fairness in sub-
mitting the question as one purely of diligence respect-
ing the delivery ; that is, whether the arrival of the wheat
was in reasonable time within the tei^B <tf.the con-
tract. Respondent haarcontended and bl(MHB3||ltneHaeB
to prove that by a cuJffim of trade at lM^Httl(e days
are allowed fo^^ ttiie seller to engage a«WllnWeh the
contract is for prompt delivery. Alppt^llant contends that
no such custom could be applicable 'to an itoland port
:e Chatham, and that the contract was not for prompt
The custom, if fully established, cannot be
te unreasonable. The sale being made at Men-
bere ^A^^^ustom is alleged to prevail, it may be
med thartbe seller took upon himself the risk of
Mi-
J
~^r'.
t <
"^ ) i^i^ir'*'*^-
\
OOTfirr OF QirRKwg Bfn«|pL ^llflU t80
Clitthatn hoing % Port wh««r« tho ditfti tiUy di H^^niny i***' '
» v«'M»il wiui more th«ii UNual. AUhotIgh the o(Mitra6t i* PO^^J^
/^
not for delivery on * pArtitmUr day, nor is term* for
prompt delivery, yet jti mjpAniniif wan «><|uiV|)ent to «u
ftifnH<nu<nt for prompt delivery. A gotnl deal of dilij^no«
mithewn on IhejiHtj-t of tho Heller ; he put the mntter in
th« hmi^^iiLii mipping [Jroker, at Detroit, the tuiual
*'^^miMr''^*''*"" "" ^'^ '^*'* ' '^ '" "o^'***"*'^'*' that he
i)N lm^PfMu«M) the'ttnMwerg to any of the appliciationM
Iniide. It i» not until j;he lAth of July, that thu
pllerH ^)i«i|nijelveii Meriooiily undertake the affair. *Thii
JH iihewn by their telegramii, and although Toronto ia a
little out the way from a jwrt MUt^h an (^hath^m, i| may
iK'Haid a good <teal out of the way, yet it in a principiU
I port in Ontario for engaging veHselH, and should have
lieen resorted to bo soon an diflitmUy wan exp<irienced in
I getting a vessel at I)«(troit. ^M application to Toronto
jrcNulted in^ho ongugement, with reasonable promptitude
lot' the Schooner " Ariadiie.'-to carry the wheat to King-
jsttfii, and it is 8atiKfactorily| proved by the appellant that
I (ailing vcssoIh were easily procurable at Toronto be-
tween the fith ajid 21st of July, 1H82, at a fair rate of
freight. Therei* fea«on to infer from the proof that the
sellers could have go\ a vessel by being a little liberal as
to the rate of freight. •s^'It would not have be^n fair to
have required them, to pay an unreasonable rate, but
they might, at all eventa, have offered a liberal rate. It is
I true they telegraphed to their brokers at Itf ontreal, on
|15th: J%ly, to enquire-if a Propeller would do. It it
5t shown whether at /that time the question' was
I distinctly put to the buyeris whether they would accept
jfrom a Propeller, but it seems certain that When the
I sale note was passed, th« buyers insisted on a sailing
vessel. They may have had good reasons for, it, and at'
all events they have a sight td insist on their contract.
The question.comes finally to be, whether- an unreason--
able delay occurred in procuring a vessel to carry tho^
hirheat. In the^ippreciation of t^e Judge of the Superior
■"wfnaa*
Yoii TT, OB
4S=
\
,::.n^
1%
M-'
<5^ --
V:
N"
"K^C'II*"*
290
J MOM^REilL LAW REPORTS.
■iW
j^JH«.' CQirrt^the-^'el^ ti^fwi 'unreasonable; we think that the
Nortb^woftd weight of QYidence^at least tends that way, and we feel
BorrowAan. ^^^^^ We 6annot reasonably reverse the finding of the
• learned judge on that evidence. The judgment will
therefore be confirmed. It has the semblance of being a
hardship to the appellants, but on the other hand, it is
remarked that this^kind of commerce could not be carried
on, unless the co^itions of such- bargains could be en-
forced with some degree of strictness.
-- J -DoRiON, Ch. J. :— 1 ' "
There is no doubt from the evidence that a velsel cbnld
have been obtained at Toronto at an earlier dat^,' but the
appellants were not willing to give the rate askied. The
.Court holds the appellants liable for not using due dili-
" gonce. It may seeia to be a jigorous interpretation of
the contract, but this was a mercantile case, and thes^
contracts are to be strictly interpreted.
Judgment confirmed.
L. N. Benjamin, attorney for appellants.
;» Kerr, Carter Sf Goldstein, attorneys for respondent.
rS^ (J. K.)
•^f^^ - "ii'^''% j^v*' ^^^p*'^^^.*''^^''^^^"'''i*f^^^^'f'*'''
■^^^a^j^W?
■:v^
at confirmed.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
December 80, 1886.-
, Coram Dorion, C. J., Ramsay, Cross, Baby, JJ.
FRANCIS E. GILMAN,
■"^ . ..
{Petitioner below),
Appellant;
AND
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL et al.,
/ ^Respondents belouf),
Respondents.
Aaionr-Damages— Unauthorized sale of skares^Dem^rrer.
Hbj):— That an action of damages setting forth, in effect, that a bank,
to which plaintiff had transferred certain shares as collateral security
for a^ advance, had, without right, and against the will of plaintiff
sold/ the said shares at a third of their value, on purpose to injure
pl^ntiff, 18 not demuMble because the plaintiff has not offered de-
Mdant the alternative to substitute «U«0r shares.
The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court
maintaining the second answer in law filed by respon-
dents and dismissing the petition of appellant saufrecoars
with costs. (Montreal, Jett^, J., Feb. 28, 1885.)
The judgment appealed from is as follows :—
"La Cour, apres avoir entendu les parties par leurs
I avocats respectifs, sur le bien fond6 des deux defenses en
droit produites par les intimfis sk I'encontre de la requite
du dit requ6rant Gilman, et d61ib§r6 ; — - r^
"Attehdu que par ladite requ6te Gilman 6nou<* qu'en t
I cembre 1883 il a transports d'abord A Goodhue, en garanfie
d'un pr6t de $25,000, puis k la Banque d'Echange en ga.^-
tie d'autres transactions financieres, troismilles action^ de
cent piastres chacune, qu'il po8s6dait dans le fonds capita]
de la Compagnie d'A^urance la Royale Oanadienne •
qn'en juillet 1884, les intimSs, liquidateurs de la dite
Banque d'Echange, ont, contre son gr6 et malgrfi ses pro-
|te8tations, ill6galement vendn ses dites actions.au prix
chacnneTlisais qu'eneTvalaient trente^
•• •■ h
%
ft!
r\ "
188S.
Gilman
A
Campbell.
«l*|l^ •»■-•••
292
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
piastries : que cette rente a 6t6 ainsi faite dans le but de
nuire an requ6rant et que les intim6s sont par suite res-
punsables de la valenr des dites actions s'elevant a !^90,-
000, et que lo dit requ6rant conclut en- consfequence ^ ce
que les intimSs |»ient condamn^s k lui payer cette somme
de $90,000. *
" Considerant que les intira6s demandent le renvoi de
cette requfete comme mal fond6o en droit, disant ;
" Par une premiere defense en droit : 1st. Que le roqu6-
rant ne pouvait se pourvoir que par action : (2) et non
par requite (3) pr6sentee en chambre (4) sans autorisation
prealable (5) et demandant des dommages resultant de
rinexecution d'un contrat ; , ^*
"Et par une seconde r6ponse en droit (1) que le raq}^
rant n'allegue pas ^voir demand6 ses actions anx intimes.
(2) Qu'il ne pourrait d'ailleurs le faire sans payer sa dette
a la banque (3) ce qu'il n'allegue pas (4) faisant voir an
contraire qu'il n'a pas pay6 les $25,000 dfies a' Goodhue,
et rSclamant n^anmoins la somme totale de $90,000. (6)
Enfin qu'il ne donne pas aux intimes I'alternative de
livrer les actions de la dite compagnie d'assurance Royale
Oanadienne. ,
" Adjugeant d'abord sur la premiere d6fense en droit
des intimes ;
" Considerant que le requerant s'est r^gulierement pour-
vu par requite. Que le jug« en chambre exerce les pou-
voirs de la Cour pour les fins de la liquidation des ban-
ques et qu'aucune autorisation prealable n'est requise
pour proceder par vole de requMe au Juge ou a la Conr.
Vu les articles 43, 77 et 20 du statut 45 Vict., ch. 23 ;
" Renvoie en consequence la dlte premiere reponse en
droit des intimes avec depens distraits a Maitre Onghtred,
avocat du requerant ; , , . /^ v
"Et adjugeant maintenant sur la seconde defense en
droit ;
" Considerant qu'il r^sulte des allegations de la requite
que tout ce que le requ6rant peut demander aux intimes
ce sont ses actions dans le fonds capital de la dite Com-
Hf
pagnie d'Assiirance Boyale Ganadienue et non une con-
-.f ^
I '■
COURT OF QUEEN'M BENCH.
298
defense en droit!
;onde defense en
damnation directe et Iprincipale en argent sans alterna-
tive quant aux dites actions, et que par suite ses conclu-
sioiis ne sont pas justm^es ;
"'Maintient la dite Ideuxi^me defense en droit des inti-
m^s, et en consequence renvoie la requdte du requ6rant
sauf recours, avec dfepins ^ Maitres Greeushields, McCorkill
et Guerin, avocats dqs intim^s." ^
Nov. 16.] A. R. Chightred for appellant : —
It is from that part of the judgment maintaii^ing the
'second of respondenjt's answers in law that this appeal is
taken. "^ '
v^The claim of petitioner, appellant, is for damages, and
4ken under the |)rovision8 of the Act^or the liquida-
-^h of Insolvent Corporations, 45 Vict., chap. 23.
}^. Appellant alleges in his petition that he pledged 8,000
shares of stock in the Royal Canadian Insurance Com-
pany, of which he was the proprietor, to one George O.
GU)odhue as collateral security for the payment of a loan
of $25,000.00 and interest, the contract bearing date De-
cember 10th, 1883.
That on the 14th of the same month, the same 3,000
shares of stock were again pledged by appellant to the
Exchange Bank of Canada, then in liquidation, giving to
the bank the right to pay Goodhue and get the stock and
hold it in pledge for any amount found to be due the
bank by appellant. •» ~
That the respondents paid Goodhue the amount due
him by appellant and got possession of the said stock and
subsequently, illegally and fraudulently sold the same at
public auction, and transferred and delivered it to the
purchaser, and that at the time of the institution of the
present petition it was. out of the power and possession
of respondents.
That the sale in question was an unlawful diiSposition.
by respondents of appellant's property, contrary to the
terms of the contract of pledge ; and that the whole of
the proceedings (Jf respondents were A*audulent andfor
the purpose of injuring petitioner, under color of law,
) r iTmg appellant of his property of
1886.
ailmMi
A
Campbell.
.»,
1
I'S
^ 294
MONTREAL LAW REFORXa
I
IMkr—*
Oilman ^
A
CMnpbeH.
-.■aj'*''
V
J
--f<.
i
C
, ' to . -^ —■
lii' . .
T
7 . ■ .
the value of ninety thousand dollars (190,000.00). And
in conclusion, petitioner asks damages to the full' value of
the siock, thai is |90,0004)0,
To this petition respondents file two demurrers.
The first questions the legality of appellant's procedun.
The second raises a number of objections which when
summarized resolve themselves into two : 1st. That no
tender of the amount of appellant's d^bt was made with
the petition ; 2nd. That appellant should have given res-
pondents thQ,.Qption to return the stock or pay its value.
The first demurrer was dismissed. The. i^econd was
maintained, on the ground that fippellant should hare
given respondents the option to return the stock or pay
its value. And from that part of the judgment, appellant
has taken this appeal. *
#The question for decisioil, appellant cont^ends, is simply,
has he sufficiently alleged a wrong done him to justify
an action for damages ? There is no allegation in res-
I>ondents' 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<l delivery to a bonafule purchaser at a publi<i aur*
tion, WW6 c4n hold the stock against the real owner.
Story on Bailments. Paragraphs 322, 340 ai^d 349.
But it may be urged that appellant's action is not
strictly *ip form one of damages. However that may be,
the "principle laid down by the authors on damages jns-
tifies the conclusiohs of the petition.T^for says Mayne at
page 284, Smith's second edition,-^" the measure of da-
mages is'in general the value of the goods." Just what
is asked by this petition. / » ...^
Appellant alleges in his petition the fra*udulent conver-
sion of the stock in question, and does iiW urge that he
is entitled to it de piano, but that he is entitled to its value
as for a conversion, — and maintains that its value is to
be determined by its highest market value between flie
conversion and the action.
Under all the circumstances the appellant is absolufely
shut up to the action he has taken, — one for damages for
the injury done him by respondents.,
/. N. Greenshields for respondents : —
The second demurrer filed by respondents is based upon
the-ground that as it appears from the allegations of the
petition made by appellant that he is the pledgor to res-
pondents of the said stock and has not paid the respon-
dents the amount of his .indebtedness, and therefore has
no right by law to demand possession of the thing pled-
ged, and that he has no action other than to recover the
stock pledged, ai^d before proceeding with such an action
must tender or ]^t respondents in default to deliver over
the stock held in pledge.
/
/.
f "*
COURT or QUEEire BENCH.
297
It is clear from the allegations of appellant's petition
I that tjlie respondents held the said 8,000 shares of stock
as collateral security for a loan of $25,000 received by-
appellant from Goodhne, in whose rights respondents
now are, and also for a further and additional indebted-
ness the amount of which has not yet been determined, t
bat as appears on his own petition is the subject of liti*'
I gation.
Under the terms of article 1976 of our Civil Code it is
I clear that the dcbto.r (the appellant here) cannot claim
the restitution of the thing given in pledg6 until he has
paid the debt in principal, interest and costs. The appel-
Isnt has not paid any portion of- the debt due to the res-
I pondents and for which the said stock is pledged as col-
lateral security.
The present action or petition is in its nature one which'
asks that respondents should pay ov,er ^the full value of
the stock without in any way having placed respondents
in default to deliver the same. ■
Respondent^ submit that the only course which appel-
lant could take whs to tender to respondents, the amount
of his indebtedness and demand a delivery or transfer of
the stock, .and respondent refusing to trarisfer the same,
appellants' proper course would be an aption to recover
the stpc!^, and in default of respondents^ delivering the
samei that they be condemned topay the value thereof.
Respondents are entitled to deliver the stock as received
by them upon their being paid the amount of appellant's
iedebtedness, and respondents should by said action be
given the' alternatiye of delivering the stock or paying
the value, and in any eveiit appellant has no right of ac-
tion Until «he has paid 'the amount of debt to respondent
or tend^jted the Same.
The following was the judgment in appeal : —
" Considering that the petition of the appdlant whereby
he claims compensation^in damages for the alleged ^unau-
thorized sale by the respondents, of sharecl of stock of tbie"
Boyal Canadian Insurance Company, owned by the 'ap-
pellant and in pledge with respondents, is sufficient in
ISSTi.
Ollmkn
A
,0«nipb«ll.
t' 't
'4 '!i"
ii
t ft-
1;;? '
ISM.
OIIdimi
k
C»mpb«il<
f-
SM
MONTREAL LAW BEFORTa
law, if proved', to entitle him (the appellant) to a jadJ
ment against the respondents, and
" Considering, therefore, that there is errpr in the jud
ment rendered by the Superior Court of Montreal, on th
28th day of Febmary 1885, maintaining the demnrnni
defense en droit therein mentioned as la seconds difense t\
droit, and dismissing the said petition ;
"The Court,^tc., etc., doth reverse, etc., the saidjudjfl
ment, and proceeding, etc., doth dismiss the said demnrrerj
with costs in favor of appellant." ^
Judgment reversed.
A. R. Oughtred, attorney for appellani "~
Ctreenshields, McCorkiU Sf Ouerin, attorneys for respoo-l
dent. ■" , , . ..
(J.K.) *"
Marchftt, 1886.
Coram DoRioN, 0. J., Monk, Ramsay, Cross, Baby, J J.l
LUCY D. CHENEY et al.
{Petitioners en nuliiti de dicret in the Court below),
, Appellants;
and /
ALEXIS BRUNET
{A^judicataire, Contestant in the Court Ifelow),
AND
P. J. O. CHAUVEAU 1-'^
i
(SAer^, ContestatU in the Court below),
■ Respondents.
Bxecutionr— Sheriff's sale—Usitfruct. ^
'■ • . ^ '- ■ ' ■
A sheriff having seised on one defendant the usufruct of an immoveaUe
; and on the other defendantB,the nue proprUU^uad advertised theuli j
in the form quoted in the report :
Hku> :— 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^<aiVe» pf a lot of land which was hypothecated
|to Wm. Fraiicis et al. These creditors instituted an hy-
pbtlie<;ary action for their claim directed in terms of C. C.
2059, against both usufructuary and nm-proprUtairei. On
rneys for respoD-lthis they obtained judgment ordering d^laissement or,
in default, personal condemnation. No d^lautement being
made, execution issued and the sheriff seized the land,
the usufruct as belonging to Dame L. D. C. and the nue
jroprUU one third to each ohild, separate proc6$-verbaux
being made. The sheriff's notice in the Gazette was in the
following form :—
March*?, 1886.
3eoss, Baby, J J.
AL.
( Court below),
Appellants ;
B Court ffelouo),
e Court below),
Eesponpents.
ttfruct. ^
net of an immoveaUe
Ad advertiaed the uli
r was bouml>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»<r C. I*. C. 714, on th«
^ ground that the " essential coliditions and formalities p^«.
cribed for the sale had not been observed," andi^f peoiailt
in this, (|iat the Hale had not been made in • th(|^raanner
announced, — which was that the property, atffi^s com-
bined, would bo sold, — and not morceU into th«' separate
rights,— and thus bidders were not notified so that they
might ascertain by insurance tables,, after learning the
age of the usufructuary, the value of the usufruct. They
also urged several technical grounds; informalities, &c,,
which are referred to in tho iudgmtot«.
The plaintiffs declared i'en rappoi(^-<t_^stice, as did Mr.
I^olson. The adjudicataire Brunet appieared and defended
his purchase,^— while the sheriff" appeared separately and
maintained the regularity of his procedurea^ that hii
mode of sale was not only the" only legal Wde, but alw
that it was in conformity with the notices.
Eviden(H? was made that the value of the usufruct wai
from ten to twenty times the $160 at which it was ad-
judged, and that tho property as a whole was w)rth
$6,000.
Judgment was rendered in the Superior Court on the
29th November 1884, by the Hon. Mr. Justice Taschereau,
as follows : —
"liaCour, etc
" Oonsidfirant que quoique le jugement rendu surl'ac^
tion principale en cette cause fut en declaration d'hypo-l
thdque, la condamuation port6e contre les d6fendeur8 de?
venait personnelle et pure et simple, faute d'option et d«
d61aissement par eux, dans le d61ai requis. de I'immeul^e
en cette cause ;
__J : _J __i_
vJ>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<w/0, rHonor%bl« BC. lu jngt' naiHy).
K. /I Ramnny for App<^llatttii.
LMttn"* Sc i^viil for roHiiondout Hraiiet.
/I ihiimet for rtwpondtnt Hheriti*.
(U. A. It. 9l A. k L.)*
jSoptorabor 26, 1886.
Otram DoHiON, CJ., Kamhay, Tehhikh and CnofM, JJ.
/JOHN L. MORRIS,
" * {Ati^udkalaire in (Jourt heUno),
Appellant;
AND ,
THE CONNECTICUT & PASSUMI»SIC RIVERS
R. R. Co.. '
{Petitionert en nulliti de d4cret),-K
RehpondknUb.
Executitm — Sale of ihares—C. C. P. 696. •*
I When Ik nunibor of Bhares of railway stock wore seized and advertiEedKo be
■old in one lot, and neither the defendant jnor any one intereate<l in
th« Nslo reqiuwtwl the Bhoriff to hoII the HhareH soiwrately, and it did
not apiwur that thoro was any intention tu defraud, or that any loss
hiui been suatained in consequence of the shares being sold in one
lot, but, on the contrary r that such mo<lo of Hale was advanta^oiis
to the creditors, the sale was held k(nk1 an<l valid, althougli the
amount realized thereby was far in exceaa of the judgment debt for
which Uio property was taken in exet^ution. "
The appeal was from a Judgment of the Superior Court,
I Montreal (Johnson, J.), May 80, 1885, maintaining a pe-
tition en nullU4 de dicret.
Johnson, J., in rendering judgment in the Court beloWf
I made the following observations:—
This is a petition by the Connecticut and Passum;
BmiM.
If
1
' iS J ■¥i"'^?f*S, , "3^^
80^ '
. MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
1886.
Morrii
KX & P. R.
Co.
KR
/
1 /.
'^ /'
sic Rivers R. R. Company, creditors of Barlow the defen. ,
dant, to set aside a sheriff's sale of a number of shares in;]
the Montreal, Portland and Boston Railway Company,
seized as belonging to him. T|ie seizure was made by
execution issued in the suit of OBalloran v. Barlmo to i
levy $1,002.54, interest an^ costs, amount of the judgment
recovered by the plaintiff in that »a8e ; and 7,924 paid 1
up shares were seized and sold in one lump to Mr. Morris
for the sum of $12,010.
. There is no doubt that the petitioners who want to set
aside this sale were and are creditors of Barlow, the defen-
dant, for an immense sum of money, of which |150,000 are
now past due ; and that-Barlow at the time of the sheriff's |
sale, and long before, was totally insolvent. Under these
circumstances, the petitioning creditors say that the officer
had no right or power to sell all these shares, or to put
them up in one block, as he did, and that even any con-
sent of the defendant to such a thing would be illegal in
itself, and, inoperative as to his creditors, by reason of]
his insolvency divesting him of any control to their pre-
judice, of his estate, of \yhich these shares were a largq.if
not the principal asset! 'The defendant and the a4iu^
cataire, both of them, conttjst this petition, and they coii-
tend that Barlow's consent was validly and efFectuall;
given to sell in this mannpr. A very great deal of atten
tion was bestowedT)y counsel in,argi(iing every question
deemed to arise in this case ; but I think there are really
only two ^estions : 1st. Can the sheriflf, in any case wher^l
it is avoidable, le^^^ more than is necessary to satisfy debt,
interest and costs ? 2ndk"Was'the proceeding hiBr6,sanction-
ed by law, or in any manner authorized ,dr vali^ed by
the defendant's consent ? Thtf general rtile is thus stated
in pt. 59§^,C. P. "The sale "must nbt proceed beyond
" the amount^ necessary to pay the debt in principal, in-
" terest and cojsjts." That is the rule : but obviously there
are necessary exceptions, as in the case of seizure of an ■
indivisible object of great value for a small debt. In such I
a cabe as that, of course, and of necessity, the sheriff must
sell the thing seized for what it will fetch, and any 8U^
'-m
•I- ,
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.
305
I plus, after deducting debt, interest and costs would be-
[long to the debtor or to his creditors, according to circum-
Istances. But where there is no such necessity, it is c^^'
I coarse otherwise ; and in cases where a selection or order
■of sale can be observed, the defendant has his rights;
land the article cited, therefort^, not only prohibits the sale
beyond the amount to be levied ; but it connects that pro-
vision with anottupr. for it goes on to say : " to this end, the
"judgment debtor has the right to determine the order in
' which the effects are to be put up to sale." -That is to
Isay, tothe end that his property^ may not be uselessly
[gold, the defendant has the right of indicating a mode of
le with the view of restricting it to the mere amount
[wanted to pay hii^debt, etc. ; but nowhere does the law
give him any powmr to extend tite safe for any purpose be-
yond the amount leviable : (in the present case, mote than
I ten times the amount). ' ^ ,
So that wliat was done here appears to have been this :
I a defendant, utterly insolvent, gives what he calls a cou-
sent, which if it is to be called a consent at all, (though I
I should rather call it a device) was a consent to deprive
his creditO|TS of all or most of his property ; but whatever
it was, or whatever its effect upon his creditors' rights,, it
was an act or^^ attempt to effect fhat which the law
does not give a defendant in any case, a shadow of author-
ity to do. It was an act not to regulate the. order in
\ifiAch. effects were to be put up to sale, with a view of
OTifig/^the debtor a. benefit contemplated by the law, viz,
I the benefit of keeping all his propertj'JVtcept so much
[of it i^ had necessarily to be sold ; but one by which he
assumed to order or s^ee that ten times more than was
necessary should be sacrificed. I say sacrificed, because
it was uselesilfly sold, as far as the^urposes of the execu-
tion of th^ judgment went ; and not in the sense of its bdng
a sale .at a ruinous price : for there is evidence that this
stock was of little value beyond that of giving to the
Ibnyer the control of the road : the saihe sort of value as a
[key that is really worth about sixpenice, bnt«thaj;can
[alone open a safe. This consideratiQii. howevet." thomgh it
1S88.
Morrill
Jk
A P. K.RR.
Co.
4
Si
4 R
\^-j%i-
Voi» n, Q. B.
20
i-
*^'
806
MONTREAL LAW REPORT^
Horrii
k
0. k p. R.
Oo.
•«ki*a.«
,».«.*-•:
^I»« •»,.«l
•5^
**•
was made one of the gronnds of the petitio^ that thel
stock sold for less than its value, has nothing io do witli|
the case in th6 view I take of it. By law, a creditor or
any interested party can set aside a sheriff's sale under
certain circumstances (see art. 714, G. P.) I do not deem it
necessary to discuss the circumstances here, further than!
to say that it appears to me essential that the usual fo^|
malities should be observed ; and especially essential to I
the due ,administratidn of justice where the interests of J
creditors are concemJed that an illegality of this kandj
should not be permitted. It was urged by the defenduit
and by thei purchaser that the petitioners had waived
their right by filing an opposition on the proceeds of |;h«
sale. I cannot agree to that. Then it was also saidifw j
the same parties, that the petition contained no precise [
allegations of fraud or collusion; but it coiitains pliiinl
allegations of illegality and of facts which constitute fraud |
in law ; and I am of opinion to grant the conclusions.
Sept. 20,. 1886:] HatUm, Q.C., and Geoffrion, Q. C, for|
"the appellant : —
, The question in^this case is simply as to the validltyofl
the sale in block of 7,934 sliares of the Montreal, PortJ
land & Boston Railway Company, which were sold under f
execution in April, 1884, under ^judgment in a suit ofl
O'Halloran against Bradley Barlow. The shares in qiies-f
tion constituted the majority of the capital stock of the
M. P. & B. Railway company. The shares of this road
are ab'solutel^^ worthless, the road being insolvent, but a]
bloc, they give a controlling influence in the company,]
and to acquire this, they were bought by the appellant for
over $12,000. The judge in the court belov^ annulled the
sale, on the ground that the disposal of the' shares in one
, lump was illegal. It is submitted, on the part of appellant,
that the sale wkB^ made in the only way in which it wai
possible to efiect a sale of the shares at all. It js proved
that the shares had no intrinsic value whatever. No'onej
Would have bid for them if one share Qr one hundred]
shares, hai^been offered separately. , But for the sake (tf j
ac gn i ri n g ft fiontrolling influence , there w ere p a rt i e s wi l l'
)UKT OF QUEEN'S BENCJU.
307
ISM
ing to bid for the wh^ lot. Mr. O'Halloran, the party
who brought the shares^to sale, was one of the bidders. '*^*
He made no objection to the mode of sale, and it is proved*^' * *c^ **'
I beyond a doubt that this wash^he only i^ode in which the
property could be advantageousWdispo^d of The price
was paid immediately by the app^lUnt, \and there is no
ground whatever for questioning the>^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<idence|
of record that it was for the advantage of the creditor!
that the shares should be sold in one lot. There is i
allegation of fraud, and under the circumstances wej
unable to see any ground for setting the sale aside^
^ The judgment is as follows :— j
Considering that the 7,924 shines otf dipitd stcdl(
:i.
4^ .
OOtJRT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
809
C A
1886.
Morrtf
A
P. R. KB-
Co.
he Montreal, Portland & Borfton Railway Company were
sized on the defendant Bradley Barlow, and advertised
)be soldin dne.lot ; ,
''And considering 'that neithrfThe said Bradley Barlow
^orthe respondents evey requested^ the sheriff to sell the
aid shares separately,^ or in other manner than according
I thft terms of the notices given by the sheriff;
"And considering that /the said Bradley ^Barlow has
Lpproved of the said sale •" ■
1 "And considering that the respondents who, as cre-
ators of the said Bradley Barlow, claim by their petitioii ^
) set aside the sale of the said t,924 shares of stock, have
Ittot proved that the sale of said stock was made to 4e-
aad them of any just rights, nor that they have suffered
ay injustice from such sale ;
"And considering that Ihe law doeiifnot require that
Jrailway or other stock should be seized and sold separ-
lately, or in any given number of shares, unless before
Ithesale this is demanded by the debtor or other interested
Iparties, and that it appears that such separate sales would "
|y more advantageous to such deb tpr and his creditors ; •
"And considering that there is error in the judgment '
[appealed from, to wit, the judgment rendered by the ' . ' "
Superior Court at Montreal on the 30th of May, 1886 ; ^ ' :'
"This Court reversing the said judgment of the Su- ^
perior Court, and proceeding to render the judgment ^
wiich the said Superior Court should have rendered, V
4oth dismiss the i)etition of the said respondents by which , •
they prayed that the sale m^e by the sheriff to the ap-
pelant of the said 7,924 shaires of stock be annulled and
set aside ; and the Court doth fui[);her condemn the said ^ ^
respondents to pay the costs as well in tjie Court below ^ , i
as on the present appeal, those ii^ this court to be taxed - ;
) as in a/first class case." " / •, ' '
■ - ' Judgment reversed. -
J. C. Hatton, Q.V., attorney foT appellant. - _ _ , _ /.
C. A. Oeoffrion, Q.C., counsel. .'»*', ^ ^
Lonergan, attorney for respondent.
(J. K.)
" I.
hi
K B
■ii
1t[
, in. j
\
' I
.«
/■
&.1 ■ ^- — - - t-.
4
1
}
1
3
„i4.:..^^
1^
*•»
SJi»«
»«••
-^
»"?'-?«■" '
810
MONTREAL L4W REPORTS.
• * . June 80, 1886.
Corawi DoRioN^ 0. J„ Monk, Ramsay, Cross and
' ■ , Baby, JJ. ' ^ . '
THE CANADIAN PAcipiC RAILWAY 00. '
JJ)^endak hdow)* '
— . . "!Appellant ;
AND ■
JOSEPH GOTETTE, .
, : ' . (Plaintiff hdmo),
\ ; ■ ■ "^ ' '*■■''',. ■■ Rksponpent.
^ Employer— AtxidefU to workmanr^ResponsibaUy of employer.
A gang of men engaged by a railway company were proceeding on i
construction train, to the place where they were abrtut to be em-
ployed. Platform cars were provided by the cdmpany, but the men
(of|jiMn plaintiff was one), mounted upon a csK laden with lomber
an^P lumber giving way, the plalnUff and othera were injured • '
Hku) :-That it was the duty of the company's oMcials to' have pre-
, vented the Workmen from riding in such a dangerous portion, or,
at least, to^jave warned theni very cleariy of the pferij^ and the com-
pany wMb held r&ponsible for the damages sufibred by the men.
The a/peal was from a judgment of the Superior Court,
Jfoutreal, (MoussiAU, J.), April 8i, 1886, mtfintaining the
respondent's action of damages.
The judgment of the Court below (which was affirmed
in appeal), Was iu; these terms :•—
" Jia dour, elc.y;^ • , / '
" Attendtt que le demandeur alldgue qn'ayant 6t6 vere
le deux de juin dernier, engag6 par la d6fenderesse ^xa
aller trayailler comme ^oumalier, k raison d'une piastre
^t demie par jour, au chemin de fer que la dite compa-
gnie faisait construire,' sur la ligne de la Mantawan, dans
\i province d'Ontario, il fut transports par la dite d6fen-
d«|rosse k environ trois cents ^lles plu» loin qn'Ottawa,
oui on le fit monter avec d'autres'homtnes sur im char dfe-
coijivert et charg6 de pieces de bois ; que-xe char Stant
trqjp charg6, et les piquets et les liens qui retenajentlea
~? — ^
\,
"X"
j'^.''
If'-'.'f"
ibUity of employer.
ich was affirmed
IBM.
Y, CX)URT OF QUEENTB BENCH. 811
lites pieces de bois n'6tant pas assez forts, les dites
jrtices tombdrent avec plnsieurs hommes, entre autres le ^"-^ *•<'«'•
dtoandeur ; que celni-ci fut ble8s6 s^riensement et randn ^?^*^^
lincspable de travailler pendant plusietirs moiis, et qn'^a '
Ipar suite de cet ac<iident, caue6 par la fante et la ndgli- ■ ■
Igence^de la d^fenderes^eu ^proavd des dommages qn'il, '^
lestime k quatre cents pia^f res, et qn'il reclame <de la d6- '
Ifenderesse ; ♦ fr:. ^
" Attendn qne la d^fenderesse a plaid6 que I'acciddnt
Ittait dft seulement k la negligence et 4 Timpnidence dn
Idemandeur qui s'6tait plac6 dans une position dange- ." ^ ~
Ireose, contre les avertisseme^ts des employes de la d^fen-
Ideressei . .
" Gonsid^rant qne le demandenr a proav6 les alldga*
Itions essentielles de sa demande, qn'il se tronvait lors de
I'accident dans la condition d'un passagef ordinaire, et
nohdanscelle d'un serritenr de la compagnie : cp qni>
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, an<l.indemQified
by the Oomptkiy, has been examined. It is very matierial
that there should not be any doubt as tp the fact that the
men were sufficiently warned of the danger and order((^
to leave, for the train ought not to have proceeded till th^
order to leave the loaded cat was obeyed, or till measures
of 80 mj»rked a character, had been taken, as to leave no
doabt that the proper orders were given, and that they
were wilfully disobeyed. Thomson's evidence would
probably have made all this very clear, and we- have it
not, nor any explanation why Thomson is not produced.
I aii^to confirm. . , '
■ , ' ■' ' ■ V- .. ' '*• "- . '
T}ie' action is for the recovery of damages for injuries
sustained by respondent falling from cars of*the appel-
lant, lumber on which, he was sitting getting "detached
from its fastening and falling off the car, carrying with
it a number of workmen employed by the appellant, in*
clading the respondent, then'^dn their way to the locality
where they were to be employed in the construction of
the line.
The defence was that the injury sustained by the res-
pondent^esulted from his own fault and refusal to obey
the directions given him by the officials of the company
not to ride on the lumber car in question, but >to 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^
<pi .
' ■*'.
V""
■(?■
f.,-
■fl''
"
£
ll^ :
IC
'1\
.f^-^p—vf^ • «^=
..^
816 MONTK«At tAW RKPOnm
tfarajji DoBiON, 0. J., Monk, Tihhier, flROHfl. Baby, .TJ
JOirN ROSS VT AL,
, ^ {Defemlnntt below),
Al'I'KlJ.ANTH;
AND
WILLIAM L. HOLLAND.
:__ {inaintiff hijhw),
■ ! ■ !" I ' RkhpNwdknt.
Location ticket— Default to perform settlement duties— Cam ella-
iioM of license— 2H Vict., c. 2, s. 29—82 Vict. (Q) 6 H-
■^ 80 Ffc<. (Q.), r. 8. .
A location ticket of certain lota waa KranUxi to O. C. H., in \mx In
1874, the Commiaaioner of (?rown Landa regiatored a tranafer of the
location ticket from (\. 0. H. to reapondent In 1878, the Coniinli-
■ionor cancelled tlie location ticket for default to perform aettleiitent
;-; dutiea.
.' Hmjj :— that the registration by the Oimmiaiionor, in 1874, of the transfer
• to FBHpondont, waa not a waiver of the right of the Crown to caiiail
the l(M;tttion ticket for dB&wilt to iwrfonn settlement dutieH, and tlie
c«n<wllation waa legally «tree(ed.
The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court,
Ottawa district, (McDouoaij^ J.), maintaining an action
«f trespass. '
By a location ticket, bearing date June 9, 1863, two loU
of land, ^in the township of Portland, in the county of
Ottawa, were granted to George O^Holland, the respon-
dent's avleur. hi. 1878 the Commifikioner of Crown Lands
cancelled the sale of these two lots under the authority
of 82 Vict., chap. H, and 36 Vict.; chap. 8, and notice of
such cancellation was given in the Offijdai Gazette. 'Sub-
sequently, licenses were issued by the Grown Lands de-
partment' to the appellants, merchants, of Quebec, which
licenses include the two lots in question. Under these
licenses, the appellants entered upon the lots, and c!at
timber ; whereupon the present respondent, treating the
,/;
\
'W
?■*».'
#-
/
OOtJBT OF QUKRNT^ HKNCH.
817
i'«n«'<4Ution an void, Urouxht an acttort for tr<>«|)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 <aHfl ia th« validity of th«
.aii««'lIation. It wii«l made upon tho roport ofon« (^nrri«,
an ollircr of th« (-roWn Landn d«partmwnt, who. in 1H7»,
r»'jK)rtcd that no iraprovomonta of any d«acription had
b«'n made, and th«^ljyrant ofth« lotH waa cancelled for
non-fulfilment of cojiditiona. Tho atatute n»gulating the
gale of Crown Landa, which woa in fonn? at the time of"
the l(Mation in JiueJtion (28 Vict., c. 2, a. 29) providea that
the rommiaaioner may can«^el i^ny location ticket or li-
mm, if he ia aatiafied that any lo<atee, or any oaaiKnee
claiming under him, has violated any of the conditioua
of location. In 1869, tho Quebec legialatujre paaainl the
;i2 Vict., c. 11, anjended by 86 Vict., «•. 8, «. 9. The Act
of 1869 makea proviaion for the cancelling of granta or
locations in terma aimilar to those of the previous Act.
Sect. 9' of the Acjt of 1872 providff that whenever the
^omraissionerH shilf cancel anf Mle or location, such can-
wlliug shall olFect a complete forfeiture of all moneys paid
by the occupant, put the comfnissioner may grant such
compensation as he may consider just and equitable. Jf f
the cancellation ill thii case was legal, the appellants were
not trespassers, jaud the action ought to be diamiaaed.
The question; therefore, comes to be this : Was the cancel-
latiou legally effected ? It is urged on the part of the res-
pondent that the conditions are comminatory only, and cm
not be enforced, linless the locAtee is first put in default to
fnllil them; and secondly, that there was an alleged ua-
dertaking on the part of the Crown-to dispense with the
performance of ihe conditions of these lots. But the sta-
tute expressly gives the power of cancellation which was
exercised; and las to the second point, the Commissioner
wa8 only authloriased to grant the location tickets upon
the conditions/contained in themC
Fleming, Q.C., and Church, Q^C, for respondent :^
The pnrchflter had paid.part of thepttrchj^J l lJvnfty , fe
IMM.
ir.>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<M»'DoRioN, C. J., Bams/lt, TssslEB, Cross toc^
' Baby,^!.
' r JAMES G. BGYOE,
{Plaintiff in th§ Court bdow)^
Appellant;
,ANi>" '.' -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<r*fiider the policy" jjid. ^ .
The application for insurance sets" forth #iat "It-^is"
" hereby agree^d that this application shall forih the basis
"of the contract of insurance herein applied for, and the
" same form part of said contract as if therein Tecited, and
I
'I
V
IP-
\
■ ^
'%
■
--"'»
826
MONTREAL "LAW REPORTS.
V
ir
I; '^'i
IMS.
Boroe '
Pb«DlzIiu.Co,
I
} «
/
< 1, •'
t.
1 ^ '
-■■■ -*
•*^' • '"*Nk
iasfci'**"
•*^rW
" that all answers and declarations cont^ned in this'ap-l
" plication are and phall he taken to be gtVict warrantien,
" and that "should the applicant become, as to habits, i«
" far different from the condition in which he is represented
" to be as to increase the risk on the life insured * * 4.
" the policy shall become null and void, and the paymenU |
" thereon shall be forfeited." . ■ •♦<^
The policy which issued on this application provided i
that if " any of the declarations or stateipents made in the
" application for this polia9l> (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 tm<rtte. Now,
even if we were to say that the suctMsdir <l titrt ff4n^al of
the insured was bound by the declaration in the applica-"
tion, that the clauses of the application were to form parT^. ',
,of the contract, how can we hold tha^ cessionnairerA titr^e
mireux to a clause of which, he had no notice, and , of ^^
which his title makes no mention ? ' '^ . ■- -
On this point I am of opiniMi that the heir of the insured^ ^
would not be bound, much less then the purchaser ^ith- '^.
oat notice. -^ ■ ■ * ' '■ . • ■■■ '-t ^^ \ ■ .' \^J'.
Having arrived at this cX)nclu8ion on the first point, it ^
is perhaps unnecessary to examine the second -question. I „- (
may, however, say, that I do not think it proved that t^e .
habits of the insured had become so intemperate as seufbi-
bly to augment the risk. The learned judge in the Cojirt
below has correctly observed, that to bring' the dase
within the* i^leged cojidition, it vvaS not necei^sa^y to 8)iow
that the life of the insured had actnally been sWteneA
by intempelrance ; that it was sufficient to show jth^t his
habits increased the risk. Nevertheless, it is equally true
that if the man's life was not shortened tjy his hab|ii^|^ce
the policy, as a matter of fact, the risk was not increased,
and it is plain that the most satisfactory evidence %at the '
deceased's habits had increased the risk would be tha.t
which showed his death was caused ^by intemperance.-.
This, top, is the jevidence the insurance company I princi-
pally relies on. Johnson's evidence amounts to nbthing.
Leslie's is against the party producing him, Mme. Germain,
who wafe married to Charlebois four months before his
death, says : " Quelque fois il prenait de la boissodPbt il
l^itait so'uvent sous rinfluencede laboisson, et'c€f n'^tait
' V I
V
t V
iV
SC^J" ^1?^'
/,-
1-:l
"m-
asa
lilOSTKKAt I44W REPORTS.
DM
UOVM
'Hb? p
pii« boil iwur da MiiU.." All thi« dperf not m«ttii vory mn. h
«.-..-rn..O.!^ 7**tr!,^;- "^"'^^'•^""'r. t'^-'timony. there would b<, „o
caM lor the dofeudaiit at all worth roii8id«>riiig. ' 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<H< on which the case turns is raised '
I by^a blea based on a condition of the insurance, to the
letToiit that if the assured became aH to his habits so far,
difU'rcut from the ronditiou in whi^h he was then as to .
increase the risk on hw life, (he policy would become
md. / That after the effecting of the insurance, Oharle-
bois Had become intemperate in his habits to an extent . *
to increase the risk on hxm life, whereby the policy be-
came void. . ^'^■ :::,-■■_■ . .- :■'.. -■' : ',^ ■ _.x=^4.J:'- ^
This condition was not expressly declared by the policy
itself, but resulted from the written representations made
by Charlebois in his application for insurance in a\foir*
mala used by the company. , V ^ *
This application contained the following ^inse : " It is
" hereby agreed that this application shall form the basis
" of the contract of insurance herein applied for, and the
" same shall form part of said contVadt a^ if therein recited,
" and that all answers and declaration}^ contained in this
" application are and shall be taken to be strict w^arranties, *
" and that should th^ applicant become as to habits so far
"different from the dondition in which he is now repre-
" sented t^ be aa, to increa/se the risk on the life insured,
"the polrcy shall become null and void, and all paymento
" made thereon shall be forfeited." And in answers to
questions contained in this form, Charlebois declared that
his habits were temperate and sober, and that he was not
then and had never been addicted to the use of any -
spirituous or malt liquors, opium or other narcotics.
Charlebois subjected himself to these co^ditioJlS by his
■^'
^Sf^ .
>^'
C-
^WIWf '
IfONTHlEAT. T.AW RKPOfifH.
I?
H<i»o«
♦:?
mr
u, «« "ol^nplion to the •pplic^tion, And it wan by the pojiq
^. ditioM, oneof which an th»»reiu R«>t 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 <le 1a boiiwon." Q. " Et avox-voos eu occiunou d« *
lai reprocher MiiH habitudm d'int«imp6ranco ? " A." Qui." '
q. " Poufquoi faiHiex- voua de« repro(;h«« i\ M . (Iharleboii ? 'V ' \
A. " Pwce quo c« n'6tait pas bon pour iia 8%nt6.'*
An eminent judgM, in a cane resmnbling the present, p. ■ '
remarked : " It ia scarcely poMsible to imagine iutemper- * ^ ;M
aiK-o not injurious to health.^ tffS^^ik^ T
It may be ii OharleboiH had not wP|^Wl| ^htt policy^ ^
an t^arly a« Oi5|ober, 1876, he migHnflH^|liake of hiii "H
laccemora, have been mor<^ ('autioua^Hw^|^daot. Di-
vesting himself of all interest, he did^ptrtMiuire to oon-'
lider how they would be atlbcted by his death. |
The mi^jority of the Court are of opinion that thojudg«-^
ment appealed from is (;Qrrtict.and shouUl be confirmed^
tnd they order accordinglv.
Judgment of S. 0. confirmed, Ramsay and Baby, JJ.,
dissenting.
Greenshiekb. McCorkiit, Guerin Sf OreenahiekUt attorney!
for appellant.l^ --^
Maclaren, Q.C., counsel.
Laflevf 4* HMle, attorneys for respondent.
(^. T.B.)
Hb
w
'\i
A
r
r
■^ ,
V*
'%^l
'53!::::
I
lit
if
PF
882 ifONTREAL LAW REPOETS.
>- 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<i; to be held by ihemwF
T
«-.
/*-
t,. ,.
••'fe
OOUIKT OF QD
BENCH.
385
^•3
' collateral security for the payment of said notee at ma-
' turiiy, and when said notes are paid ttie tiaid tefii loco-
motives are to*te re-delivered to me. '"
^•(Signed,) Bbado:y Barlow."
And under the following agfeoment, dated at St. Johns-
Ibury, Vt. May 10, 1888.:— ' ' ^
"Whereas, as appears by my a^eement of the 16th .
of January, 1888, Horace Fairbanks^i^nd Franklin Fair-
I" banks endorsed, for me certain notes to the amount of
' 150,000, described in an agreement signed by lie, pledg-' '
ing ten locoinotives as collateral security for thetpay- ,
I'mentof said'tiotips, the names of sai^ locomotives now
declared to b^ as follows : C. W.^^'oster, Bradley Bar-
" low, B. B., Smalley, L. Hqbinsoff, jjongueuil, Newport,
North Troy, A. B. Chaffee, Ri(jyprd, and Farnham,— ',
'said locomotives to be held as ci^tateral security for
I" the payment of said notes or any r^i|pwals thereof —
1" for value received. ^ '
"(Signed,) Bradlby Barlow."
After these agreements, the locoinoti^s continued in
[the possession ^ Barlow". ^ ^ « ■ ^
The question here appears to me to be similar to the
lone decided by the Privy Council in Ciishing'^ I)upuif. ( ' )
It was there deSided th&t the transaction wiMs not a gen-
I nine but a simulated 'sale, and. if at ^11 ^ealpwaaji con-
trivance intended to obtain, under ^lour of ar^ale;, a
security upon-the plant and effects, and thus to avoid de-
livery of posse°ssion Vhich ^s esseitial to the'validitji^of
a pledge. With this jase before me,, I must }m\d th^t the
case of the plaintiffs fails. The action.; is dismissed, and
the intervention is maintained. ^ '- ,, it* ",
May 28, 1886.] • ' ' Z' \ ;.
Ghureh, Q.G., and'il. D. Nicolls, for appellants : — ' ' >
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<jiC'roB8,3.
■.. ^--^.V"
-::.. ■■/ - •
¥
News, pw 140.
%\
i
!•■,
jSM»
,-<
»*
lAli-
Jll
**©
■•* ■..■ "
r
"X
18M.
V.
ir
840 » ' kONTRKAi;^ LAW REPORTa X >
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<ilitato the
Idttlivory. Tl^e bill of lading was a jwwer of attorney for
Dtignault to^^amtro* the consignment, and having deliv-
ered it, to rWoive the price. His power uould not be
himited by thVtestimony produced ; his written autj^rity.
could not.thusjbe altered.
Ramsay, Jj— • ' .
Oil the 4l!!i<)ct., 1S84, at Montreal, wapellaut sold and
lignjed to^eliVor to respondents, withH fourteen days,
Itwo tars (^barley as per sample hjft with respondents, at
Ithe rate bl^66c. per fifty pounds, to be delirered in
I respondent^' yard, they furnishing the bags. ' N
)n the tSth November, appellant delivered, through
lone Daumault, 116 sacks Of barley containing 640 bushel*'
and 7 iBjand respondenle paid Daignault |4 for cartage,
1*207 casfflkid the balance of J160 they sent by m»it .to
|ippelfant,^^heque?ipayable to appellant's order, ;
^" ^^*^ |WP^^*'™^*'' appellant sent the reiriainder
I of the grawby T)^toiault. - In> 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(<Naioii of the gmxii
ill furtherance of a <ontrat;i with the owner. Kna|)oii<It^nti
did.^ot trnst Daignault furthor than apiMtUant did. II«
mi^h^ have iitolen the wheat inntond of the money. Thii
aeema to me to he tonclunive, unhmN ther«« wan notiiu* to
reNpondentH not to pay Daignault. ApiMillant rontt'ndi
that there waa «n«h noti«'e, . The letter apeakd for'itH«'l|,
and reiipondentN do not appear to have done otherwiw
than apiM>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 <ronfirm.
Judgment confirmed.
Locate, Olobenski/, BixaUton Sf Brosseau, attorneys for ap-
pellant.
Abbott, Tail Sf Abbotts, attorneys for respondents.,
(j. K.) %,
' I
1
!•
■ /■•
■ ■ . '
»
. . .ir ,
1'
11 ■>
\
' '
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<i
lllfl a atateiiiont and makti t)>« <I<>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<uie, 1886, based upon the previous order de-
cieeiug ]||pebeiC^to be in contempt of ■ Qourt, and* con-
Vin«berg
'Ranioin.
*
=w
M
^#^,V'->>^'
■■.*■
.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
§ , <raMi/c dismissed, and i^^s so ordered.
Til ,• J. . « ., ~\
-\
V.
*d'^
:^f
The judgment of the cWrt is as follows •-*
^ " The Court, etc., V * ' V
^-Considering that Israel tineberg. one of the' defeud-
ants, in this cause, now appellant, was arrested under a
/capias issued at the instance of the respondents, plaintiff
below and gave bail under Art. m C.C.P., and inasmuei
30 Y««wr^Tr '*' *^,f '^P«"o-Court. Montreal.J'ufc
30, 1885 the said Israel Vineberg was declared to be in
contempt of Court for not having filed the statement re
quiredlby C.Cr. t64, IBS and 166, which he fiad bee ,
T^ Lu'^''^ *"* ^^ by judgment of the said Superior
-Court of 4th May. 1885, and was condemned by thfsaid
judgment of 30th Jiine, 1885. to be imprisoned in tie-
common gaol of the district of ly^ontreal, and to be detainejl
in ?uch gaol untii otherwise ordered by the said Court- '
"And considering that a commitment for contempt
musibe for a given time, or until the person in contempt l
does or iswillmg to conform, and not generally and J
during pleasure ; ° - !
J^^n^^^Tl^^ *^"' ^^^ '^'^ judgment ofM
June, 1885. there IS error ; ' . ;, •'
" Both quash the commitment of 30th June, 1885 with
costs, as well in the Court below as in the Court hero."
^ Judgment reversed.
MacMMSter, Hutc^nwn Sf Weir, attorneys for appellant
Gtrpumd 3f McGibbon, attorneys for respon^dents ^
■ t ■
.- V', ;.:■
'/-.
■■#>
■<. ■ ,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 </f the prst" bequest of $1,000 t&»<<tbe f
y ^anddaughter, contained )» th6 will, i ., h
:^jWhp appeal wjig fromaludgmeiit'of thaCotiirtof Re^ftw, **
; il^Streal, Apflt SO, 1886, ^JpHNSON, ToBR4NCE,*LoHANCteR,
^^.), reversing a judgment of th^SuperiorG<Mirt^Montreal,
January 17,1885, TaschereafTU.) . > | : 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 $3yO<M), under the '^f^dic;^.!!! her',
fii^flf tho 31th O^tflhflr, 1888. \, ^ '■ - ' ~'- '■ "
/
.^<^i
' A
\ ■ «
852
MONTREAL LAW REPORTa
it thuQ.
The People's Bank do not contest, butv siit
selves to the decision of the Court. ^ <
Thd leading principle to guide the Courts iir sncn . ase*
, 18, to judge from the wontext of the testamentary do*#'
, ments of the intention of the. testator. I think the Suiw. l
rior Court in Review adopted the correct vMew of the easel
in 'holding that the legacies (outlined in the codicils dis-
posing as they did specifically, of all the Bank stock the
testator had in' the People's Bank, opera|«d a revocation of
the first bequest of $1,000 df the same 1^ favor of the tes-
tator's granddaughter, ^rs. Haines. He appeamto have
been possessed altogether of |5,000 of Bank stl^ in tfie^i
F^ople's Bank, in the City of Montreal, whi«h ^e h^ldat
^heiime he made his will on the 8th ^of July, 1881 and
^continued to hold when he made th^ te9dicil8 of date the
11th October, 1883, and up to the time ot' his decease Tiie
bequests are so worded ^ to imply that they are to be
taken out of this |5,000 of Bank stock; when, therefore
on the nth October, 1883, he, by his todicils, disposed ot
the whole of this 16,-000' of Bank stock, he did not mtmi
that a previous bequest of |1,000 of the same Bank fitock
should remain in force. The last disposition of it mnsi ther^
fqre, be construed as a revocation of the first. This inev
itably Igads i» the conclusion tl^t the judgment appealed
ftom must be confirmed. ,f
Judgment of Court of Review confirmed.
■»«</«• 4- iig-A/Aa//, attorneys for appellants. .
-^bbott, TaU Sf Abbotts, attorneys fbr respondent M tr
Fuller. <"
V
-VT"
« • ,,
rW :-
— ' I . 1
■^ •
'->i^
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.«<H. "VTilkins & Oie^, k New .York,
|45(r.58, laqu«lle traite fut accepte par Vdit Rogers, pay-
able a la '^ Tradesmen's National Bank " a New York que
cette traite ne fut pas pa"y6e a 8on ecimtamct. mada fut pro-
testee le 12 octobre 18^3; que, d^ le mois de juillet
■ 1883^"W^ G. Rogers^-jj^tant devenw.ftisolvable, p>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^<BftdeuW lui tranppor-
(^t Iptigrt^lflTnatifffl rontrp Rofprw f*t tAT^gi-nphivsont
fti\
. tt -t
\.h- «■'
m
iV-i-^ v^*
V
■fi'
■•M-.-4
'iX
iK
;T8.
ditionssuivanteN:
il^andises au pri^l
)ii do cinq ponrf
• les d^fendgnrset
•I* 1^8 partit'8, pouj
feudeurs, BUf |,.,|(|
pourrait <>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 <
<A
"'Vila
BENCfi. J
I /v
au dit Rogers, le m^mo/jour i K|K.Tork, qu'ils ftc^«p-
taioutson concordat, 0t pourvn q>*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 <vntihn da/iH la pias-
tre ecrivit aux,dil']ptiideurs 8<)UH/1»* nom d^ J. Il/Wilkiu8&:
Oie., a Montr6avle8 iuformau/q^'il ooutiiimi/t s«8 aflaires.
et l^ur dema^idant de lui ren^vo^er leH tr()i«yillets de com-
position, et promettiAit que^la/traite qui devenait *uo le
V2 d'otitobre 1888, sor'ait p4y/e iV sou ccjieaut!©, ^t tm^S*
quant qi;ie cetto traite 6t»i^ga^fi '»*»*» '■ JP« ^«« detendettr*
8ttr r^c^ptibn de eetto Jettre transmlMit le 11 aoiit 1883,
il Rogers, a New York, /es troiN bill6t8 de composition oi-
ilesstts nientionn68, <3iiinontant deisiOl i-hacun, lesquels
tareutre^us a New Y6rk par le/dit Rogers: ^ le 19
Janvier lB83i le dtenwndeur ests/mpta et devint poneur,
par IVntre^ise du/dit John Henry Wilkins', un billet datfe"
a Quebec, le 19 d^mbre 1882, et signe par " Gin^raa &
LangloiS'" payable a troiB.Baojs de date, a I'ordre de J. H.
Wilkiiis & Cie, au bure^ii de la banque Union du Bas-
"' Canada, pouf la ^o9un#de i^lOa^B.-endosse parX IJ.
Wilkins & tlie., et qui<;8t deveuu du»le 22 mars JJ^, et
qtl'il fat protests, a sou ecli6Snce,^aute de paiementFque
le 6 f^^rier 1883, le dit John Heiiry Wilkins, qui foisait
alors di affaires cbmrae susdit, se rendit a ]a place d'af
faifes $3 d^maildeur, en la cit6 de Montreal, et 4einan'
a emprWler '$136 pour. p4«r des droits de dquane,
obtint cette somme du demandeur par un cheque date du
6 ffevrier 1888,' payable a l>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,
<H:omme susdit par soi^action qui "a"6te signifiee aux [^k- ,
tendeurs le 80 Janvier 1884> 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</ la dite trailje, et que les d6fen-
^ dew". en remettant a> 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 $186, montant du cheque du 6 f6vrier
^^^^^f^^^ le billet de " Gingras & Langlois,"
^^ et ql<e l.es d6fendeurs u'ont jamais, eii le b6n6fice de ces
.,^ansactionsqui.6taient des affaires personnelles du dit
John Henry Wilkins avec le demandeur sous la seule res-
. ponsabilit6 du dit John Henry Wilkins. les affaires que
faisaitle dit John Henry Wilkins 6tant pour 16'compte
des dfefendeurs seuls, ce que connais^aii le demandem*,
-::::que les billots de composition bht 6t6 lefeis k Rogers du
consentement du demandeur qui s Woblig6 d payer des
detteis de Rogers ; ' '
- i 'I
.: -/
1
'■c-
OQtTRT cap Q'
#
BENCH.
^
" Gonsiddrant' qi^e les d6f0ii4ea^ Hont lea portenra de 1*
traite da 9 avril 1888 qui est devenue dOi le 1£ u<:iiit>re
1888; I . ' * ■" -
" Consid^rant que le dejuandeur s'eit,
2.'i juillet 1888, oblig6 envers J. II. Wilkl
payer cette traite et que J. H. Wilkins & VA
alors pour les d^fendeurs ei les reprisontaii'al
bligation contract6e par lu demandeur dans la'
25 juillet 1888, doit proftter aux d6fendears qui
ment le b6n6ficQ de i'obligation contenife dans ^oetto
lottre ; . ,,
" Oousid^rant que la remise des dits- billets di coinpo-
8iti6n faite par les d^fendenrs au dit Rogers o'a pas en
pour etfet de lib6rer le demaadeur de. i'obligation qn'il
avait contract6e par la dito lettre du 26 Juillet 188?, Vu ,,
que le but dn d^femandeur en demandant la remise de ces |
billets de oom position 6tait de so faire payer le nion,tail|jt „
par le dit Eogers, et que cette remise ne peut avoir pour
effet que de rendre les d6fendeur$ 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 /
^ ' * <X)tJllT OF QinSEira 6£ltCH.
861
If this were got over, there' would still be the set-off
I against appellants' set-off of all that Osborn had paid to
IWilkins in good faith. Appellants say, yon can't add to
Uoar declaration by special answer. That doctrine is not
[trae in the sense appellants attach to it. The doctrine is
Wis, yon can't add to your demand ; but no one-ever said
lone could not avoid the plea by special answer. '"Other-
wise pleadings would be closed and issue joined by the
declaration, plea and general issue. The ordinance does
not say that.
This compensation of the alleged compensation amounts
I to this : if Lewis &; Oo.> 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
''^<c
■ JW ^ . J '
^ r-i^^'^^'^. -** |-f*> 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<!t of 1886 without following; the
dinary course. Thirdly, the pretended practice as
tiarmacist set up by the appellant, as the partner of his
Irother, being illegal under the Act of 1876, cannot
Wuce any effect. The judgment of the majority of the
Cofirt of Review adopted this Wew. and it is sustained^
by the authorities cited. *. *
1^
DOBION, Oh. J., for the Court, held that the appellant
m entitled to the benefit of section 8 of the Act of 1886.
.he reasons are -sufficiently set forth in the written
ndgment of the Court, which is in the following terms :—
" La cour, etc. . . S*j • -
" Consid6rant que I'appelant a, pendant pl^^SJ^e cinq
lans avant la mise en vigueur de I'acte 48 Vict. (qT) ch. 86
1(1886), exerc6 dans la province de Qufebrc^ savoir, a Saint-
Isauveur de Qufebec, la profession de chiVtfiste, droguiste
let apothicaire, tant pour son propre compte qu'en 80ci6t6
javec Ovide Etienne Brunet, sob frere d6c6d6 ;
"Et consid^rant que I'appelant a produit an R6gi8-
Itraire de I'Association Pharmaceutique de la Province de
Quebec, intim6e en cette cause, dans les donze mois de la
I paaHfttion de cette loi, la preuve qu'il a exerc6 la pro-
ssion de chimiste, drOgulste et apothicaire pendant plus
[de cin<|''ttnB avant la pas^tion de cette loi ;
1 " Et conBid6rant que I'apfielant a, par Id, acquis le droit ,
en vertu d^ la section 8 drkxdit acte, de se faire inscrire
coinme licenci§ en pharmacie, teonfonnfement aux dispo-
/
\
■■ -I:
'' I-
i .4.1
li
i ■ ^
It
■'/'■"•' ■
864
MONTREAL LAW REPORm
■■ ■ I
Brnnst
A
VAMoolation
PharniaMu-
lliiiie.
f '..
4
sitions du dit ac^t^, ce que I'Aiwociation intim6e a ref
de faire ;
"Bt considfifant que cette section 8 du dit acte ne peg
8'appliquer'qu'A ceux qui out sans droit et ill^galemea
exerc6 la profesaion^e chimiste, droguiate et apothicw
et que dds lors il eslTmdiffi&rent que I'appelant ait exw
cette profession en son propre nom ou en vertu d'l
soci6t6 prohib6e par la loi, ayant dans I'un ou I'autre
exerc6 sans droit et ill6galement la dite profession ;
"Bt con8id6rant qu'il y a erreur daiui le jugemen
rendu par trois juges de la Cour Sup6rieure. si^gea&t
IWvision a Montr6al, le 8| octobre 1886 ; ,
"Cette Cour casse et annule le dit jugement du J
octobre 1886, et confirmant le jugement rendu' en premie^
instance par la Co\ir Sup6rieure, le 22 juillet 188
ordonne qu'il 6mane un bref de mandamus' p^remptoh
eiyoignan* k la d6fenderesse intim6e d'inscrire I'appelami
comme licenci6 en pharmacie, conform6ment 4 la dite lid
de pharmacie de Qu6bec, sous le d61ai de quinze jours, J
compter de la signification du present jiigement. et i
d6fimt par la dite dfifenderesse intim6e de ce faire sous 1«
dit d61ai, a oondamn6 et condamne la dite d6fendereMe|
mtimfee atf paiement d'une amende de #2,000. k «ln
pr61ev6e suivant la loi, et a condamn6 et con^fjline li
dite d6fendere8se intim6e aux dfipens encourus tant J
cpur de premiere instanpe qu'en r6vision et sur le present
appel." .
Judgment reversed. (')
Conriveau Sf Pari, attorneys for appellant. .
Archambaidt, Lynch, B^geron ^ Migneault, attorneys for
respondent. '
(•) Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was gnuted.
■-r"
1/
0017RT OF iQVISN'fl BXNOB.
866
tion intim^e a ref
lada WM granted.
January 26, 1886.
Coram BdtoNK, Ra^bay, Tebhier, Gross/Baby, JJ.
EUGENE M. CGPELAND.
(Defendant in Court below),
'X APPBIiLANT ;
NORBEET LEOLERC,
(Plaintiff in Court below).
Respondent.
arraii and imprisonment — Probable cause — Complaint
/ dismissed for defect of jurisdiction.
|luj> :— 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 <ond«mn the H»iA d«f«ii(lttiit CopoUiid to pay to
Ipliintiff tho mim of one hundrod dolU™, to comiKm«»te
Ifor iill <luiiiftK»'N r»Mil and Aumiinal, for th« llh'gttl arrmt and
IrapriHounumt'of plaintiir. with iiiloreHt thoroon from this
|d»y, iind (OMtii, «ui in aiv a<Hion of the lowent cUbh in the.
Isupi^rior CJourt, Huch yoitu to include those of all the wit-
Umm and depositioiiH produced and eiamined for the
d«f«Midants conjointly, and costs of review against him,
|C!oi)eland, dilntraits, mc. ;
And an re^ardH the judn^ment appealed from.'in so far
L regards Gundla<ik;, the said judgment is held to call for
modification, and /his Court, rendering the judgment that
ouf^ht to have hLm rendered as lietween plaintiff and
J Oundlack, contir/ns the said judgment, in so far as dis-
I misBing the n<-.ti«n as regards him, Oundlack. but orders
such dismissal \to be and read with costs to said Gundlack,
gave costs of sdmuch of the enquAte in the Superior Court, '
1 88 Copeland by this judgment has been and is condemned
ta pay, the C6urt intending that he, Gundlack, may tax
[ against the jiaintitt" the costs of the witnesses examined
expressly" fat him upon his sepjirato pleadings, to wit,
Copeland, Larochelle and Dudley, and without costs of
review against him, Gundlack."
. Nov. 2/, 1885.] W. H. Kerr, Q.C, for the appellant :—
' The allegations of the declaration are to the follpwing
effect :-/-That on the 29th January, 1881, J||^t>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<l
Laelaro.
i 4"
;?|
T,^'> "
■'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<fiM'«.
Th« principlo in»y b« millMKli<Hl in the following wortb:
— Whttm a {Mtnion \myn ah information b«tor« a Joiitico of
tiio P«t«(H«, that A crimH hiw hmn (X}mtnift«id for whioh
lui'h Juitico hiui giuittral jurtHdii^tion, and Nuoh Juaticu
l^riiiilM a wiirrunt iqion which thn (rnrty odcawHl ia arn^Nt«)d,
but hw in at'tttrwurdH diachargud upon tho ground thatihu
JuHli«-u hod no -authority in that Npwnal vmm, thu com*
pUinant in not liable. - - .
:;Addiiton on Tortu, pp. 671, STBfTlB, and caaea cited.
Thu appellant, whilnt confident in the atnmgth of the
. poHition oecapiud by him, itubmita from the evidohco that _ ^
thu reapondont haa not shown want of niaMonable or pro-
bable cauie, '
AhfiUh^. North Eastern Bif. Co'y., L. R., 11 Q. E 1>. 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 <M>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
■-■■<t
COURT OF QUWRIWI RKNCH. 87?
Deoumbor 80, 1886.
Ji"
Coram DoRioN, O.J., Rambay, Orghs, Baby, JJ.
ISAAC H. STEARNS kt al.
(thfendantt in Court below),
Appkllants;
■' ■ ANI) *.
ALICE L. ROSS kt vir ^
{Plaintiffs in Court below).
Respondents.
Leator and leasee — I^'ectmetU — Action by proprietor of
undivided half.
HuJ) :— That the proprietor par indivit hM a right to bring an action ol
ejectment against a penon holding tlie property aolely by the will of
a co-proprietor, the proprietor of an undivided share not having
any right to leaae the whole property, nor even kia own share of It,
without ,tbe consent of hit* co-proprietor.
The ap^fd'^^lia from a judgment of the Superior Court,
I Montreal 1[Torranob, J.), Aug. 22, 1885. maintaining an
action in ejectment brought by the female respondent as
proprietor in usufruct of one undivided half of the pro-^
perty occupied by .the appellants. The iudgment of the
Court below is IrSjported in M. L. R., 1 S/C. 448. ^ ' i
Nov. lt^885.] W. H. jr<?rr, Q. C, aifd C. B. Carter, for/
I the appellabts.
Selkirk Cross for the respondents. T
Ramsay, J. : — '
This is an action of ejectment and damages brought bjf^
I the proprietor par indims against the tenant. By the jndgp
meat, defendants "irere condemned to pay damages and
the conclusions dn ejectment were jgpranted in full; an4
from this judgment they now appeal.* The points i|isisted
upon now are : that there was no dami^, and tiiat the
respondent as co-proprietor could not eject tho tenant
who held by the permission of the other co-proprietoiv ,'
.^^
"H
I
t^
«
^'Ili^
MO
MONTRIur. LAW RKfORTH.
.•;^.
ML
Ic-J.
iM*
RlMnM
V''
t
Tho ii«<ond of theauquoationii only ro<]uirM to beoxam.
Ined. It Memi to be unqu(>«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 <oinwi
in. A tM)-pToprietor can etect the tenant holding from the
other co-proprietor, on the same principle that he may
bring his action to'pre\';6nt the misase of the prop«'rty
See Guyot "Indivis" /198. Also Dig. Bk. 8 Tit. 6 1. 2.1
** Et magis diet potent pJohibemU potiut quam faciemU ease jut \
todo." ' L
The qnestion of damages ahoi^ld not be touched.
JDpRION, 0. J.
The appellWts in this cam hold no title fifbm the
co-proprietor. The dnly evidence is that J. T. Kerby, thej
husband of the co-proprietor, says he consented to it.
This is no title/ There is no sufficient t>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<rappoll«iita caoaed • writ of prohibiUop to be iuued out of the 8a>
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<tllAnti,
John H. R. Molflon ^ Bro«. and auu Andruw^Kyttu, caiiN«^l
• writ of prohibition to be iMui>(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<!eHM)n
carried ou' the business of brewers at tho city and district
of Montreal, for over 80 years.'
That it has been, the custom of the trade and businen
of brewers to send out their employees and draymen for
the purpose of selling and delivering beer to their i^tu-
tomers, and that no objection has ever been made nntil
the institution of said prosecution against ^•MjIkljMp'Sttom.
' That the appellants l|^n H. B. Mol8o^HH£|^en
duly licensed in at^cordance with the |Hp|^HRnae
Act, 1880, of the Dominion of Canada, which license, ao>
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 ha<l prcx^eeded with the caae, •
nd that th*' atnie wa» Under adviaement .by him
That th," Qaeboo Lirenm) Law of 187HaiHi| itramend<
Dtutfl, under which the pr6iW4!ution was instituted, waa
Dtirely nncK>natitulional, 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 & <Bros. i^heinselves had no right, in vin
of said license, to sell the said beer off their premiM
without license from the t*rovince of Quebec.
The present appellants answered this intervention,!
OOUST OF QUEENnS BENCH.
886
■*.*i
erating the allegations contained in their petition for the
I writ of prohibition.
The license of the appellants, John H. B. Molson & Bros.,
is filed of record, and admissions have been filed by the
parties, of the matters of fact set forth in the pleadings
and of the custom of trade set forth by the appellants,
and fnrther that the legislature of the Province of Quebec
returned to the brewers licensed by the Dominion Qovem*
ment, the amount of license fees imposed by Act of the
Local Legislature upon said Brewers, owing to and after
the decision in the case of Severn 4* 3%« Queen, decided in
the Supreme Court of Canada, at Ottawa.
The learned Judge of the Court below, held that the
Act in question was constitutional, that the said Court*
of Special Sessions had jurisdiction over the said com-
I plaint^ that the said Court could take cognizance of the
I special circumstances of the case and determine thereon.
That the appellants were not without remedy, inasmuch
as he held that they colild appeal frpra the decision of
the Court of Special Sessions, by a writ of certiorari, and
that^a writ of prohibition did not lie.
It is submitted that the Writ of Prohibition lies to pre-
vent the exercise of any unauthorized power in a cause
I or proceeding of which the subordinate tribunal hasjn-
risdictiou t$o less than when the entire cause is without
its jurisdiction. Thus, for instance, a "Prohibition lies in
England where th& Ecclesiastical Courts allow illegal or
I disallow legal evidence :— Lloyd on Prohibition, pp. 29, .
1 30; High on Mandamus, &c., sect. tSl and n. 4.
It is submitted that the "Writ was never governed by
! any narrow technical rules, but was resorted to as a con-
venient mode of exercising a wholesome control over in-
I ferior tribunals.
The case of Severn Sf- The Queeh, 2 Supreme, Court Re-
ports, 70, establishes the principle that the power to tax
I and regulate the trade of a l>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.
li<Jence8 de Qti6bec de 1818. II nel'a pas fait ; par laclaiuel
71 de la loi des licences, il 6tait done passible de raraendel
qui y est imposde. Le fait que Ryan §tait Temployg dal
autres apWants et qu'il n'agissait que sous leurs ordni,]
ne le disbulpe pas d'avoir trangress6 la l6i des licencw,!
car pour cette offense il doit 6tre trait6 comme son prin-
cipal, k moins de dSmontrer qu'il n'a t^i que par con-j
trainte.
SEPTlilME BAISON.— Les
appelants Molson 6taient dei|
distillateurs dument licen^i^s du Gouvernement fM^wli
Apres lejugement rendu par la Oour Supreme, dans ul
cause de Severn et La ReiHSf les appelants pouvaient pent-l
6tre croire que cette Jicence leur accordait le droit d»
vendre dans leur distillerie, sans 6tre obliges de prendwl
ilfiie licence en vertu de la loi locale, la bi^e qu'ils com
fectionnaient, maisils n'avaient certainement pas le droitl
de colporter et de vendre au dehors cette mdme hienl
sans Hie tenus de prendre la licence exigde par la loi dtl
Quebec. Aujourd'hui, depnis la decision rendue park!
Gonseil Priv6 sur la loi des licences f§d6rale, il n'y a pai|
de doute que les distillateurs sont obliges de prendre umI
licence en vertu de la loi locale, puisqu'il a 6t6 d^idSqnel
les licences pour les ventes en gros appartiennent aTal
difiSrentes provinces.
HuiTifeME BAISON.— La decision jqui vient "d'etre ren|
due par le Conseil Priv6 sur la valeur de la Loi des
cences f(§d6rale, rdgle cette questi(]|n. . Les ,di8tillateiui|
doivent 6tre sur le m6me pied que les marchands en gra,!
surtout lorsq'u'ils sortent leur bidre de leur 6tablissement|
poor aller la vendre an dehors de magasins en magasiBil
lis ne doivent pas 6tre plus favoris^s que les marchs
en gros, qui. A I'avenir seront !forc6s de prendre une liceno
exig§e par la loi d^ .Qu6bec. t!e n'est pas la licence qv
les appelants qpt obtenue du GTouvernement £§d6ralqii
puisse les exempter de payer au gouvernement local
taxe que la loi locale leur impose quand cette loi e^t con
^orme h la constitution. '^
Dans tons les cas, il y a dans ces difiSrentes question
comme dit J'honbrable jnge de la Pour Lifferienre,
/^f" ij^-q«ir^ ' '
OOUBT OP QUEEira BEifca:
889
tidre de fait et dcr droit qui est da ressort da magistrat
id police k determiner. ' Par cooBdqaent, ce dernier avait
laridiction dans cette poarsaite, et les'appelants 6taient
aal fond^B k demander I'^manation d'an Bref de Prohi-
bition. „ La Ooar Inf§rieare a renyoy6 la reqa6tQ des ap*.
elants et Tintim^ croit qu'elle a bien fait.
Le dref de Prohibition ne doit dtre accords que dans le
d'un abas de poavoir, et sealement lorsqn'il n'y a
d'ai^res, inoyens k employer. Or dans cette canse il
tt'y a ea ancan abas^e poavoir paisqae le magistrat
n'avait pas e&core retfj9|i jagement, et qtte les appelants
nesavaient mdme pas q^el serait le rdsaltat de la caase.
iLe Bref de Prohibition ^st an r^mdde extraordinaire qai
Ine doit dtre accords q^e lorsqa'il n'existe pas d'aatre
jremede. II ne doit dma^er qae dans le cas d'ane extreme
In^cessite et lorsqae toai^ les aatres remddes ne peavent
lobtenir le rSsaltat d£siri Or ici, il y avait le Certiorari
Iqni offrait aax appelants an remdde s&r et efficace contre
lie jagement da Magistrat de Police, s'il eat 6t6 contre
leax. II n'y avait done pas lieu k I'^manation da Bref de
Prohib'ition. O'est ce qai a 6t6 jag6 k la Ooar de B6vi-
Uion 8i§geant k Qa6bec en d^cembre 1888, dans ane caose
de Awkt dU Lapointe v. pojfon et al., rapport^e an lOe vol.
Quebec taw Reports. C'est d'aillears la doctrine de High
|cit^ plas haat.
Cross. J., (cKm.) : — .
William Bi^sby Lambe, Inspector of Licenses for the
iBereniie district of Montreal, prosecated Andrew Ryan,
I of the city of Montreal, before the Ooart of Special Sessions
I of the Peace at Montreal, presided over by Mathias 0.
iDesnoyers, Esq., Police Magistrate, for having, on the 6th .
I of Jane, 1882, sold intoxicating liqaor in the city of
I Montreal, withoat having obtained a liceiise from the
I Provincial Qovernment aathorising such sale.
Ryan pleaded that ia what he did he had acted as the
employee of J. H. B. Molson & BrSs., a firm of brewers,
who had carried on basiness as sach for apwards of eighty
[years in the city of Montreal, and whose castom it had
IMS.
- :S
' TA
m
m
., _j,.
*im^ ■
^ . ^^^t ^-im- -rs^w 2 .
, i"»p . T>t 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«<! Lioenae Aot of IH78
The piH»tention ia that thia atatate ia unconititutional, and
that if the Court ia not prohibited, there ia no remedy.
The first queation raiaed ia whether a prohibition will
lie in auoh caae. I think it will, and preciaely for the rea-
son advanced in the Court below, for aaying it would not
lie. It ia be<5au8e there appears to be a fact in quoatiou
which would not comfe^ up on «rr/ibrorf,— -nAmely. wheth«r
the party prosecuted is £he mere agenjt of a person not
open to the prosecution. It appears to mk that it wa«
within the diacretion of the Judge below to gjve the
order, and that we shouM not dtsturb it. .
Being before us, two questions arise. 1. Whether the
power to legislate as to "the regulation of trade and com-
- merce," (B.N.A. Act 1867, sect. 91, s.s. 2), is a right so ab-
solute as to restrain the local, power to oblige a bfewor to
take out a local license enabling him to hawk about the
streets beer or ale manufactured by him in such quantity
' as he might sell it at his distillery. -
The next question is whether the brewei; can do it by
another who is remunerated by a commission on the sales.
Parenthetically, I should say, the mj«ority of the Court
are agreed to confirm the judgment appealed from, bnt
. as there is some difierence of opinion among the Judges .
as to the reasoning by which the conclusion is arrived at,
I propose, in dealing with the question, to state my own
views and those of two of the Judges of the Court, I be-
. lieve. f. ■■■■ ,.: ■^■■'v-'. '■.'■■: *::..,''v .■■•■;:
It seettis to me that all these refinements are mystifications
of the real issue we have been seeking to arrive at for the
last nine or ten years. If the appellant could not be forced
A
%'
thoHuporiorCoort
w, niMd by ■ pro-
i a(ldr«tM«Ml to the
> 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 <x>uld no^ be oblige<l to takeout a licetlse
f«ir taking orders for beer among his customers, and the
matter would not be altered by making the drayman agent
t(> lake the ord«tr and deliver the iHter Himiiltamwusly. It
may be observed that the Queb<t<- Iii<?ense Act of 1878 ^41
Vict« ch. 8^ B. 7t), suggestk no such equivcK^al idea. Who«
ever j«//i, payl4b<HiBtatute, in any quantity whatsoever,
tntoiic^Ating liquors, must take out a license, and Tailing
to do HO, is liable to a fine of |))5 for eat^h c^jntravention.
Ntfw, this brings us back to the old question raised i||: ^
Anffert, Attorney^Oeneral, and Tht Qumh Int^tance Cb'.v.CK-.'
which might have been decided in the Privy Council,
bat which was not there de«nded. Their IxirdshijMi held
with Us, Ihat Che tax in that <*aHe was not direct taxation
within the meaning of the B. N. A. Act. The minority of
(b« Court here held that the license sought to be imposed
was not a license ^uxdem generis as those mentioned in the
S. S: 9, sec. 92 of the B. N. A. At;t, 1867. The Privy Couu- -
cil held on this polfit that it was a Stamp Act and not a
License Act, because there was no penalty for the infrac*
tion, and because the payment was not a permit to do, but
an impost on the thing dpni. ^^ -, ».
It is not necessary now to re'discnss whetherb^ not
these ar^ the true tests of what constitutes a licsase, for
in the case befoire ns all these elements exist. There is
the general power to do, instead of the impost on a thing
done, and there is a penalty for selling without having
, taken out. a license. Of course, if Severn 4* The Queen ia--
to govern, we must reverse, for the Court there distinctly
hold that a brewer's business, the very case now before
ns, could not be taxed under guise of a Jicense by a local
Act. (1 Oartwright, 414). •
It muat, however, be femembereid that this case is not of ' *
the highest authority. The present^ Chief Justice and Mr.
Justice Strong dissented, and there was much judicial
authority the' other way. The Supreme Court is not a
I
(■) 1 Legal News, 4ia
■J
ff
'P^^'-'
' ' **.
* ■
r >^
■■•-
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<K
Tity to hear and determine complaints arising out of any
"Bfringements of this License Act, Ife. Desnoyers was in
k^ j tPHflnt mm th o j i opor j ndk? ial offiow to. dwidw ^
188S.
Molaoa
. *
LmbIm.
:l
V
\
.4'> ■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-
<i-i
1 ■
■.,
,r' , ■
'I'li!
■ *■ ■ fr. - ' : ■%*" ' "^ ■■^-]^i:"- "■'
408
■ ff ?Ff»^ 5 - JK
MONTRRATi LAW REPORTI.
J-irrSHP^'l
"^KP*
/'-^
i]
. "
if ■
ifflj
oommitment should not b« relMaittMl, if a good convi«tion
eziatfl for tho offence for which he id imprisoned, see ntV
tnte 82 and 88 Vic. cap. 81, ntfo. 71 : " No conviction or
" order or adjudication made fn appeal therefrom Hhall be
" quashed for want of form or be removed by ctrtmm
" into any of Her Majesty's Courts of Record, and no war-
" rant of commitment shall be held void by reason of any
" defect therein, provided it be therein alleged that the i
" party has been convicted, and there be a good and valid
'* conviction to sustain the same."
This appears to have been int6nded more particularly i
to p«)revent a failure of justice in cases of the setting aside
of proceedings by cerfiorari on strictly technical groundi, I
where offenders were evidently guilty, but from want
of form convictions* against them could not be sni-
tained; but I think it might have had an interpretation
broad enough to have included cases where the cause of
conviction did not sufficiently appear by the commiti^entJ
but could be found in a perfectly valid form by reference
to the conviction. This construction, I think, would bel
hi'gbrly advantageous to the satisfactory administration ofl
justice. But returning to the application of the remedy I
by habeas corpus in matters ^f process of the higher Courti
of civil jurisdiction, the principles that are applicable]
seem to me to have bgen thoroughly explained and the
^ subject exhausted by the reasoning in the case o{ Exp<aU\
Donaghue{^). The force of that reasoning, I think, it wonW
be difficult to refute. That case ocbnrred before the enact' I
ment of the Code of Civil Procedure, and although th«]
decisions have not been uniform either before or since]
the Code came into force, I think they intended to folloirl
those" decided in' the sens^ maintained in the jDOfui^m
case, and there have been quite a ' member that favored!
that view.
For these reasons I think the dourt cannot interfen]
with the imprisonment 6f the Petitioner. The Ha
Corpus must be quashed, and the prisoner remanded.
^ P) 9 L (1 B.. n aw. ^ •
' ''a-'
f^
. /
COUW or QITVEIfM BENCH.
409
The Court made the following ordor :-7 Mm
" The (Donrt having heard connflel on the {letition of the '*ff^
•aid Percy M." W#rd, now detained in the (H>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 <tfter suspension— Reamrse
,r of liquidators. .' ^ -
■ ; ■; ■'■■ ■;■■ f •■" ■■' ..y:.- .-.■;
The respondent, .having ftinds to his oradit in a bank which had taa-
p«nded payment, 4nw cheqoM on the bank for Tarioos aoma. Theee
cheques were accepted by the bank on theVuune day, and the nt*
pondent then, for valaable otmsideration, disposed dl them to various
parties who were paid the nspeotiTa aiboonts bf the bank, by orS'
dits or otherwise. ♦
Hku>:— 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 <pder of iWm. W^r, ^ho endorsed it Without re- * - -
oourse toathird party ; thie othefs were payiaWe to"1beaTer. '> ^ .
. 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<A
paid
Ithor
If
Men
not :
men
lofth
bee*
[payi
wer<
resti
thel
|the(
was
afifor*
thel
bank
senta
mov
asseti
Ifinae
On
■m^-rr.
Vii
\
OOUBTOf QUEEN'S BENOH. ^41f
jig entitled to restitution of these sums they must look for
liacfa restitution to the parties to whom they wrongfully
Iptid the money, and who wrongfully and without au-
Ithority "received it.
If the holders of the checks were Hall's agents, they
IWere so'for the exercise of his legitimate rights only, and
Inot to obtain fraudulent preferences or unauthorised pay-
Ifflents. It might be questionable how fair Ihe acceptance
lofthe checks was valid, but however this question might'
Ibe solved, it would not seem |o make any difference, the
■payments was in either case unauthorised, and as they
I were not made to Hall, he cannot be looked to for their
liwtitution. The accejatance was matter of indifference to
bank ; to them it was immaterial whether they paid
I the dividefads to Hall or to his transferees ; the acceptance
I was simply the recognition%f a debt they, -owed and
Itfforded evidence to a'third party tbat Hall had fuSds in
Ithebanjc, but operated no change as to the duty of the*
■bank br its administratorri to refu8_e payment on the pr^
lientation of the checks, allowing the holders to take their
Jwcourse to recover their share in the distribution of the
tassets of the bank. , I am, therefore, ^f opinion that tKe
Ijudgment of the Sul^erior Court, dismissing the action of
I the liquidators of the bank, is right and should be con- ^
I firmed. •>
\ 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<ir/er party— Voyagt direct from Havana to Montreal -
Deviation— Right to touch at Sydney for cdal.
The charter party deacriWd tl»e voyage In writing as being fW)m Havtm,
Cuba, "to Montreal direct ria the river St Lawrence." A printed
clauBe declared that the stejamBhip should ",have liberty to tow and
"be towed, and tQ assiHt vessels in all situations, oIm^ caR a( an J
"port or portfjorcoalii, or other mtpplie»:'
Hbld, (Reversing the judgment of the Court below) :- That the fact thii
the steamship called at the port of Sydney, C- B., for coal, In the
course^of the Voyage, was not a deviation therefrom other than po'
mitted by the charter party, and thftt the increased premium ofin-l
surance paid by the charterers in consequence of the veosel ciX&b%\
, "^at Sydney could not be deducted from the freight
The appeal wa»ftpm a judgment of the Superioir Court,
Montreal (Papineau, J.), Felmiary 29, 1884, maintaining
respondents', tender. The judgment is in the following
terms :-i- .**' '■'. *
,:\ " La Cour, etc. '■ •
, " Conisid^rantqueledemandeuragissait sous la Charte-
Fartie produiteen cette cause comme son Exhibit No. 1,
^tant'tenu de faire, avec t'oute la diligence possible, avec
le steamship " Huntingdon " contenant la?cargaison con-
venue, le voyage direct de la Havane (ile de Cuba) A Mont-,
r^al vw le fleuve Saint-Laurent^, et que la designation de
ce voyage direct 6tait fecrite d la main dans la Charte-
Partie, pendant que jUi stipulation que le steamship aunit I
hao
ST OP QUftEira BENCH.
4S1
I Is liberty d'arr^ter I aaoun port ou porU pour da char- '«•>
|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 c<i«verte,.et qu'ellu arait droit de rotenir le raon-
' . tant de cette priilie k mdtne le ft-et qu'elle devait payer an
demandeur; ., » A .
" Conaidfirant quIpMt pronrfi qiie, la^fifendereiiBe t
pay6 cette primt;) additionnellu ftvant de aavoir ai la tJargai-
■on 6tait on non avfiride par auite du^fait que le " Hunting-
don " Mrait touch6 & Sydney et y avait pris dti oharbou;
" Oonsiddrant quit (^st prouv6 que les offrea faites par
la d^fenderense ^taient valides et sufflsantes, ot que la d*.
fenderesse a prouv6 lesal^gations fondamentalea de sa df-
fenae et que celle-ci est bieu fondle, declare l^s offres vali-
des et suffisantes, et cyndamne, en conB^quenoe,, la d^fen-
deresse k payer au demandeur Ja sommeofferte de $45.30,
autorise en consequence le demandeur k retirer la dite
Bomme de #46.80 qui a 6t6d6pos6e en Oour.et ren\^oie I'ac-
i;ion du demandeur pour le surplus, ainsi que sa motion
ppur aitnender, avec d^pens de contestation et d'instmo
tion contre le demandeur, distraits, etc." *
Sept. 26, 1886.] H. Abbott for the appellant :—
The Court below considered that the " Huntingdon "
undertook to make the voyage from Havana th Montreal
direct via the River St. Lawrence ; and that the agreement^
that the steamship should have the right to touch at any
port ot ports for coals was in direct contradiction to th«
condition that the ship should sail from Havana to Mont-
real direct, via the River St. Lawrence ; th«t inasmuch as
these two conditions were directly contradictory of each
other, it was necessary to consider which of then^ should
be disregarded, )»nd as the description of the voyage was
inr writing and the permission to touch*for coals was
printed, the latter must be disregarded.
The appellant submits :
Fint,*->That 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.<charter-party that^e voyage
which the partiesijagreed upon was clearly afid expressly
described in writing as one from Havana, Cuba, " to Mon-
treal direct, via River St. Lawrence." This means, and
can oniy mean, a voyage, as Mr. Justice Papineau states,
(lirect from the one port to tho other, without:;|paIling at
any intermediate port, and is not answered by the voya.ge
appellant actually made. *j
The voyi»ge the vessel made is a very diflFerent voyage,
as the vessel sailed via and called at th^ intermediate
port of Sydney. The voyage she made isj^hoMvci l^the
Clearance, which is as. follows : — ', r • ^*
" T Arfhiii- de fianel Crowe. Her Br itan nic Mlgjesty's
-v^
P«3-»,^
/
w
tB.
COVttT OP QUEEiN^ BENCH.
427
its had commnni-
ince Oompany, qo
have arisen. The
;d the pretniam as
^e charter-party.
contends that the
meous and shoald
f the charter-party
' for coal.
ter-party were sub-
ing, signed by the
he respondents,
charter-party dea-
lt with the condi-
Jydney for 'Cqal.
ridence or law aa-
) condition of the'
1 for coal ai an iD-
lence stated by the
lent case, inasmuch-
are confirmed by
r and not in print,
trty that^e voyage
early atid expressly
La, Cuba, "to Men-
This means, and
ice Papineau states,
withoutij^ling at
ered by the voyage
y diflFerent voyage,
it the intermediate
le isj^hoMvu
Britannic
'Mi?|esty'8
■ -■ *• B ■ ■
■■%
1886.
Gonsal-General in the Island of Cuba, do hereby certify
that the British steamship called the 'Huntingdon,' ^ ^^»«
commandfed by Oaptain John Peters and manned with ^'1 cS!'
29 seamen, and no passengers, making in all 80 persons,
has this day cleared out from thp port of Bavana, bound '
for Montreal via SYDNBiY,*G-*^ , with a cargo of sugar ;
and that in this city and port there are some cases of ^
yellow fever not considere^^ epidemic: 'l '. w
"Hav&na, June 7th, 1888. J ■^\'^:f^-'-l'.
"T ■ "ifSignpd.) IvDSi'b. Crowe, - -
' " H. 4 MOonsul'Generai:]
fill "* .*,■■■»■■
The respondents claim that appellant had no right
whatever to clear via Sydney and call at that port as he
did for coals ; no unforeseen . accident or stress of weather
having occurred to necessitate his ^oivig so, and by the
charter-party and by law appellant was bound to have a "
sufficiency of coal on board at the outset for the whole -
voyage ; 2 Parsons, p. 373 ; 18 Mass. Rep. 68.
The appell&nt invokes the following printed clause of ,
the charter-party, viz: " Steamer to have liberty to tow '
" and be towed, and to assist vessels in all situations, also\
"to call at any port or portis for coals Or other supplies."
The respondents submit : — "
Ist. That this clause only refers to the case of neces-^
8ity;and
2nd. That if it does of itself necessarily mean thatap-.
pellant had a right to call at a port without any neces- ' *
Bity for his doing so, it is in direct contradiction to the^ '
written clause describing the voyage and must yield to it.
The Court will observe that the clause invoked is one '
ofthe printed clauses of a printed forin, and the words .^ .
"steamer- to have the liberty to tow and b* towed, and ^*
" to assist vessels in all situations," shew that this clause
is intended to refer to cases of necessity, and ii^little more
than a 6ana/ clause to avoid doubt. - ' ^
It will hardly be pretended that uiider this clause the
vessel could, for instance, voluntarily have taken another
vessel in tow from Havana ta Montreal aaa mere
" •till
#
M
W
fmf
iff '' "
f'
'1 ^ i
1
1 ■> 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 con8equ<mt» I
ly so far, morci.akin to this case. Thn^disured, owners of I
steam-pumps, took out a poli<?y on them on the Sea Hm\
•at and from AMrossan to the wrecl^ of the Al6xandriJ
near Drogheda, and whilst there engaged at the wreck, and]
"4intil again returned to Ardrossan^" and it was held t^at
the policy did not cover a voyage to jBelfaiif^with fhel
wreck, although Belfast was .the( iftost 'proper and^ebuve-
liient port of refuge. This, then, nas no influence on the
case before us, but to^how how strictly deviation is con-]
sidered. , « , / 7
In order to avoid miscoi^eption, having to speak first,]
I must reiterate ray opiijj^jbn categorically, that in a voyage
direct from Havana to Moiitr«al, via River Sti X<awrence,
J;he words " steamer to have liberty to *** Wll at any!
-'port or ports for coals and (f)' or other supplies," do notj
expressly give the right to clear generally m Sydney, audi
tjiat this is not affected by the fact that tlie sllj^) insured j
ohly took in coal ; and further, that a ship,- " inle^^'^ """^i
fitted for the voyage (niamely, from Montreal ,4itect, wi j
River St. fcawrence), is not justified- by thes^ words inj
pmitting to take sufficient coM for the voya|e('*\iiUe8S i^
mim
\
1
Vm,|
'I ^^^^
cotmT o!f (irisi^ b^nch.
'486
IMK
Paton
be established that there is a usage of trade permitting
TtiHsels in such a voyage to obal at some partiealar place.
The only difRculty that appeared to me in the case ijtm •iKfl^i'Si!?'
that the policy did not pursue prQcisely- the terms of tM.;
charter-party ; but it is not preieiidndj nor doeisf it appeajr - , '
that the claim ofthei,]in8uranceC(i)n)p«iiny for extrf premium ' • .
would have existed if the steamer's supply of coal had • ,
failed from any unforeseen cause. >t 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 <all "at Sydney on he
j M^treal, the v<^yage mnSt necgji
#' voyage via the St. 1
' Sydney tmt of the
t^quires but an inconaiderabU^ivergenfe to enter that
rt, 80 that, save the entrnhioe to the port, the ^yoyaK«
he direct- vpyage from Havana to Montreal, vk the
or St. Lawrence, and the vi\al question fs wKethieTthe
earner had a right, under the Wms of her charter-party,
» call at the port of Sydney for bunker coal. .
■ The learned Judge of the Superior Court wa8 of c^fhion
th« the description of the voyage, as direct, from H»-
v^tk to Montreal, via ^heJ^Eiver St. Lawrence, \iira8
diSojy of the «?ondition in the charter- party; A«[|kreby it
Was declared that the ateamer had liberty to can at any.
pol'l Qr ports for c6als or other supplies, and that the two
' -jilauseiidijeing inconsistent, and the fifst being in writing,
while the secjpnd was printed, the written clause should
prevail over- Ate pi^inted, which lawer should be rr j|cted,
and,' as a co«seqiitelicJ| the steam Qijjhould l?e 'cOnsid. )red v
" having^ithotii righti'd^f iated frtiro her direct voyi ge, by
'» callingtt|Bydi^^andtpladditioiJkl premium, which the
respondSls had thereby been obliged to pay \(re8 alegiti-
matd ciLitajQL damage the TeBpondents*had been pat to b^
this devi<ftSS|for which^ey i«^erfe-%tiUe4,tO be inaem-
% nified by t^^ appelMfttj tf»Tbe deleted f?t)jg|j^i8 QJtaimibr
freight
ThA fiaajoMty of {
. - .. of,t)iecai|P>„was^
■.•^^^ penpr Courts Th<
* ■ *■ ' ;ca}ling at trhe po^t o
dcfes t^ot take thesame view
<G(OT.d
\m the *lefrr"ned judge of the Su-
orJiPof this Court ii pf o'pinion that
4ttey for coal was no deviation from
thedirecf voyage ftoiA Havana to Moijtreal, other than
. ^9ttsaathorized|>y the terms of thechaTler-party ; thatth«T«
is no' ^ntT«dictioirin the clauses "died from the charter-
pi5lyr*il^th« clauses in question should be read and
pftnRtrued together^ and in sug^ manner fts to give eff^t J
"^
^ *
■^ii^'
tOVKtOV QUEEN'S BENCH.
4dT
%j
to the whole, and that, although a written clause would
Bupwrsode a contradictory printod clauiie to the extent of
t%« a<!tual <;ontradi.;tion, thoro in no roomhorw for the'ap-
plitiatiou of thia j;ul<\ inasmuch as the liberty to call for
coal was^lmert) qualiflcation, not a contradiction of the
voyage btfiiig direct, that is, it waH direct, subject to this
exception, tf^d so the do«;ument should have be^ reaS.
Th^9 dec^laration that the vessel was in every way fitted
for'Ihe voyage, did not contrad[,ict or exclude the exception
in the okAter that she was at liberty to call at an
interraediatQ port |br coal. The exc^pon implied that
the calling for ctji'al was a conveniffi incident of the
voyag*^ which thfe ship might avail herself of, and a
presijmi^tion. yj^hal a full provision of co^ at Cuba for
the whole voyage might be ini^onvenienV and not a
-necessity ; that a vessel was iBuflSciently found and
proved for a voyage \)v|ien she had such supply of coal
aH ^^9s^ th" route, a trUmpleme^t being more suitably ob-
taineH| a call poH where she ^served liberty to stop fof
a suppT^^sides Vl^ich, it was the duty of the charterer,
in orde»p|n-ot^ct himself, to have insured according to
the terms whi^j^e had agreed to by the charter, making
th« sameexcepWpin the, policy as was contained in the
.charter. • • , * .
^ We consequently coMlnde that the judgment of the
SLuperior Court should^bfe iever8ed,and the appellant shotild
have judgment fd^r^the baDmce of freight claimed, without
dfeductioA of the extra premium of insurance.
.'Besideathe authority of thKthree cases coiiimented on
by the learned judge who disseb^, and which I consider
fully support the appellant's pretensions, the liberty to
call at a port nftj^ named is well explained in I Parsons,
Maritime law, p. 2b, and the question as to the exception
in the charter by iSl^ authorities cited by the appellant.
DoRiON, Ch. J. : — * ''^
I will only add one word,. The cljiuse which -allowed
the ship to stop at any port for^oal, tluthorized it to'sto^
in any reasonable ,w«)(. Now |here was nothing xmreas-
iay^tt Sytfnuy . I t hi n k t he d ev iatio n wro^
ml' ^
Paton
in»<t« I^VU
illning (XI.
'-t:-
m
-at
£W^"^ i T! 5| ^P^^ ?
t\m T
■ ^_ ■
.4
488
MONTRVAL IJiVr RKPO
wnT
>
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. $662.63, etc." . t " J|
PAt»iN?i^b', X, (in R|^ew) :— ' "^^ ^ ,
, v<lL'aetion du demandeur est foi^dee sur tin^jugement ott
decret de la Gpur Supreme de la Nouvelje Edosse, ent date
du 22 ded^e^bre, IS^^^—pbuf le j^ontant de ce juge-
n»j!fnt, i:iA6r6t dS%r% capital dujugenienitet ies frais
de ce jugenieht. ' Le demandeur all«fgue que cejugelaent
avait 6t6 prOnonc6 par. la Cour Suprfeme^e U NoilVelle-
Ecosse, dans^une poursuite intpnt6e le 18 d6 faiai 18'75,
poiir recoflv'remint d'un billet dat6 du 11 ^de ffevrier^gie,
pour la Jtanme^ 1350, payable k SO joure. / ■
Le^d^Bai deura reiicontr6 cette demande p$g une, dfefense
ISM.'
Almovi
H*rrU.
rf
4
:S
i'
^.na,
I
"TH
^l
nv
^.'
U2
MONTRSi^ LAW REPORTS.
f»«V *«!.
Alttoar
Harrif.
'i i
«K^j|£*'.
I
1
}r
t
1,
t 1
1 f
I*i3*|.*
*C .,•**** en droit, que ^a Cour de premiere instanc^li renvoy6e,
et par une exception de prescription dans laquell« il dit
qu'il n'a fait aucune affaire avec lo demandeur eh cetto
> 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-<tur lei
" jugement ou d^cret." \'_
Le cljapitre 90 desi Statuts Refondusa reproduit tfei-
tuelleni^ent cette disposition. , • , \
Le fait qu'il est peripis d'opposer a ce nouveau iitre de
cr^ance les moyens de la d^f^nse iflvoquSs, ou qui aurajent
pu 6tre invoqu6s, dans la premiere action, n'emp^cne pas
l^jugement d'etre lactase de raction intent6^ en second,
lieu puisque la Iqi dit express&ment que icelle^i, la'se
conde, est fondee sur t^l jugemeir
La Idi fait une dig|CinctioAentre\la basVde la premiw-e
action/ it celle de\^ sefconde \dans\ la jjreihi^re, b'est Je
lien p^rimitif eritr^,l^s partiesmui r^ste assujetti aux^i-
vers modes de IfviBU'^e orale^soiw seing prive, ou^authen-i!
tique, suivant^iJB^dftfe ; dans la, s^conde, le jijgement fenilu
sur la pren^iectiM^'tiQU est la b^ise de la poursuite, et il e^
une preuve prima facie et presque authentique de .rexis-
tence du lien -en vertu duqubl la seconde est ' inteiit^e.
Cetfe preuve a un poids tel, aux yeux du Ifigi^ateur, qu'il
ii'exig^^pas moins, qu'une denegationViaccoinpagnee d'un
cautid&nement suffisant, pour rendbntreir les frais d'une
commission rogatoire, aA'ant d'obliger la, partie q»i liii'
JToque ^ fournir une autre preuve. .
La pretention du d^fendeur qu'unteL jugement est
sans effet ici n'est done pas fondee. 'i - ; .^ /
r Notre loi faisant d'un jUgemeiat 6trangeT 1| Ifmdement
d*une ^tiou ici, n'est pas «xacten^ent sembltdy^ au Cfo^e
^^n5iftfipaaipBrTei~aufonl^^
^':'- ■■.■■>-'•' -'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<linj,'8 as well ns for fraud and collusion ; and wli^jre a piano
> 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 <l cm princi/>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^
<fe f ftjp. iff thfit thft
•fr*
lift ruift. iff thfit thft
COURT OF vJUEENW^ENCM.
.«r'
im
8al«'took place without an audience, and the conBe<i<ionoe
is that th« proceeding was a constructivitv fraud. I <;oricur
in the order made m to costs. The Roddens had no bu«i~
ness to ,fight the case, but Connoljy andLt^clairo are in ^a
difForent position. Connolly was pursuing a right dun to
to him, and Leolaire seems to have been in perfect good*
fait'h.
The judgment of the Court is as ibUows :— ' ^ ) (
" The Court, oto^.
tm.
Norrlhainmr
■ril
ii
!' Considering that the piaho attached in this case, was '
the property of the appellants, (hat it was sold witho^
the presence of any suiRcient audience, there being only
m$ bidder ; that it was sold a vil prix, wA wihout the
kaowledge of the appellants ; > \
" 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^^<!r^ et flxant le montant
'payable A racqu^rc^ir pour obtenir la r^trdc^asion, le cr6ancier b^o^
flcie de Hel_ jnged|ftit et pent exorcer les droits et m pr^valoir ,dei
avantages <|u'il assure A son d^b't^^ur et les opposer A I'acqn^reuf;
3. Que sous ces circQnstanceal, si IHmmeuble a 616 d^laicta^ p»r I'scqiii^rear
et vendu en justice et q^i'il soit collo<]u6 pour les sommes (iii'il i
• {>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<Jmme subroge aux droits de Ferdinand David i^C
al., de Joseph Otodin et du Credit Foncier du Ba§-Cana|ft '
en capital et interdts $657.72. \
" 15e Comme subroge au C!r6dit-Foncier du Bas-
Canada, sur d6l6gation de Godin ce que pay6 par
lai Bouchard au Credit Foncier le 17 fevrifer
^^^^^ •• • $1825.02
.., '|Etle8 mt6r6t8 ,...; ;...X.... $285.98
" Ije plus comme 8ubrog6 k la Soci6t6 de Cons-
truction Jacques-Cartier ce que pay(5 par Boti-
charden 1880etl88f. $737.30
" Ces quatre derniSres sdmmes formant r^unies
celle r6clam§e par la dite derniere opposition,
savoir:............ $8006.02
,y
r
Hi
1
In
P
PfF
1
/
1
rt
^
4
i-
'
ii
?
iZ
«
!
h
»
454
1886.
Bouobard
A
Lajoiei
MONTREAI^I/AW RKP0HT8.
"Attendu que par sa troisidme opposjiion en cette cause j
Bouchard rfeclame une autre spmlme de $780.00, capitall
$500.00 at intdirSts accrns sur uiv^ obligation du 26 avri|
i878, A lui eonisentie par le d^fd^deur Tiijdel, pQur Tacquii
de laquelle cei dernier lui aVoit donn6 en paiemeut Im
immeubles vendus, mais due Bou<ihard avait encorji?
droit de T^alamer, vu I'annulation de cette dation m
paiement : /et attendu qu^ par la collocation 17e du pfojet
d'ordre de distribution, le'dit opposant est colloquS pour
$46.37 i^compte de cetie reclamation, d^ette soiqme etaiit
la balance des deniers \prelev6s : *|' /
"Attendu que le demandeur es-qualite a contests 'ces
diverses- reclamations /et collocations de Bouchard, alle»
guant que pendant £p possession et detention des dits
immeubles>-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<? la contestation:
que po^r que le jug&ieiH de la Cour do Revision fut
mainten^ if fallait que riBftimfe put d6montrer ^ue les
prindp^ qui r6gisserit les droits et les obligations du
creanci^r demandant ^a revocation d'un acte comme fait
en fran^e de ses droife pij son d6biteur, son^ les mdmes
que cenx qui rSgissent fes droits et les obligations du
veudejir avec facult6 de remere. fcontre son acheteur, tan-
dis qm'il y avait une grande difference entre le? deux.
Le/yendeur avec faculte de reme^e r6clafae k son ache-
teur i^xecution de toutes les obligations auxquelles celui-
ci s'est oblige par I'acte de vente. Bntre I'appelant et
I'intime telle que la contestation est li6e, la somme. dont
I'appelant pent 6tro dSbiteur n'est que le moutant des
I8S81
Boaohard
I«Joi«.
•J
.W ]
1880.
Boucharl
LHJgie.
•H
'\
Tl
4m
MONTREAL LAW MEmRTS.
fruits et revenuB quo rintinl6 aura prouv6 avoir 6t6 per-
9US par Tappulant. A««une preuve.u'a 6te faite par Tin-
tim^ du ^jjiputant de ces fruita et revenus.'. Maiuteuaut,
le jugemoot rendu dans la cause No. 676 ou le dfelende&r
a eierc6' soil action en i^m6r6 contre I'appelant peut-il
6tre invoqu6 par I'intimd A Non, parce quo la ddfendeur
avant de prendre possession des immeubles en vertu de
son droit de r6m6f6 devait lui payer la somme de #880,
et se faire accepter par les o^eanciers hypothScaires au
lieu et place de I'appelant ; et\cetto condition u'a jamais
6tfe accomplie.
L. Lajlamme, pour I'intim^, repWdit d'abord sur la ques-
tion de procedure : L'int6r6t".surle prir d'achat repr6sen-
tant les fruits et revenus, la rfepliqUe n'allegue pas defaits
nouvcaux. Elle doit valoir en tout cas comme demande
supplementaire. II n'^t'ait pas n^celsaire d'obtenir la per-
mission de 1ft CoUr pour la produireA Si elle 6tait irr6gu-
liere I'appelant devait s'eu plaindre. \ll y a acquiescS en
rSpondant ailx articulations sur les fails mentionnfo dans
la replique e^ en laissant faire sans objection uno preuve
sur ces m£m^ faits. L'intime peut se pksser de la repli-
que, il a all^ue que rappelaul: avait PCT9U les revenus
et if le prouv4 par un jugement de la Coul
Au m6rite, Tavocat de Tintimfe r6pond A Bouchard ac-
quiert^de Trudel^les proprietes en question fen cette cause
^ la charge debayer les hypotheques, Trudelse reservant
le droit de remer6 ; il poursuit ensuite Trudel pour exer-
cer le rachat etlobtient gain de cause. Bouchard et Trudel
presentont leurs reclamations et la Cour fixe Ite monta^t
du k Bouchard! a $580 Les reclamations- en\ question
dans la pr6sen^ cause sont les mi&i&es que cell# rfeglees
par ca jugem|ent, la pcollocatiou de Bouchard dodt done
6trereduite aji montant qui y est etabli. Quant \§i I'ob-
jection que I'appelant iest responsable du paiemcut des
cr6ancier8 hypothecairdi I'intime r6pond que ces Wean-
ces eta,nt colloquies aU jugement de distributiouAelles
sont eteintes et I'appelant eat decharge de tpute responsa-
bilite. La somme que I'intiraeserait teiiA. d'offrir pW
obtenir la retrocession est depos^e devantla Cour.
*~q>,
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<Jur :— .. }
Nous sommes d'avis de yioniirmer le jugement. La pro-
f6dnre de I'intimfe n'est peut-dtre pas parfaitement r6gu-
lidre, mais il n'y a rieu qui gtablisse que I'appelant en ait
souffert. Nous ne voyons pas qu'il fut nficessaire pour
I'mtimfc d'qbtenir ja permission de la Cour pour :produire
une demande suppl6n^entftire. De plus la cause No 676
de Tnulel v. Bow:liard 6tait all6gu6e dans la contestation.
Dans tons les cas, si la rfiplique 6tait iirtgulidre, I'appe-
lant devait s'en' plaindre eii 4emps utile et la faire d6-
clarer telle. \ •
Quant k la question au mferite il pst Evident que Lajoi^e
peui "exercer Taction de son dfebiteur et, par consfiquent,
le droit de r6m6r6. Le montant que Bouchard a droit de
r6clamer pour impenses ^ am6liorations a 6t6 fix6 par un
jugement daUs la caus^ No. 676 entre Trudel et lui 4 la
somme de4680 ; J^joie a done le droit de se prevaioir de
ce jugement et de faire r6duire la colJocation de Bouchard
en consequence. -
/ Jugement confirms.
* Robidousb Sf Fortin pour I'appelant.
Laflamme, Huntington, Laftamme Sc'^RJkhard pour I'intimfi^
: (J. J. B.)
Bouohmrd
'N
■^
•
■•
1
V
■ f,
\
••
»
*
■ %
~T ' \
\ ' !
> 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 *cl<ied, a very small
quantity of goods being afterwards furrtished by the ex-
ecutors, but from which time, annual accounts had been
-*
2
.♦■
IMM.
huillay
DarUna.
460
MONTREAL LAW REI-OUTR
roguliirly furiiialu'd to thu rospoiidunt, charging th« iiit«>r-
<>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
obje<rtion and ucknowlt>dged 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<<count,
however, did not show any <'ommiMiiionH,.iharged,although
they were included in the entWes of goods, lU whh nhown
by the evidence afterwards adduced by the respondent.
They alio produced the (Correspondence between the
parties, one leading feature of which was & pressing soli-
citation on the part of the appellants to have the account
acknowledged and closed, and/an evasion on the part of
Darling to admit the account^lthough he kept remitting
sums on account of the baloiice'i for which he asked and
was given credit. ' ' / *\
■ The respondent, Darlingyproduced the detailed accoimta
furnished him from the /commencement of the acy<Junt,
showing that in eachyf them there weVe congtinissions
charged sometimes atyg per cent. And sometifiAes at 6 per .
cent , and that the j^oss amount, including the commis-
sion, was carried into the account enfant as goods, thus
making with the 7J per cent. interj?&t thereon charged,
a charge of from lOJ to 12J for Coijiiinission and interest,
whereas, if the 1^ per cent. incMded both commissidn
and interest, according to the alleged agreement, the
account would be surcharged to tjiie^ extent of the commis-
sions and the interest th|gjtter cWged as accumulating
thereon. ^§
The respondent produce^ witnesses to .show that the
amount of these extra cothmissious was £Q5i. 148. *Jd.
sterling, an easy operatioi/, as they were extracted from
the appellant's own accounts, smd that the compound
interest calculated theredn would amount to £b5S. I8s.
td. sterling, making the sum claiWd to b^ chargeable
back to the appellants amount to jei)208. ISs. 2d. sterling,
while their clam was only lot jet44. ^s. lid. sterling.
ThQ appellants ha;ve relied upon a sferies of authorities
to prove that the respondent had acquiesced in the account
by failing to naiake objections thereto, nbtwithstanding the
yearly rendering of it to him with th^obj^^ionable items
itm.
l>artin||.
'r-
T
:-v}}:
--f-
t <k
4621
MONTUKAL LAW H8W)Um .
l>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 f<up«rior Court, although in hiM judg-
m«»nt (ho iitatim that »ompouud inti>rfnt 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 <!oii'
tained in 1169 C.O.jtWQuW probably be co««idered. on the
facts of this cise^ that'uocompoundlutereHt was charged,
inasmuch as the^ credits in each year were in excess of the
interest charged for the year. Hy art. 1078 0. C. a special
agreemjBut is njvressary lo warrant a charge j&( compound
interest. I do not think an implied ^gre$,ment wquld
suffice, but tb(i case does not adfnit of this question being
raised. '
As regards the double charge of (^ommissipns, viz., fhaf
included in the 7f per cent, according to the agreement
alleged and the additional charges of commisaibns on the
specific 0ale8 of goods, I consider that theT«8pondent made
out his case. I find no acquiescence iu the account cur-
rent by the (*orrespondence, but rather a l^tudied purpc^se
to fk-void doing so, perhaps not very franlc, and it flaay be,
proceeding from the fact that it might not have beau very
convenient to pay up the whole balance at onc^^ but not
snihcient to oblige the respondent to pay^ .what hejnani-
festly did not owe; -uordol think that the; objection tdthe
7J per cenl;. as intWest, desiring it tobtiareduced to 6 pe^
cent., wJt9 an absoluie limi^tion of respNlotdent's objfctiou
to a strrcharge of ibt^rest land a waiver hf him of objec-
tions to commissions, the tact being that the commissfons
were understood to be included in the 7} per cent., and in
objecting to this, be objected to cojilmissiQos ; aq^ uotw4th%
■^•r-1
*i •
::?:-■ r
y
fl objtictlons to it M
, h« httd cVt)jn<;t«Kl, not
)*t, otformg to Mtittlo
"pur nent.
1 though ill hiMJudg-
tt hiM huuii charged,
' t'oinihiHitioiiH htfiiig
r otmt. agrood uiioii
reon, vvx)uld amount
</ -
rcmnpttund iiit«r««t
ir»»Mt o» tht^ tJtnnmifl-
4um cousidurably in
itiwof the rulo cntf
30 coHflidered, ou tht>
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 <j*^ukKwii BENCH. 4ea '
itan^iiif the apparently formidable Hit of authorities cited ••••
by th« upiMilUut as regards a«!<|uies«!enii»» or e«toppfll, I , ^*^
consider that they do not apply. These authorities would '•^'"'
c-ontrol ca<fjBs where the charges were, of hu< h a nature aa
ninderi'd it doubtful whether they couUl bo nnide or were
legitimate charges if agreed to, but if raanifesUy erroneous
<!httrg.'8. as being made contrary to agreement or oth^rwise
withdut foundation, would not to my mind l»e warrantedf
, by Inero silence in the absence Of" exprt'ss (tonsent.^ .
The ap^ellants^have themselves alleged the agrv)ein,ent,
and the respondent having, probably, no other proof of it " •
readily at hand, has put on reco'rd an admission of th«^^
agreement as if it had been requested by the appellants. |^
• This was unnecessary, as the appellants were bound by
their allegation : they however now contend that this alle-
gation was a jjere^ mistake, that they ought to have and
«;ould have amended their declaration, which would have '
entitled them to judgment in the absence of Hu»h*an allegar
tion. It seems to me there is no probability of the allegation
being a mistake, 'A charge of tj per cent interest in an
English commercial account would be quite unusual. It if .^
comprehensible when understood to comprise commission.
If appellants had a\|a<!nded their declaration, respondent ,"
could havfr^ilblged^the^greement in his pleaand^presura' -/ '.
ably could have prove^, it. He was di8pen8e4 from doiuff* '•
'so by accepting appellants' own statement jof the Act The
plaintifTs (appellantsJUfst set np this alleged agreement ^ '
^ for t J percent, interest in 1880, whereupon Darling Wrote^""*' ^
to th^m for a c»py ol it^td Vhich the reply was that the i -
agreement was yerbaL They neither proved a written no^. 4 - ;.
a verbal •greement^aud t^ejespondent was f<irly.ehtitie4 '^ '
to conuur in their own ar&rment of it. I tl^ejrefore cou; '\-'-
clude jthat the judgment of the Superior Cpnrt sj^ould be ^ "^ "
confirmed. V *■ ■ ' > 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 <lettx aasem :
bl
C
fu
q'
le
a(
re
A*
ei
fa
n
d
s<
ai
q
p
4
li
d
5^
--*--
iSf^gS^L" .fit "^j^aKi'E,,
: Ml^Sj^J- V',.~
consadv queeiI's bench.
46t
bl^es, le dSfendenr a qnittS secii^temeat la Paissance dn
Canada aveo rinteniion de se fixer en pays 6tranger, qu'il
fat oonstat6, lors de la secoude assembl^e ainsi ajourn^e,
que I'actif dxa d6fendeur 6tait beaucoup mpindre que
le chiSre ainsi faussement repr68ent6 par lui : q^e le dit
actif, saivanC I'fitat fourni par le- nomm6 Evans n'a pu
realiser qn'une somme de $S,90l.'19 pour payer un passif
de plus de $128,779.57 ;
" Consid^rant que I'intention fra|i^|^jdse du d6fendeur,
en qnittan^ le pays, zessort suffisam^^ni des aveux qu'il a
fait an nomm6 Smith, auqnel il a d6clar6 k New York, qu'il
ne voulait point retourner au pays attendu qu'il craignait
d'Mre mis en prison, vu son depart de la ville de Montreal;
" Oonsidferant que la ratification^ de la cession de biens
du d6fendeur ifaite par le d^mandeur n'est pas une pr6-
somption que le dit demandeur a\entendu renoncer aux
autres recours de droit qu'il possede qontre le. d6fendeur ;
que la fraude commise par le d^fendeur en quittant le
pays n'a pa8/6t6 cowrerte par les actes de diligence que le
4eHkandeur a pu faire pour se faire WUoquer au marc la
livre ou mdme par pr6f6renc.e sur le produif de la vente
des biens du dfefendeur ; ' _
" Gonsid^rant que les fausses repr^s^tatioins du d^fen-
deur, tel que ci-dessus mentionn6, et le depart frauduleux,
ont vici6 la (Session qu'il a faite de ses biens au tiers saisi
Walters, etont rendu la dite cession nulle et sans effet : que
la ratification ou I'acceptation faite par le dWandeur de la
dite ceseioli doit §tre pour la mdme raisc^n, consid6r6e
comme non avenue ;
"ConSidferant que le d^fendeur n'a poin^ prouv6 les
all6gu68 de sa requite j,
"Benvoie la dite requite demandant le rejet^e la same-
arrU 6man^ en cette cause."
The final judgment was aa follows :-t-
"The Coiirt, etc.
" Considering that the plaintifi" hath established his
right to be collocated by preference on the goods \in the
store where he served the defendant, for three months'
wages, amounting to ♦700, from the tst of January t^ Blst
Ql JXarchy mSD, mcliisive
MM.
Heyi
'Ml
Uanii.
-^
sW»K'.
'41
• 4/1
Harrii.
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
im. •• D6th adjudge anf|^ condemn the defendant to pay
Heyoenutn and Satisfy to the plaintiff the said sum of $'700, with
interest thereon from the 8rd of September, 1888, and costs
of suit distraits etc., and doth declare the attachment (satufe-
arril) made in this cause in the hands of the Tiers-Saim.
be good and valid, and considering that the THerp^^isi
Edward Evans has declared that on the Gth^^March,
1883, the said defendant, by deed before nota^, assigned
and transferred to Charles H. Walters^^e other Tiers-
Saisi, his estate and effects in trust ytj^af subsequently
/on the 80th of March, 1883, the s^ Walters appointed
the said Evans his irrevocable ^orney for the purposes
of the said deed of assigniWt; that as such aUomey
the said Tiers-Saisi, Evans; ha^ realized the assets of
defendant, and had in his hands at the date of the
service of this wHt of Saisie^arrM, a sum exceeding
$2,000, as the proceeds of the sale of the goflds so trans-
ferred by defendant to said Walters ; and thAt the liabili-
ties of the Bstat> 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^<lecide this question ; it is unnecessary
to do so, and thih^e'claration of the Judge, as one ,6f the
motives of the judgment, would not bind the other
creditors. The defendant has really no interest as to who
188f
Hejrneman
llarrir.
^JX'^--
vrv;
I '
• , . ^
470
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS.
*i,i
ISM.
Baynaman
Harrii.
- -
> ' ■
,«
^
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 8ufll<!ient to say that nothing of the kind i« phmded. I
may add, howev.er. that respondent'* answers admit ox
suggest nothing of the kind N* "" "
The majority of the Court has not been ake to come to
the conclusion that all the ordinary presumpkpns of law
and all the ordinary .Tules of proiredure are to \ie subor-
• dinated to the terror of electoral fraud, except in so far as
is specially provided by statute. We «;annot, therefore, pre-
Hume that Mr. McOreevy gave Mr. Se"n6cal his note to facili-
tate the latter in perpetrating an electoral fraud. What re-
mains, then, is a simple question .of judicial discretion,"
and of procedure. We see no rea^i^ii give^ to make it
necessary or desirable for the judge to discharge the dili-
bSri. The action was on a promissory note for value, and
it is not expedient that the execution gf obligations Of
that kind should be exposed to fanciful ai^d dilatory pro-
ceedings. ■ \
The difficulty of procedure has not been explained. We
are told that somehow the case got on the roll for the
5th of February. That is undeniable, for it was there,
and both parties were represented. Any objection to the
inscription should have been shown tien. After the case
had been seven days en dmUri, the appellant acquiesced
in all the proceedings by examining respondent. Even
now, the appellant does not tell us what the constderation
for the note wasl if not value.
The judgment^ will, therefore, be confirmed with costs.
' ' Y Judgment confirnaed^
D. Girouard, Q. CL attorney for appellant.
Duhamel, RainviUe\Marceau, attorneys for respondent
,■.... (J. K.)- - V-' •
■MM.
Sandal.
i_
7
./
■\ i
m
i
4t«
HONThlUL LAW HEh>BTi.
*
/!
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 <lecWon-of Torbaho*, J., M. L. R-, ikc^^t)*--.
Where draflii »n<l noUw are itlMwi with ft bink by ft debtor of tfie
b«*»k, not UM h)ll«ter»l wHitirity, biit for colleiAlon; tbftt roipiienftatlon
' dote not tft^e place until the bunk hu re(wiv)Mi Ibo ftinountk ooUe<!te<l
by thflnj,gWI«cli noteii; »nd In the ppeMnt naiw, tlwSi debtor bftvinx
beconi»Jfiolvent Imfore any aniouiita were r«c«lvBd' on ftucft ^otM.
«ompenfl«tioa, did not tuke place between iho^AqteOnt ron«<H^ by
the bi^k and the debt due to It, ' ,
The ai>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.
'<i«r/ below),
Afprllakth}
MERCK,
\mrt oe.^
I.LR., ikc^'aSt)!-
nk by » debtor of iti«t
on; tbat coipiwiuiatton
i ilio mnoiint* coUottUxi
uw, Ui«i( dobtor haviiiK
»<-«iy(id'on ■ucKpotea,
A Aqtoont roll«<Hibd by
h« SupeHorlOourt,
maintaining the
L. R;. 1 a 0.225
below).
appellants:
appellautfl" against
f 1400.50, th^ pro-
Eotea f||P^ ^^^
collecuptL, and
ndenta. ,■'. ".;'■■:>,' ,.
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,'*^<l<^ the pro^eim of the 9UtaW ^^'ft
45 VIot. flh. 28. And th« .pn»it»<nt •< tinn is brougfht by the***
liqtiidatom in the name of th*^ Maid bank, a«i pcovided i|||
by the HAth section of said last mentioned Htatiiiw. , \
'^ The claim of 1400.60 is made up of four (W>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-
<iin B«iik«f mjggjon^ admit that the notes in question were- given by
l^e appellants for collection.
.- ' The appellants urge the present appeal in order that
'the principle of compensation involved may be estab-
lished by u higher Court.
The position of the appellants and the respondents on
the 16th of September, 1883, the date when the appellants
^ suspended payment, was : the respondents. had. a claim for
$3,000, not tlien matured, against the appellants, the
amount of the note pleaded, and the respondents held'
three notes of^the appellants lor collection, which notes
' did not mature until the 4th of January, 1884. On the
3rd of November, another note was given by the appel-
lants for the same purpose. . ,
The points of law rdjsed by the appellants are two. (1)
Could compensation take place at any time previous to
>-.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-
<!ia6 dite "St. Bridget's Total Abstinence and Beaefit So-
aety," laqitelle 6lecti6n a du lieu le 4.ianvier 1886, le dit
demandeur ayant 6t6 mis en nomination pour la dite
charge en m6nie temps que le dit Heffernan ;
" Attendu que le dil demandeur all6gue que la majorite
du.dit Heifeman n'a fete due. jiu'A des votes illfegaux et
irrfeguliers, €t que la majoritfe d^s votes rfiguliers fetait en
foveur du dit demandejur; X;| ' ^ y
'' Attendu que le dit dfefendiaur Heffernan a plaid6,aH6-
guant qu'il est rfegulierement felu, et que par I'article 17
des reglements de la dite socifetfe, le demandeur se croyant
1686 par la dite Election, devait se pourvoir non par une
action devant les tribunaux civil?, mais par un *ppej
audirecteur de la dite socifetfe ; que le dit demandeur a
fait cet appei mais seul6ment apres I'expiration des d^lais
fix68 par les reglements, et que son appel a 6t6 en conse-
quence rejetfe ; , * "
" Considferant (jue le dit article It ne comporte aucune
renonciation au recours aux tribunaux qui appartient de
droit a tout membre d'un? 80ci6t6 incorpor6e, qui se trouve
lesfe dans ses.prferogative^^sseititielles.;
" Considfiranf que i'a|)pel a^ revferend directeut h'est
pas obligatoire, mais pu4ment facultatif, et que cet appel
facultatif ne se rapport* qu'i des questions secondaires,
comma ordre, proc6dure|i etc. ; j . V /
2 " Considferant que dais le cad actuel le recours aux iri-
neceaaitfe /par la copdaite dtt rty^T^nd direc-
bmiaux a F#«=
w
'■X '
/T
: f^s^^ma^r'^'^ *^'f^'^ "'^ *-sr.
•^^f^«^5»^
OOtJRT or QUEEN'S BENCH.
486
lowing terms :■;-
fendenr, Thomas
vocats respectifs,
r faire rtviser ie
ar la Cour Su^
tT6al, le 8 octobre
lure et le dossier
,nt a inteiit6 cette
a dfefendeur, Tho-
r^sideut do la so-
ce and BeaeUt So-
anvier 1886, le dit
tion pour la dite
rnan ;
ae que la majorite
votes ill6gaux et
r6gulier8 6tai£ en
man a plaid6, aH6-
ue par I'article 17
aandeur se croyant
irvoir non par nne
lais par tin «ppej
e dit demuideur a
fpiration des d^lais
pel a 6t6 en conse-
e comporte aucttne
; qui appartient de
por6e, qui se trouve
and directeut n'est
if, et que cet appel
istions secondaires,
le recours aux iri-
I du T6Y6Tend direc-_
teur qui n'a pae voulu, sous un pr6tette friyolfe, s'occuper
de I'appel du demandenr ;
" Oousid^rant qn'il est en preuve que onze membres
non-qualifi6s ont vot6 & la dite 6lectiSn, savoir : Thomas
O'Neil, John Saunders, Thomas McCambridge, William
Frazer, P^ter Quinu, Redmond Byrne, John B. Mason,
William Turner, Michael Cuddy, Robert Richardson an^
P.J.Ford;
" Con?id6rant que la majorit6 do, Heffernan n'^tant que
de sept, ce nombre de votes ill^aux est plus que suffisant
pour autoriser la Cour h annuler son 6lection ; \
"Oonsidfirant qu'il y a erreuir dan^ le dit jugement du i
8 octobre dernier, qui a renvoy6 Taction du demaiideur ;
" Casse et renverse le dit jugement, et procfedant k ten-
dre celui qui aurait du 6tre rondu par la dite Cour de
premiere instance, annule Ja dite 6lection du dit d6fen-
deur, Heffernan,|i;omme premieil vice-pr6sident de la dite
soci6t6, "The St. Bridget's Total Abstinence and Benefit
Society," et condamne le dit d6fohdeur Heffernan, h payer
les dfepens, tant de la Gour de plemiere instance que de
cette Cour de Rfevision, distraits; fete." . ^
Sept. 17, 1886.] R. Laflamme, Q. C, and C. J. Dohertij,
for the appellant, submitted, on the point on which the
judgment turned in appeal :-^ A \
Appellant's second plea puts in issue, the pretension Vof
respondent that appellant was not legally ele^ed to the
office of arst Vice-President of the St. Bridget's Society
owing to a number of those who voted for him not beiu
:> 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<!es8ions,
and not having pai^ fines therefor ; one. Turner, by reason
of non-payment of monthly dues, fiid two, Ford and Ri-
chardson, by reason of non-payment of monthly dues,
and absence from the F^le Dieu Pro<*es8ion, and failure to
pay fines therefor. Of /the total number only threef are
pretended to be disqualified for non-payment of dues ;
the disqualification of the eight others rests solely on the
non-payment of fines alleged to have been incurred for
non-attendance at processions' Now, what is the evi-
dence with regard to these eighl^f Itis, making the very
most of it, merely that th^ Secretary, going through the
rank^ of the society on the occasions of these processions,
did not see them there at some one of the processions, and
put them on a list in consequence. Now, under the Con-
stitution and By-Law0, and by law, does this show they
had become indebted for a fine, in other words that they
had been fined and thereby forfeited their membership ?
Appellant submits ^t does noit.
Article XXIX of /the constitution is that dealing with
fines. It reads ^ follows :— " Membefs neglecting to at-
" tend to the following duties or any of them shall be
*' fin-ed in the sum set opposite the offence."—" 6. Neglect-
" ing to attend the national proces^oja qt St. Patrick's
Day or Jhe procession of Corpus Cferisti, twenty-five
uwutB. ExempiiouB being m&d^ in fafor of memteM
y .. ■-
'* :
■■"■."• -, '
.''•-■..;■
;-■ •",_ /;v
J ' ''*'
J" : . ':, ^'-' .-■':
• '■ -■'' ''A
^v^-^-"
':;.■.• -\
t'
:'■-;-■-■
":'*-'^;^;--.^"--v:
' ".;■ ":; '' ^'
. ■^■'.■
*■
h
I'-'^.p
7t,,.J,',-=pWjJ5|...
)RT8.
1 as this number w
aclaruB his election
\re been disqualified,
8, Thomas McCam-
Ui It<;dmoud Byrne,
hael Ouddy, Robert
)8e persons sevens to
ye, Fraser, Qninn,
nt's bill of particu-
)on of their having
^ssion, and not hav-
because of absence
;k'8 Day processions,
i(% Turner, by reason
1 two. Ford and Ri-
t of monthly dues,
ssion, aiid failure to
iber only threef are
-payment of dues ;
I rests solely on the
been incurred for
, what is the evi-
ls, making the very
going through the
r these processions,
the processions, and
ow, under the Con-
oes this show they
er words that they
their membership ?
that dealing with
'8 neglecting to at-
^ of them shall be
ice."—" 6. Neglect-
on q£ St. Patrick's
feristi, twenty-five'
' — Kb : — x_»t z.
COURT OF QUEKN-H DENC^.
487
" who through sickn^tss or infirmities or absence from the
'• City could not attend." i
This article merely provides that a member being ab-
sent, and not having one of the reasoiyj above enumerated
for such absence, shall be fined. It makes him liablejo
have a Bne imposed upon him, it specifies the penally
that is imposnble for su<h default without clause. But
that penalty has to be infiicted by the authority of the
society. The member who is absent without reason is
liable to be fined, but he does not defwio owe a fine. The ^
society has a right to fine him. but before he becomes its
debtor, it must exenise that right, it must infiict the
penalty and this after afibrding the person to be punished,
opportunity to be heard in his defence. It is an element-
ary principle that no man can be punished without being
put on his defence ; that before the penalty can be inflicted,
and more especially a penalty such as that in question in
this case, whose ett'ecit is to deprive the member of the
exercise of his most important privilege as such, there
must be some species of t!rial, aflbrding opportunity to
the person charged to makV: a defence. Was anything of
the kind done here? It is not even pretended that there
was. No pretence is even made that the society or any
authorized olficer ever exercised, ev^i without affording,
an opportunity for a hearing to any of these members, its
right to impose a fine. The Secretary merely takes the /
names of those whom, at some moment of a. procession
lasting for hours, he does not perceive in the society's
ranks, and puts that list in his pocket. Nothing is said
to the person whose name is so takeii down. No notice
is'given him, no explanation asked, and the first he h^ars
of it, is, after he has voted, he is told, for the first time,
you owe a fine which ought to have been paid a iponth
ago, and be^pause you did not pay it, though you/ knew
nothing of it, your vote shall he null. This too, although
the member so voting was called out froniL the regular^
roll of membdrs. Suriely such a pretension is so extrava-
gant as in its very statement to carry its refutation. There
ia then no proof that the persons above mentioned were
,/■■ •*^l
Wtlth. *
'W'i
-Vr^-_
Ji»S
... ■ ,
MbNT|tEALJ,AW kKI«OKT&
\-;.'
law.
llelTiiriMi
WdLb.
h
»n'«r fined. But, is th«ro ovid«nl:« that th«y were «ym\
' liabl« to bo lliuid V None whatever.
It in merely endeavored to be mHovvu thk they w0re
abHont from the proieiiBionB in queation. Btit that fact'in
itself waa not enough to make them eutjiei to 'be fined.
Something more Woh neceHsaryj th«y must 'have been lo
abBent without «u/litient reason, that ia, not iinng through
oiiekneaa, infirmities or absence* of the Oity.junable to at-
^tend: It was neom«ary then to have osjabliahed that
these peruana not merely were absent, buj further that
they were not within the exceptiotfif-irNothing.of the
kind has been attempted. " y^^V.
Not only does it appear that these j{ioiJ»t>|[»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<t'iii
h\e(k to 'be fined.
UMt ' have boon so
lot btuiig through
ityj unable to at-
oajabliflhed that
but further that
i Nothing -of the
;»8 were never
hiy were Hable
I disqualified for
on them,- and to
able.
•ijesident of "St..
aoiety," and res-
le<4ared null, on
li votes to" place
"or ut any rate to
najority.of votes
Jas. I First, It js
I lie at common
Ice in a private
s proposition be
that any person
ver another pel-
oids or exercises
public body or
lie common law,
' ordinance, and
o any ordinary
s point already
,/ '^
> !»♦■
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 — Execvti<m—8nturt oj Part.
ilHi.li:— That ft railnay cannot be Mlied and lold In part, even on a
JudKHifiit by bundhul(lani,ex<*u|>t In a<Tortlani*a with the diifwiaitiona
of ilie apecial Mtatiito uuthorizinx th« creation of tlio niortiiagH or
iiypotliei!. A railway ia an indivlaililu thing, and can only l)»>aold 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 $4,000 ? Why not advertise
to sell only so much as may be sufficient to satisfy the
execution ? This would be absurd, r ^
It is true, the railway was not all completed at the ,
^lime of the seia^re. But the respondent did not seize all
' thut was theol completed, as is alleged in the opposition.
. At the time of. the seizure, the four miles between the
G-rand Trunk Junction and Longueuil was completed but
lias not been incltided in the seizure ; since the seizure,
the entire railway has been completed, together with a
braucA of nine miles between Marieville and St. ^6saire.
The iM>ntention of the appellants is, that the railway
being an indivisible immoveable, it should be seized, if
._ Seizable at all, in such manner as not to destroy its entity* .
^<Thfr seizure should comprise not only its property, but its
rights and privileges, its franchise and potentiality, that
the a££MM»<atre may not only, acquire all the rights per-
taining to the railway, but also the duties and obligations ^
incTimbent upon it. If sold in the manner proposed, the
a($ift/tica/atVe may convert it to what purpose he pleases;
nfSf tear up the rails, and convert the roadway into a
cabbage garden.
The opposanta allege, that the bonds which they hold
cover the entire' railW'ay, seized and not seized, and that
if the part seized only is^ld, as now advertised, the rail-
way will be dismembered.. its value as a through line of
xiiilway destroyed, the property will be rendered compa-
ratively viQueless, and will not realize to its creditors
anything like the amount it would realize if sold in its
entirety, iU franchise Jtliill be valueless, and the rights of
the public for which the charter mainly wasi granted, as
well as the large/subsidy contributed by the government,
completely sacrificed. , Vj^ : .::.i..r",syi^:',':.^...:::,:;...J-:
Opposants do not object to the sale of the railway, but
oppose, to the end that when soldt^t be sold in its en-
tiretv. as an indivisible immuvealble. and not in p^rHff i
494
MONTREAL LAW RBFOBTS.
18MI
Stephen
■ti
t
f
I
-A
Sr /
/
and.also that when sold it shall be sold as a railway, a
UH»n u ^'"®**"'"® °^ *^*' ^*^' with rights and duties, and not as a
d'HoohSd. tenement house, which may be converted into a church
or a mill, at the will of the purchaser.
j.d Hailon, Q. C, and F. L. BUgue, Q. C, for respon-
dents : —
Under article 664, Code de Procedure, " the execution
" of a writ^ venditioni exponas cannot be stopped by oppo-
"sition, udless for reasons subsequent to the proceedings
"by which the sale was stopped in the first instance."
77 ^®'*®' moreover, the opposants specifically alleged that
the grounds of th^ present opposition are subsequent to the pro-
ceetlings by which the safe was stdpped in the first instance. The
said opposition is therefore based exclusively on the fact
of extensions having been made to the Jine of railway in
que'stion, subsequent to ^he seizure.
The fact of such extensions having been made subse-
queutly.to the seizure herein might possibly have justified
a demand~for a special order of the Court authorizing the
sale of said extensions concurrently with the port^ of
. i the line of said railway seized, but could in no way be a
ground lor an opposition afin d'annuter. It seems to be
manifest that a seizore which was regular at the time it'
was made, cannot become ^oid through any subsequent
action on the part of a defendant.'
" . ■'■■:■■ -'^■.^■' - - ■■■-:■
'/: • Ramsay, J.:— - '^' -.-,',..;.;■■'-'■.;
; This is an appeal from a judgment of th^uperior Court
dismissing^ an opposition a/f» d'annuter, on t^e ground that
it was not^founded in law.
Before examining that question, it is necessary to dispose
of another question which wals urgpd before us, namely,
that the opposition came too late. Strictly speaking, this
is true ; but the opposition was allowed to be filed by the
court 1>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
<r.
INDEX
■\
^
ACCOUNT CURRENT. ^
Accovnti rendered yearly— Acquktcence:^ Where an •ocount our^
~— *«"* *■« ■rendered' each year during a long series of yean, char-
ging oommia8ions"lft8 well as interest, and the debtor, being pres-
sed to cltise the acconnt^without formally admitting or denying
the right to charge such commissions, contintied to remit aama
on account, which remittances (if ^mmiisions shoiild not have
been charged) were more than 8^fflcient to pay the claim, it is a
•fair inference that the debtor acquiesced in the rate of commis-
^sions as charged^ and he is obliged to settle the balance of the
account on that basis. Dudley & Darlif^,^»,
ACQUIESCENCE.
Su AooouMT puBBurr, 458; A&BrrBAnoN, 238; PmiynpAL and
AOBNT,64. '
, "vfe.
ACTIOlJ. I .
DamageBfortmauthorized tale of tAonea.] An action of damages
setting forth, in eflbct, that a bank, to whieh plaintiff had 'trans-
Cerred oortaio shares as oollateral security Ibr an advance, had,
without right, and against the will of plaintiff, sold the shamf at
a third of their value, on purpose to b^ora the plaintiff, is not
demurrable because the plaintiff has not oflbred defoidant the
al^mative to substitute ottier shares. Gilman ic Oai^ba, 291.
AGENT. " ':■■ ^' I. :'-::-o. " - , -
See FBiNaPAL and Aosnt; Inbdbanob (Vna), 22. * ','-'■
AGREEMENT. i
Coiutmaion of— -At 'to tuaiwr of interett. Cronde Windeur Hotel
" Oo^%.
ANIMAL. "*
Damage oavSted hy.'l
APPEAL.. >
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 rec<jivedthe amounta collected by them
on such note* ; and in the preseBT case,, the debtor having be-
come insolvent before any amounts were received on such notes,
compensation did not Uke place between the amount collected
by the bank and the debi due to it "Exchaa^ Bank of (hfiqda
dc Canadictfkfiank qf Commerce, i76. x ,,'
CONSIGNEE. J--': ^
^ See PlUNOiPAt AND AoBNT, 840.
-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
J
1'-.
ion untkr
L.R.314),
. P.824,U i.
ion men«
tempt for
>yapce 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<?. oh. 8, i«
'constitutiontU. Moiton de LaJLbe, 981. ' '^
CONTEMPT OF COURT. ,
^ J . ^«"» 0/ impriionment,T A commitment for contempt until other-
•r wise ordered by the Court is irregular : it should be fbr a spe-
cified time or until the person conforms to the order which ha '
disobeyed- Iceberg de Banaom, 3U. •
iSw Capias, 34S. ' -
CONTRAINTE PAR CORPS; -
V Sl« Haibas CofiPBB, 406. •" ^
C0R^R4TE .OFFICE. - ^ /
iSse UscBPATioN OF CoBPOKATB Omci% 374, 482.
'corporation. ■ /
Agreement to open etreeL] /Si!e Munioifal, CoBPoiunoir, io8.
COUNSEL FEB. * ,
Repaid to Oowuel/or advice.] A. fee paid to counsel fbr advice
' f will not be allowed as part of the damages tot breach ofoontract
. Cox <fc Turner, 27a
CROWN lands; ^ A ^ ^
CancdhtHcn of mOeJ] i&e Location Tiokct, 316. ' '^
:DAMAQESu^^' ; '■ ■ . -''V ■■';..:,: :.':>""■■' ;■■;,../,■'--■';.}
■Angmtkofmind.} An instmction to the jury, ihat aogttish' <tf
mindsafforedfi»thelossofah{isbaiid may piopprly be taken
^v into consideration obythem^in i^itimating the damages which
should be allowed to the widow, is not misdiieotioii. AoMnioiKfc
C. P.Jt a>.,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 <fc JlcOord, «t
\lfcJfii/fen, 113. (Reversed by Supreme Court).
■ ■■'■"-•■ '
• \ . ■ . ■ - ■■ • ■
EJECTMENT. „
&« Lbbvob AND Lnsn, 379.
. - .■■■,,* ■ ■
ELEcrrioi^. " " *
. B«iI</» Society.] Where the bylaws of a benefit society provided
. thit members should not be qualified to vote if they owed any
du< IS or fines, the fines must be imposed before memben can be,
deirived of their votes. H^emanA WaUh,A»%
EVIDENCl!.
Onkuprohandi.l Sm Mahtbi amd SsBviiw, 2*8. /
EXECUTOR..
Chtmmdtfor Benunalfnm offiee:^ ' Where testamentary executors
tr^sferred the control of the estate to another person, who. paid
the monies belonging to it into a bank in his own name, and
afterwards dV«w them oat, the e^ecntors were properly removed
'' from office by the Court below, even without evidence of f^u-
dalekt intention or actoal dissipation of the j^perty. Enneh A
MeGee,b9. .■.-;..■; .■--.- ■■.;'-',:•;:<;';;;' _;;■■■' ,■.]-<■■'■ -/-'.-y
EXPERT. ■.■"'-''•"'
. App<Antmetiti)f<m]Sxpert.i fltePBogipbBc^jfcK
X
F0BEI6N JTTDQMENT.
H^-^
I
m
{NDKX.
"■• .r^
■■ . /■
<
fc-'''"
, GAMING OONtRACrr '
1. ttroki^ not dimdomng prirwipal.] Where A broker, knowing tl|e
nfttui^ of the trftiiaactiona. aota for « permn contracting o
delivvr gnin •$ a Aitara tlata, (but without intention to mal e
' actual delivery), and tliu l>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$, 170.
2. Speadatiw franmcti<m$^} Time l)argaina are not ntoeaaarily ill j-
gal, nor does tlje law refiiae to enforce them if they ara made C t
aerioua trapaactiona intended to be Ailfilled, although it mi y
happen, contrary to the ex^tation of the parties, that they a e
not really carrie<l Out as 6bQtemplated, but fW>m 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$, 170.
GARNISHMENT. » ' ■
<Sw PaooaouRE. ,
■■-*■-■"■ , " ,
■ ■ ' y , ' ■ ; _ .;_ _ ■■
HABEAS OORPUa
Pro&tt ill civil matttn.^ A person, imprijoned under a writ of
oon/raintepar«o>j>» for failing to produce effects of which ho had
, been appointed j;uardian, petitioned for a writ of habeat corpv»\
on the groand that the warrant under which he was committed,!
contained no enumeration of the efibctei he was reqnii«d to pro-l
. duoe. Hdd, that the ^titioner being imprisoned under process I
in a civil matter, the Coort had no authority to grant a writ of
hahea$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«<l no aathortty in thkt p«rtioalar nue, Ui« ixtiu-
pUinant, if he hftd probAblo 4»uw, ia not liable In damat(oa for
iU«K*l arrMt and inipriaonnient- Vopelatul A Lcf/«rc, 366.
IMPUTATION OF PAYMENTa
Puymmlt in^nUid firit on tht intere^\ Wbere the cnxiltM for each
year, in an account cummt, are in ex(»Ha (iCtbe amount of In-
terrait charKwi for the year, it cannot be protended that (»ni-
|)ound interest Iiuh l)een uharKed, inaiiiuucb aji (under C. C. 11A9)
paymeuta made by u debtor on account ant imputed Hmt on the
interest Dudley A Darling, 468.
INSgBIPTIO^ TOR ENQUfeTE, -
See PiooKDDR^ 110.
INSOLVENCY.
See Compensation, 476.
INSOLVENT BANK.
Ouquetpaid after lutpennan—Reeourtf of It(/uutator«.] The
pendent, havint< fUnds to bis credit in a bank which had sus>
pended payment, drew che<iuos on the bank fpr various sums;
These cheques were accepted by the banic on the same day, and
the respondent then, for valuable consideration, disposed of them
to various parties who were paid the respective amounts ''by the
bank, by credits or otherwise. Held, that tlie bank hod no ac-
tion against the respondent to recover the amount of the cheques
' ° BO paid, their recourse, if any, being against the parties to whom
they had paid the monvy. Exchange Bank of Canada dc Hall, 409. "^
INSOLVENT TRADER.
Deitarture irfter mtMng otiignmenL] the' hut that an insolvent
tnider has made a voluntary assignment of his estate, does not
justify his dep«rtave from the country without the consent of his
creditors. It is his duty to be present, in order to give such in-
formation as may be required for the realisation of his assets,
\ and liis departure without explanation is ground for tlie issue of
, a tawM-arr^t before judgment Heynenutn de Harrii, 486. ,,
INSURANCE, FIRE,
1. OontaU to arbitration.'] The consent by the company to on art>i-
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. <f .intirance
MutueUedcVUleneme,89. v
8. Povier$ of agent,] The agent of on^ insurance ^mpony has no
•* aotboritj^ to accept on iasaipuM" f"^ 8*v» » roceiptjy the prarv^
X
/>
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 <Ubt to Um
psraon inaaring, and auoh act on hit part will not bind tlm (x>m-
pany. Citumt /m. Co. <fr Bourquignan, 22.
AAlMt oj /futiiuie.l A grM At mthttilMlwn. ia entitlml to insuro thfl
property which he imjmhmiw, aa " proprietor." 0(mpaq^\it< tTAt-
mmmet MutwlU Jc VUUmtm, W.
INSURANCE, LI FB. ^
/lUTMikM/ W|fe«-^)><m9< dNiaMa] Th* applioation, after th«
uanal answers aiul ilmrlnratioiui, contained an atfreenient that
should tlio applicant iMHUime aa Ui habits so far different front the
opndition in whioli he was then repreaenfad to be aa to inoreaM
- — the risk on the lib insuivd, the policy should become null anc^^
void. The policy atated by its terms that if any of the "^ecl|i-
rations and statements " made in the spplitiation should.lw found
in any rospoct untrue, tlie policy should be null and void. Thlb
•|>plicant sUted himself to be of temperate and aober habtta. It
was proved that ho became intemperate durlny the year pr»*
ceding his death. //«/</,!• That the applicant's agreement as to
change of habits was included among the " deoUnitiona or state-
ments " of tiie application, and aa such became anWxpreaa war«
ranty. !!. That the contract thus formed was validp and became
biding on the assured and hia aqaignee. 3. Th4t in order to
void this contract it wa^ sufficient to prove that the change of
habits of assured was soob aa to increaa^-the risk on hia life,
. ev^n though death were not proved to have resulted therefrom.
4. That in the present ease, a change of habits was prove^ which
'■* in ita nature increased the risk on the life insured. Boyee & Th$
Phanifin$uranee 6o., 323.
JUDICIAL SALE OF MOVEaBLIB. ,•
Nullity,] A Judicial sale of moveables may be aet aalde tbfim-
t gularities in the proceedingi as well as for Arand and oollnllon ;
and wherA a piano not the propegty^nfilefiMidant waa aeiaed ftnd
rfold aa belonfpng to him, for an insignificant part of its vatoe,
.. and the owner had no knowledge of such aetsoib, and it fbrtb^r
appeared that there was no bidder at the aale, ezoept the persSi^
who pofchased thepiano^it waa held that ttMTiale waa a nollity^
and that the owner was entitled to levendlcMe the property.
NurdheimerdtlMlaire, 440.
JUBIBDICTION. . .
1. Of Provirieial LeffUlatun$.'] See OommnmoKAi. Law, 381.
2. Jvntdietion itf Ou CourUk] The Jurisdiction of the Gborta cannot
iL.-^ be ousted aave by expreaa words in the statute. H^emm <fe
■ .WaUhi^2. -.■■/- - ■■•
JURY TRIAL. /
1. Angvith'<tfmwi.2
^ 1
•'•I
* " ^iM
" ^1
\
An inatmctioii to the jniy, that mguiali of
. •»-
At
1"^*.
604
JURY fRIAIr-Cbn*
iuIimI ■iiflbrwi for th« km of a IiiwImuuI may |>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
<! C i>. 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 tiiMnvi<ion(» which tlio witiugM waa |>f«|»aro<l to |(lvf |
win IM tal|ten into conaidcration. RiMnmm A C V. H. Co., ». , j
8. Partiitiity of juntr.] Th« fai^t that (>n« 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)ial<M«tionUok«l 'i
for (InrHiill Ui (mrrorm aattlainnnt <liiti<M. Htlil, that tiMi ragiatra* .
tion by th« Cumiuiaaioiiar, in 1074, of Uw tnnafar to nw|)on<l«nt, *
Waa not a walvar of ttM right of th« (Jrown to oanvel tliM lo<>ation
ticket for <iMrault to pDrforin mittlnniont (luti«H, aiui tlie caiic«il»>
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
<lown, injurwl tho plaintiff. A hammer had fallen pnivioualy,
and warning had been ginm to the men abova tTtld, that the
burden of proof waa on yie dofendanta to rebut thn |«pt#umption
of negtifnmtv and thia 'not having been done, tim defenduita
wm» liable. Jimn$et at. A Monette, 243. , . ' ;
tie^Hmaihaity of employer. } ' M., the huaband of pUiintiClirM eiB<
plof«d by the defendant, maater of a staanuhip, to aMiat in un-
m«y)ring the Ht«amahip then lying at the wtiarf at Montnial, and
about U) put tojMa. While M. waa ataeding ready to cast off
the litem iiawaer from the poat to whi^ it VM fiutened, the
h«wter anapped, and M. Wfui fktally jajunid. Held, the pre-
sumption waa that the rope waa inaufficieut for the purpoae for
which it was being uaed, or that the ship was unskilfully :hand- '
led, and In either case, the master of the ship was nspbnsible.
Conur & Byrd, 262.
. RttpontibUiiy ofeihployer.} A guog of men engaged by B railwi^
company were pfoceeding on a construction train, to the {dacHi
wh«re they were about to be eid|^oyed. Plstfbrm cars were .
provided % the oomp«ny, but the men (o^ whom ^alntiff^ waa
one), mounted upon a oar la^en Irith lumber, and the lamber
giving way, the plaintiff wad others were injured. HM, that it
was the duty of the company's ofiQcials to hkve prevented the
worlciMlii ttdm riding in euch a dsngeroos pqsitian, or, at least,
to have warned them very dearly of thO peril, aad the company
were responsible for Uie dadiagM sodbred by the meti. Cfana-^
^ dim JPlc^e^/le Ry. Co. A Oo^ettt, 810. ."
3. hjvry eamtd by' negligent* of emfhyee.l An employer is respon-
<sible fci^the fliwagBS anilMed by m emjJoyee thwmgh. the ae-
o-?^,
? •
*l
506
INDEX.
.*=\
,■
MAST£R AND SERVANT— OfXtntied. :^
gf igenoe or want of skill of a fbllow employee. Robiriivn dc C. A
R.Co.,2b. ' :,.,'■. ,.^; '-\ . .'
MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE. • ' j
iSre DoMiciLB,113. «' . ' ; j
MONTREAL, CITY OF. "
ITotTan/y.] A vendor who sella a property during the proceed-
ings of expropriation for a public iinprovement is not garant ot
the purchaser for the share of the cost of the improvement with
which the property is charged by an assessment roll madtt sub-,
sequent to tlie date of the sitd^. Oom & Windtar Hotel Co., 8.
rf
i-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
- Agreement to open street-'] A municipal torporatioh cannot validly
bind itself to make a by-law for the opening of a street, and no
-' action will lie against such corporation for ^ilure to carry out
an agreement for the opening of a street Brumt A Carp. CAte
Si, iMiis, 108.
. '4
MUNICIPAL DEBENTURES.
Conditiont.'J A debenture is a negotiable^ instrument, and cannot
bear a condition on its face, imposing an obligation in the futurei
And BO, where a municipal corporation voted a bonus to a rail- \
way company payable in debentures, and the by-law imposed
certain future obligations upon the company as to- the mode of
operating the road, it was held that debentures in which these
obligations were set forth as conditions, were iiof a valid tender.
Mdcfarlane & Corp. of ParUh of St. Ctaaire, 160.
NEGLIGENCE. *
Ofemployu.'] See Mabtbr and Sbbvant, 25.
Qfpermm driving hired horte.'] See RasPONsmuTY, 133.
PARISH.
Erection and Diviiion of pariahes."} Under the old lai^ of France
prior to the cession, the bishop had t&e right to create, unite or^
divide parishes in the interest of the church, havingdue regard
to vested rights; and this condition of things has not "been
aflfocted by the laws enacted for the province of Quebec since the
cession of Canada. . Owiot <jE; OuiffMt, 211.
• SeetrrHatTil. : "'T^ -,,-- -..-,-^.,-,.. ,-^^.. ^.^^-.--.^-..,.. -.,,,__.-^.^-
PARTNERSHIP.
iSm Pbiwipal AND AoniT^ 353. i
PHARMACY ACT, QUEBEC. ' . *
OoMfrticHon o/48 Viet. ch. 36, t. 8.] The appellant, who had,
during more than.five yean bef<Hpe the coming into force of the
Act 48 Vic. Gb. 36, practind as chemist and druggist in partner-
¥■
;-J[
-4^
ndcC.P.
proceed-
garant ot - <<
lent with"
Co., 8, jj ,
' I- '■
ot validly
>, 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 <fe
2. Appeal— Order of Jvdgt in Ctk^nbert. Ah appeal does not lie dir-
ecUy to the Court of Queen's Bench sitting in appeal frojn the
decision of a judge ift Chambers revising an order of the protho-
notary in a matter tioming within the provisions contained in
, the third part of the Code of Procedure. RoudiRou,!.
3. Appeal to St^areme Court— Future Right$— Servitude.] A question
of servitude is one involving future rights within the meaning of
^ ^_ Sect. 8 of the Supreme Court Amendment Act of 1879. Wheeler
<fc Black, 169.
4. Appointment of a tingle expert.] Where the Court appointed one
expert oply, and the expert proceAded to act without protest or
objection by the parties, they will be presumed to have acqui-
esced, and the expert's report will.not be set aside on the ground
urged subsequently that the Court should have appointed three
experts. Malbceuf Jo Larendeau,^.
5. Declaration of liereSairi—Conleatation.] Where the garnishee has
declared that he owes the defendant nothing, but in answer tp
questions put by the judgment creditor, under C.C.P. 619, h^
made admissions which apparently show that he has a sum Jn
his hands belonging to the defendant, the proper cburee is to
contest the declaration, and not to inscribe for judgment ex parU
on such statements. Grant & Federal Bank of Cdnada, 4.
6. Execution— Sale^end, amount neceuary to pay judgment debt. See
Shbri^f's Salk, 303.
7. Intcription for enquite.} An inscription upon the roll dea mqutUt
for enqudte, without^ the consent of thei'opposite party, is regular.
Exehanne Bank & Craig, M.L.R,, 1 Q.R ^9, distinguished. Not^
mor d: Farquhar,llO.
8. Irregularitietin Court bdow.] In an action on a promissory note
for value received, the Courtof Appbal will not be disposed, unless
for some substantial reasiMi, to send the case back to engu^tf. And
so where the defendant was hi default to proceed, and finally,
after the case had been taken en dfttMr^, Wished to examUie
^ some witnesses, and the Court below rejected the application. /
the Court of Appeal refusM to send the case back, on the ground /
that the defendant had not shown any substantial grievaate./
McQreeiiy±Senical,i7l. v- /
9. Security for eott*.] 1. A luotion for security for costs may be pi^
sented after the expiration of four days ftom the return of the
m
/
'<■■>
^■-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,
<Ste Capias; JiiDioui. Sals of Movhabub, 446 ; Jcby Tbiai^25; ~r
'^ Railway, 491 ; SHaBDTF's Salk, 298. V
?RdHlBlTION*WRITOF. ^-,«_ ^^
Drfa* of /iin«dtetton.] A writ of prohibition lies to bring up
before the Superior Court a defect of jurisdiction of justices of the
; Beaoe, which is only apparent on proof being made of the alleffa-
tions-pf the plea containing matter showing such want of juris-
diction, e.^., that the party prosecuted is the mere agent of a
person not open to prosecution. Molton dc £am6e, 381.
PROMISSORY NOIK
. Interruption of Pretcr^iion.} &« PKascRipnoN, 439, |S^-
FR0PRIET0R8 PAR INDIVIS. V'
ISeetment by fmiprietor of undivided half.} See Lt^k Am Lmasa,
379.
•.f.
"'W^
QUO WARRANTO. '■, .
Proikedingt under C.C.B. 101&
Affiob, 374.
i^TA ,
See UsuBPA^ioN of Cobposati.
RAIMTAY. '
Bxeeulian— Seizure of part.} A portion of a railway cannot be
>\ 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<Ifllfivom<3l toiobtoin a i^umI at
* Detroit, but it waanot until July Slat that I- Veaael waa Anally
^'\ ol^jrterod at Torohta ITeM, that the delay which elapaed before
< a Teaael waa ohaitered, waa an pnieaaonabis delAy, aa it appeared
tfaii% a Veaael might have been obtained' sooner at Toronto, if the
, appellanta had been willing to pay a liberal rate^of flight ; and
the 4ppellaata not liaving shown due,diligem», the respondent
waa justified in lefuaing to accept the w)wat Northviood dt,
Bomhonwmy 286. ' ■ ^ '
. 8. Befiual ofjmrcha$er to aoeepQ The ai^llaQt, a1^ Montreal, on the
'26th of iSepteinber, 1884, Sold tea to arrive,^^"\GIenorchy,''at
the port of i^ew York. The tea nached Montreli^l October 14;
^1884, and wdi then offered to respondents. The latter refused
to accept nnleqs the conditions of sale were altered) and the tea
]; - waa resold at a loss.' ifclfi, jhat the otDar of October 14 waa *n
ff offer to deliver within a reasonable timeiand that if the respond-
enta, after refttaing to" take- delivery according to the conditiona
of sale, wished to nnract theit refuiSal, it waa^ipcutQlient on them
to make a diatinot offer to th6 appellant to ^:»(i, «Ad n6t to leave
him in donbt as to the poUtion theyjdok in the ^natter. Cjajx &
3Wn<r,£78. - .v - . * "^ '
> 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 the<poiQjnnyT--e8pecially aar regards .t;reditora who had
tniated the cbmiwiy 6n toe faith of Ijlieir'pQaseas^ou of aaph pro-
• >perty. 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 cre<litprs, a petition en nuUilt-de^icrft made by credit-
ors subsequently was rejected, although the amount realised by
the sale «n Woe was flir in excess of the judgment debt for which
the property was taken in execution. .JK>rrt«' <t Conneetieut dk
PcummpgU: Riveri BJR. Co., 303. ♦ ^
. Utufrwt.] A sheriff having seized on onedefendant the usufhict
of an imnioveablei and on the other defendants the nue pro^tf,
and advertised t»j4 sale in the form quoted in the report: hdd,
that under the advertisement, the sheriff was bound to sell the '
property as a whole,— i.f., usufmct and nw projMiU combined ;
-and that a sal6 of these rights separately" made by the sheriff ,
having resulted in auxprise and prejudice to the defendants, ft-
would be set aside, on petition en mtllUi de dtcret \>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 <t Canada
Sugar Refining' Co., 420.
2. Oiarter party^Time^Ji^ecthn of oontrak] The appellant, in
January 1879, agreed to charter a steamship, for t^ carriage of
\ live cattle to England, and the conditions of the charter party
were that the ship should proceed to Modtival with all cknve^
" It speed, to arrive there "between" (of sbont) the opening
■m
tii;p
1 '[
} M
\
«■ -
■I
t
IMOIX.
m
V
)^^£.
• -."f|^^'
I
8HIPnNG--Cbn«nwd. ' ' •
fd iuvig«tloD of 1879. .n.l theiMfter to ran ng^isrly between
»ew York and London, and to be di«piU^hfld ftoin Montreal ^n
ragular roUUon with other ateamen under charter of the ^ame
charterer, to be chartered up to lat October, 1879. NavigaUon
open«i at Montreal about IM May, but the ateamahip did not
^. . • aiTiva there unUI 18th May, when the appellant refuaed'to load.
£Mi (following ilcShaw & Henderm»t, M.L.R., 1 Q.R 264), that
there waa not « aubatantial compliance with the contract on the
part of the ahlp, and the appellant was entiUed ta throw up the
obftrter party. McShane de Hall, 42.
^8TGCK?TRAN8ACTIONa [ . 'fW:: . - ■ •"/ \
' ^ GaMINO Ck>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<kIto»$, 249,
4. Titie of grevf.} <Sife InsubancKi Futi^ 89. %
■1
■ 1
.' '■■■'!V''
■"*
i
T]ENANT.
LnB0^,AND LnsiB
*
TITH&'
I
EreetUm g.nd tUvimmn^ ptmahet.} When a portion of a cai^onical
parish civilly oonktitated is detached by decree of the bishop
and annexed to a canonical pariri^ not civilly ooqatitated, the
tithe is due by an inhabitant of the diaiiiembered parish to the
new curt. Cadot St OuSmet, 211.
V0L.1I,Q.B. 88 '
ft14
nvDix.
■••>
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