*'=>»;'• 
 
 4^ ^3^ 
 
 S^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 us 
 
 •^ 1^ 12.2 
 
 ii£ mil 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 IIIIII.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 to 
 
 i/.x 
 
 <S 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian institute for historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha 
 raproduction. or which may significantly change 
 tha uaual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 Q Coloured covera/ 
 Ccuverture de eouleur 
 
 Fyl Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 Couverture endommagAe 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauria et/ou pelliculAe 
 
 □ Covei title missing/ 
 Le 
 
 titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gtegraphiques en couieur 
 
 Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planchaa et/ou illustrationa en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 ReUA avac d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause ahadowa or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrAe peut cauaer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion la long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certainea pages blanches ajoutias 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dana la texte. 
 mala, lorsque cela itait poaaible, ces pagea n'ont 
 paa 4tA filmiaa. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires; 
 
 Various pagingt. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* la maiileur exemplaira 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details 
 da cat exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una 
 modification dans la mithode normale da fiimaga 
 sont indiquAs ci-daasous. 
 
 r^ Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pagaa de couieur 
 
 Pagea damaged/ 
 Pagea andommagAea 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurias et/ou peiliculAes 
 
 Pagea discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicoiories. tachat^as ou piqu( 
 
 piquAas 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachias 
 
 0Showthrough/ 
 Tranaparence 
 
 n~| Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality inAgala de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du material suppiimantaira 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have bean refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Lea pages totalement ou partiailemant 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, una pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmtes i nouveau da fapon d 
 obtenir la mailleure image poasibia. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ca document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v/ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
ails 
 
 du 
 
 idifier 
 
 une 
 
 laga 
 
 Th« copy filmed h«r« has b««n raproducad thanks 
 to tha ganarosity of: 
 
 Seminary of Quebec 
 Library 
 
 Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality 
 poMlbIa consldaring tha condition and laglbliity 
 of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract spacifications. 
 
 Original coplaa in printad papar covars ara fiimad 
 beginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 sion, or tha back covar whan appropriate. Ail 
 othar original coplaa ara fiimad beginning on the 
 first paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraa- 
 sion, and anding on the laat page with a printed 
 or illuatratad impression. 
 
 L'axamplaire filmA fut reproduit grice i la 
 gtnArosit* de: 
 
 SAminaire de Quebec 
 BiMiotMque 
 
 Les Images suhrantea ont 4t* raproduitea avac la 
 plua grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at 
 de la nattet* da rexemplaira fllm4, et en 
 conformiti avac les conditions du contrat da 
 fllmage. 
 
 Lee exemplelrea originaux dont la couvarture en 
 pepler est Imprimte sent filmis en commenpant 
 par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la 
 damlire pege qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par la second 
 plat, aalon le caa. Toua lea autras exemplaires 
 originaux sent filmta en commen9ant par la 
 premMre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d1mpre98ion ou d'llluatratlon et en terminant par 
 la demMre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The laat recorded frame on eech microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meening "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (meening "END"), 
 whichever appilaa. 
 
 Un dee symboles sulvants apparattra sur la 
 damlAre imege de cheque microfiche, seion le 
 cas: le symbols — »> signlfie "A SUiVRE". le 
 symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". 
 
 Mapa. plates, charts, etc.. mey be filmed at 
 different reduction ratioa. Thoae too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure ara fiimad 
 beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many framea aa 
 required. The following diagrama Illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Lee cartes, plenches. tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmte i dea taux de rMuctlon diff Arents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra 
 reproidult en un seul cllch4, II est film* A partir 
 da I'angia supArieur gauche, de gauche A drolte, 
 et de heut en baa. an prenant le nombre 
 d'Imeges nteessaire. Les diagrammes sulvants 
 illustrent la mithoda. 
 
 rata 
 
 3 
 
 lelure. 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
riftpfciJ.^' 
 
 Bi 
 
 ^.r/ 
 
() 
 
 4' 
 
 r: 
 
Port i. H. fribs Cwintil. 
 
 %} 
 
 JUDGE MYLWIN'S 
 
 OFmOK 
 
 4> 
 
 In a tanse betioeen 
 
 ».< 
 
 r: 
 
 THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 
 
 AND 
 
 ANGELIQUE CUVILLIER, ET AL., 
 
 §ts))onknti 
 
 JOHN LOVKIiL, PBINTER ST. NICHOLAS STREET, MONTREAL. 
 
!i V 
 
 / / 
 
 
 L'J_JI_.**. 
 
 
 ^;^*!^'*-^: *■•* 
 
 •trj» 
 
 *. 
 
■r. .,.!.' 
 
 
 HHCUttl, 
 
 nri IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, 
 
 THB BANK 07 BSIflSH KOKTH AlCEBIOA, 
 
 
 m 
 
 ▲NGBLXQXm OtTVULIEB. DT AL.. 
 
 jntuwi. 
 
 illiNllf«tf. 
 
 JUOQI AYLWIN'S OPINION. 
 
 V 
 
 Tn Biidi WM tlM BHty Plirfntur bafara th* Oonrt ImIow. Tlw D«f«iidu>t« were Hturioa CuTilHw 
 iWMtbil m " latettTtlw Olty of Mwrtwd. la tha Dirtiiet of Montrwl, Mwobut, at pnwnt midiog 
 ** al MhtfiHai ia tlial part of tha PMMrioea of Ouada heratolbre conatitutiBg the Prorinoe of Upper 
 <• Oaaada. Daana Maria iMn Panwiti of tha aaid Cttr of Moatreal. widow of tlie late Honoraole 
 •• Anatla CNnilUar, in MlUfttoa of tlta aaid Otv, MereBaot. AngaUqoe Cuvlllier, of the taid Oitjrof 
 " Kwtndi wifii of Alasaadar If . Daliala, of the laid Oitjr, iSqaire, and the Mud Alexander M. 
 " Drii«l«, aa «ha hoAand of the aald Attgallme OurilUer, Miry Aone CnTillier of the City of Oaebeo, 
 M 1« tha Diatrlet of <%Mbae, wife of Oaona Bonu Symei, of the laid (Sty <it Quebec, Siqnire, nm 
 •< toauiaai «* kim witB Urn, and tha lald George Bnrm Srmea, ai the huahand of the laid Mary Anne 
 " OiTiUJart and Iioea CmllUer, of the aaid Ci^ of Monnval, Spinater, of the full age of majority » 
 •'/Oi rnvmn « vmm i» m irate." 
 
 On Hia 90th April, IStS, Manriea OuTilUer having given a Ctmevit aciiowm, or confeaaior. of 
 Jatafniit, it waaetrtaiad up and neordad againat him, in the Superior Court at Montreal, but the 
 aenoQ waa diamiaiad, in ao flur aa napaoti Anteliqoe CavilUer, Mary Anne CuviUier, and Luee 
 Otn^Biar, tloaa vt the Dafandaafas who are now Beapondenta before the Cionrt. Dame Marie Olaire 
 V^nNMl|4iad4W^ni tha penteteTof the auiti aad pfOwadliU* wai* Aaoontinned moa4]ier* 
 
 '■^mm mSSeamiSimm^ mTtOuim of^diMniatan 
 
 The liability oTthe Reabondenta for wUoh, the Bank eoiitenda, reats upon an Inatrament exe- 
 anted at Montraal, on tha 9Sth Jidy, 1949, before T. Douoet and hia Colleague, Public Notariea, inter 
 jmtM to wit, ^ aaid Kaoriee Cnviilier, of the fint part, tiie aaid late Dame Marie Cl»ii« Permult, 
 AMaliqoa OaviUer, with of Aleiaader M. Deliale, Muv Anne Ouviilier, wifeof Oeorge Burna Symea, 
 anf the aald Lose CuvQller of the aeeond part, the Bank of Montreal, of the third part, and tha 
 taid Bank of Britbh North Amerloa, now Appellant, of the fourtii part 
 
 CpoB tiM troa eonotmotion of thia inatmment the preaent appeal muat deper.<il. 
 
 Tha jpartiea to it bagia by declaring " ^t the aaid late Auatin CuviUier, (the Honorable Auatiii 
 •* OovilHarJhi* aon Aoatin Oayillier of the Oity of Montreal, Merchant, now absent in England, and 
 " tha aaidManrloe CuviUiar oaniadon trade and commerce, at thia City, upon an exteniive acale, under 
 ** flia fim of < CuvilUar and Bona ' until tha eleventh day of the preaent month of July when the aaid 
 " am waa dinolved Iff ttM death of tha aaid late Aoatin CnvilUer." 
 
 u Tiist ilie add Kaurica Oavillier hath, rinee the dttuA </ the laid lau Au$ti» Cuvillitr, carried on 
 oadproMMa. la aany aa trmh «wd w ai anrw •'• liU* City mi dmihtn." 
 
 ** niat to MoMe iUai tfo M>, «»'! to m^thttH^liugtmmttofthtMidUuefimqf CuviUier ^Sou,ht 
 ** wiB rtfidr* Jtawaa o oad jwraiMry ohmAmc"- t ^^ cMutdwtiilt txttnt from the aaid parties of the third and 
 " fowii parte rapaetively, and that with i: riew of making the aaid partiea of the third and fourth 
 "paitiMrAcl^aMwii, wiui reapaet to any d»bt$ vUeh now or ktrtqfter may U due to them reapectively by 
 *- (ho awdlfaBriaa CnviUiar, and with reapeet to the jpreawM mdfiaurt rt»poiuMiiiet of the aaid Mawice 
 *• CMSir M llf aa jj jNWlte q^ th$ third Mjbmih part* tuvtetimly, th* uudfortie* of the reeond pan are 
 •• wiHiwIaiaeaaM «tMr«M to aad ta/owr tftk» mid parti*$ ^ tit third and/ourth partt." 
 
 Ifker Hbk Ndtal tha tnitrumeot pneaeda aa followa : " Now therefore, the aaid partiea hereto 
 " of ttia leeinid part do haraiby make ihmninujoMy and mnally liable to and in/ator of the taid partiet 
 '* kmu of tha mid ani fourth parta reapeetively, they thereof accepting, /Sir all debli heret^ore coniraeltd, 
 " mr Au may kmiaUr hteaH UM ttJIoam iitfiKm of the nartiea of the thud and fourth parta reapectively, 
 *• k» (kiraaid Mwrtev CMniir, a.d OBsmtUXjor kVU the prttent and FutUBE liabilities oJ the taid Mau- 
 " net OnUUtr, loma r dt th* paMiu <^ thethirdandjonrlhparttrttpeetivdy, whether at maker or drawer, endorter 
 ** er aaapMr {Tn^goet^Uijpapar or oAermit, and whtther retidting from diicountt, pecuniary advattcet on axy 
 " OTHBl cULptt WBinviai, the aaid partiea hereto of the aeeond part, hereby jointly and aeverally pro- 
 - aiiaiBcaiidobUgfawthaVaelveatoiaeetandpaytheaaidpreaentand fptdbe debts and liabilitiea of the 
 "aaidHanioeOavifliai^aairTBBT wtBi jointlt and sbvbballt the fbikcifal debtobs TaEBEor, 
 ** and n^Maily lenaoiieiiig the ben^ of the txeeptiotu qf diviuon and diiaurion and allotheb sdcu 
 *■ ttcnrnoirf wUk mjitet to th* taid dAtt and uabiUties and the oblIOATiOMS to hereby contracted by 
 
 ThoBank, hita Dectatatioa, has counted againat the Defendanta, upon eight pieces of negotiable 
 paper, Banely : 
 
 l8t<-^14lth Oetoher,18M.aBillof Exchange for £«SS Currency, drawu at New York, by 
 Oharlea H. CaaOe on Maurice OnviUier, at Montraai, to order, at ten daya sight, accepted on the 18th 
 Oetober, and duly proteated for non-payment, at the instance of the Bank aa holder, on tno 31st October, 
 
 8ndr-19th Oetober, 18S4, a Bill of Exchanffe for two thousand five hundred dollars equivalent 
 to itsn Ounn^, drawn it New York, by Chories H. Castle on Maurice CuviUier, at Montreal, to 
 order, at ten dm ^^ aeeepted on the SSrd October, and duly proteated for non-payment, at the 
 instance of tha Bank aa holdw, on the 4th November, 1854. 
 
 8rdi,--«lBt Oetobar, 18S4, a Bill of Exchange for £^5 Cuirency, drawn at New York, by Charles 
 H. Osatle on MtauioeOuTOUer, at Montreal, to order, at ten daya eight, accepted on the 84th Oetober, 
 18S4, md daly piotaated ht non-payment, at theinatanoe of the Bank as holder on the 0th November, 
 
Kkc'liiiiigK lur X7au (.'urrouoy, drawn tt N«w York, b 
 
 •ight, •oMtptod on thn Uiitl 
 
 I 
 
 4tli.— 94tli Oi'tobor, lsA4, « llill ol 
 (.'htrlei II, (j'mII*' nn Mpiirlio CiivillUir, «t Montrital, to orilttr, •! t«u dayt •ii 
 
 Uotolwr, 1Na4, mill (liil> |iriiti>«t<<il (or iinii-|Myini>nt at llic initamw of {h« Rank m bolder, on tli« nth 
 Novi'tnbnr, lHfl4. 
 
 Atb.->08r(l Oclolier, IM4, a Hill ol Kxnhunfp: or dr»lt for £400 Carranoy, drawn at Ifoulnwl, 
 by thn lirm of A. ('itvllliei & CoiiiiHiuy, tbun comjoaed of Austin Cuvilllar, tbe wid Mauriea Cuvllljar 
 and Kdward Chaplin, on Mt^mm. Ifpiiry Hull A L'omnanT, Hellavillo, Upper Canada, payabia to tba 
 ordar of Mnuriro Cuvlllior, nt ten dayi i^lit, /liicomitad ny tha liank on the 83ril < tctobar aroraaaid 
 " at ikf tjiii I'll iii$itiiire iind rt<iufH it) tkt ttiiit Manner I'HmlUer and paid to kirn, prnteati'd tur non aceept- 
 anco on tlir ird Novimibcr, I^A4, and lur non-t<aym«nt on tha 10th Moraniber, nt tbe inatunea of tlha 
 liank ai holOor, with dim notioo KJveii to Maiirico Cuvillier aa endoner. 
 
 nth. — 83rd Ootobnr, I8A4, a ilratl Tor iiSOO Currency, drawn at Montreal, by the aaid firm of A. 
 CnvilliorA Cuni|mny on thoaaid flrmof Hoiiry Hull A Company, at Ilallovilln, in Uppvr Canada, pavabla 
 to tli(< ordnr ol Mniirire Cuvilliar at twenty dnya il|tht,diacourited by tlie Bank on the laid 99rd Octo- 
 ber, at tht' llkx i|)ccial inilaiiro and rcqiirsl, nnd paid to th«i aaid Maurice (yUvillivr, protealt>d (or non- 
 nci-iiptance on thu flrd Noviuiibur, and for iioM-i>aynient on th« S6tb November, 18A4, at the inatance of 
 the Bank iii holder, with dun notice k'^iui to Maurice Cuvillier aa ondorter. 
 
 7th — ii3rd October, JijA4, a draft fur XAM Currency, drawn at Montreal, by tbe tuid lirni of A. 
 Cuvillier A Company on the anid Arm of Konry Bull A Company, at IWIIevillu aforesaid, payable to 
 tha order of Maurice Cuvillier at thirty days sight, disoounteu by the Itank, at the instance and requaat 
 (if, anil paid to Maurice (/uvilller as oforcsaid, protested for non-aeceptiince on tbe Atb November, 18A4, 
 nnd for non-pnymont on the 9th December following, at the instance of the Dank oa holder, with due 
 notice given to Maurice Cuvillier aa endorser. 
 
 8th. — 3rd 8optiimbnr, 18A4, a I'mniisaory Note, made by Jer^>ine Orenier, for £17C 14s. Ad. Cur* 
 rency, payable at four months, to Messrs. A.Cuillier ACo., or order, at the Dank of Montreal, by them 
 endorsed to the said Maurice Cuvillier, and by him to the Bank, protested for non-payment on tbe 11th 
 .lanuory, 1865, with duo notiee given to Mourieo Cuvillier aa endorser. 
 
 For their defence to the action, the Uefnndants, Dame Harie Claire Perrault, the widow of tbe 
 late Honorable Austin Cuvillier, Angelique Cuvillier, Mary Ann Cuvillier and Luce Cuvillier pleaded 
 by Exception ptremptoire. 
 
 lo. " Que le ilil tide de gii ramie uu dc mutiunHonnt du 80 Juillel, 1840, detant U dit Mttt. Dtmtel tl 
 " $OH confrere Notairet, at fiaiiji4 dt nuUit4 abinlue tt ne In lie aueuntmetit aux lermti d^ictlui comme rautumi 
 " tolidairet du Df/endeur Maurice Curillier jioiir If jmiement de$ prttenduti Mmmet rechmkt par la Dtmande- 
 " rent (the Bank) en m dMamtiou," 
 
 3o. " Que si Ics I><<fcndeurs sont doveniis, par le dit acte do oautionnemeut du 90 JuiUet, 1849, 
 '■ cautions solidairos du Dofondoiir Maurice Cuvilfjor envors In Demanderesao (the Bank) conepoumit 
 " Atre tout au plui quo pour lo nalomont dns ordoncca qu'aurait ou pourrait avoir la deniandereaaeeontre 
 ■' lo Ddfendeur Maurico Cuvillier, solt conimo tireur, endossour ou aoceptcur aur traitea, lettrea de 
 " change, billots ni^Kociables, solt cointno nuirement dtbiteur, ct losquels cr<!ances, eu autont que lo dit 
 " Maunce Cuvillier on scrait <lovenu ddbiteur aux divers titres ci-desaus, en aulant que U dit Maurict 
 " Cttviltier, en teniit detenu debileiir nut diveri liirri, ci-dossas, auraiont pour source, cause, valeur, coDsi- 
 " ddrations ou objet 8niT i.a lI()i;idationou i.r ueolement dos detteh et afpaiues ue la ciobvamt 
 
 " HOOltT^ COHMERCtAI.K I>E CcVIIJ^IEn A S0!»», t'OUrogfeE Df DIT rEL'L'HOXOBABLE AUSTIM Ct.'VILUER, 
 
 " et PES DiTH AtisTiN CnviLUER, JcmoH, et Mairuik Cuvilueb, solt lo commerce imdiviouel du dit 
 " Maurice Cuvillier, c'cst-A-dire tout commerck guE le dit MAURiCBCuviLLiKitrKiuiTrouniON UVL 
 
 " t'OMITE et PROFIT INUIVIDUEL." 
 
 •■ Quo par lo dit acto do cautionnement lus dits Uefeudeura ne aont point devenua cautiona 
 •' solidaires, pour lo paicment do cr^anees fondles aur troitcs, lottrcsdo change, billets signda, endoss&l 
 " ou nccept^a par le dit Maurice Cuvillier ousurautrci titres et qui auraicnt pour source, cause, valeuri 
 " considdrationa ou objet, le commerce du dit Maurice Curillier Jail en toeiM avec Sautrei, nipour l«pai*> 
 '■ mont do crdanccs fonddea «ur traites, lettrcs du change, billeta signda, endoaaiSa ou acceptea Aori de ton 
 " commerce individuel, n'aijnnt pa> jiour cause ou ohjet «« commerce individuelde ta part, el n'itant li ion 4gard 
 " indiriducl que dcs obligations ou dettei D'un OAIlACTfenE CIVIL, NOM o'tHJ CABACTftBB COMMKHOIAL." 
 
 " Que lo dit Maurico Cuvillier, ^ la conimissanco du public en Canada et ailleurs et de la De* 
 ' mandcreste cii particulicr, a immtdiatement ou prett/u'immtdialement aprfts la date du uit acto du 20 JuiUet, 
 • 1940, cesaC- de fuiro couimcrco pour son comptu ct profit individuel aoit h Montreal, soit ailleurs, que 
 '■ mfimc depuis lu printems, 1891, jusquo vers lo ler Mai, 1862. lo dit Maurico Cuvillier ik la connaiaaance 
 " du public i\ Montreal ct ailleurs, ot i\ In connaimance particuliire do la Demandereaae, a commerce en 
 " oocidtd ail dit lieu do Montreal accc Auilin Cuvillier, junior, SON FRitRE, sous la raison socialc do 'A. 
 •• Cuvillier & Co.', quViiiiuite depuis lo commencement do Mai, 1862, jusqu'lkaujourd'hui, le dit Maurice 
 " Cuvillier, ii lo conniii>snncc du public Jl Montrdal et ailleurs ct de la Demandereu* en particulier, a com- 
 " niercd en socidtC* et coinnierco cncoro en socidtC- au dit lieu do Montreal avcc lo dit Austin Cuvillier, 
 " junior, son fr6re, et Edward Chaplin, sous la raison socialc do ' A. Cuvillier A Co.', qu'enfiu depuia le 
 " dit acto du 20 Juillct, 1849, lo dit Maurico Cuvillier n'afait aucim commerce particulier pour ion comple 
 " ct profit indiriducl en la Citi da Montreal ou ailleurs. 
 
 " Quo Ics ditcH traites ou Icttres do change iiienlionnC-cs, en la Ddclaration, tiroes par le dit 
 •' Charles H. Castle i\ New York sur lo dit Mourieo Cuvillier, ot par co dernier acoeptdes, n'ont etd 
 " olnsi tlr6c8 Hur lo dit Maurice Cuvillier ct par lui occcptdcs i\ la connaiaaance particuliire de la 
 " Domandcressc, ou des personnes gdrant ou administrant ses bflaircs, que pour lecompte, i^rojit Vintirit 
 " el let affaires dc la ditc society rommirrlalc dti dit Mniirlce Cuvillier atec ion dit friie Austin Cuvillier, 
 " junior, ct le dit Edward Chaplin." 
 
 " Que le dit Maurico Cuvillier cii ayuiit oinsi pcrinis ou dit Castlo de tircr sur lui et en ayant 
 •' nci^optd ioellcs ditcs traites ct lettrcs de change en dernier lieu inentionndes, n'a trti Qu'uN PKftTE- 
 
 " NOM POI.'U ET Air UEl' DE SA DITK ROClfirf: fOMMKnClALK AVEC SON DIT FRftHE ET LE DIT £dwABD 
 
 " CnAi'UN." 
 
 " Que les ditoH trnitcs ou lettrcs de change, ainsi tir6ea par le dit Castlo et esoomptdea it New 
 " Stork par la brancho ou I'agcnce de la Demanderesse, nvant acceptation d'icellcs por le dit Maiurico 
 " Cuvillier, ont oinsi dtd tirdes et escoinptdcs sur une lettre dc crddit ou rcconnaissoncc par 6crit con- 
 " Bcntiect signde par lo dit Maurice Cuvillier ti Ift Demondereaso h Montrdal por loaucllo un crddit h 
 " nil montnnt tr^s cousiddmblo avalt dtd ouvcrten favenr du dit Castle ct par laquelle le dit Maurice 
 " Cuvillier s'cngiigcait d'honorcr ct accepter les traites ou lettres de cliuage que tirerait lo dit Castle 
 " sur Ic dit Maurice Cuvillier, ct quo la dito broiiche ou ascnce de la IJetnanderesso cscompterait & 
 " New York. Qii'cn nvant oinsi signd, coiiaenti ct delivrfc la dite lettre de crddit ou reconnaiaaance 
 " par dcrit h In Demanderesse nu dit lieu dc Montreal le dit Maurice Cuvillier (et ce ik la connaiaaance 
 " de In Demanderesse n'a ugi qucpuur Ic comptc et profit dcia dite sociM avcc son dit frftro ct le dit Edward 
 
 " Chaplin, ET n'a ktk QU'U.V PRftTE NOM I'OUU ICELLE SOCI&lfe." 
 
 " Que lc8 dites lettrcs de chaiico ou traites nientionn£cs en cette cause tirdes par le dit Castlo 
 " ut escomptueg h New York par la ditc brnnchc ou Tagcnce do la Demanderesse, les montauta rdalis£a 
 " par leur cscompto ont fait comma autrei tranmctimta dc ce genre Vobjtt de comptei en d&il et eridit fntre le 
 " dit Castle el la ditc tociiti du dil Maurice Cuvillier avcc son ditjrir* et Ic dit Edward Chaplin et non tntrt 
 " Ic dil Castle tt le dit Maurice Cuvillier, nitendu que lei ditei traitei ou lettre de change NE CONCERNAIKNT 
 " LE DIT Maurice Cuvillier hvk nominalement, inais coucernaicnt en rdalitd la dite oocidtd aveo son 
 " dit fr6re ct le dit Chaplin, dans lei livrcs de laquelle tociMfgurent tmtttt transactions de ct genre, KT CE A 
 " LA CONNAISSANCE de la demanderesse OI; des PERSONNES 0^.HANT ses AFFAIUKS." 
 
 *' Qu'ainsi les dites traites, &c., tirdcb par lo dit Castle oyont dtd tirdes sur le dit Maurice CaTil-* 
 
 t 
 
 i> 
 
 /f 
 
f :•' 
 
 r 
 
 i> 
 
 ymm'!^''^:T'm(s: 
 
 w liar at •MflDt4«« ntr m darnUir at l'Mcou.plii on In priNluU J'iff«ll«a n'tyvit M •pplii|u4k nun pour 
 M U MHfta, 1« pioBt, I'lntMt ei l« alhlrM ii« i« itlln wmiMU iIii dll Mauric* ('uvlllnr avne wii frAre at 
 ••acH vooB 1^ i.i<|vii)Arin I rt ta aftiii.MiKHT dm kttAiuun dk i.a hitk ri-ncvANT Mivilit Dit 
 •• OmnLUU AMD Horn, hami tA^ifKi.i.K trAiT Aaaocii!.* i>it rat; iinNOBAni.M Ai vriw Ouvii.ukb, hom 
 •• nAi» qvm rouB ut commrbcb i)ii>ivinirRi, ou a i.'occAaioN d'alci h cuMMRvra inhividdri. ni; 
 •' MT Maubicr Ci;vii.mrr, Int (Itta IWantlaiin na Miiit noiiit ilnvnimi it no m troiivnnt |M)iii| «n vortu 
 <* dn dit aota da Cautionnnmantdu 96 Jdiltnt, t64U, eaatlnm lolttiiiirrt dn Drfonilmir Mnarios Curiiiinr 
 " onraia la Oamandaratan It ralton iln I'acnnpUtion pw l>< dit M«iiric« Cuvklllar d'tcnllr* illte* traitn* 
 " tikiaa par la dit Oaatin nt ptrtant n« (out point taniM rnvnri I* l)i'uinndrrnMi< an pnlnniont ij'lcnllni 
 •* <Hta« (Mtmiiraa trsitna on inttrna dn changa." 
 
 " (^u'au iui>potaiu nun !» Uanmndaraiaa ou lea parionnaa arrant et Mlniitiittraiit Ma aflUrnt n'aua- 
 " aaot paa oonnu qnt^ l<> dit Maurice (/'uvlllinr an conientant 4 U Dnmaiideraaan la ditn lattrn .In cridit 
 " aa favaur du dit C'a»tlii ct nn permattaiit U ri- danilcr iln tirar lur lui rt «n acn-ptant Urn ditea Inttre* 
 " da change ou traite* innntlnnntfnt nn ca*t« ctm** tirAea aur Ini par In dit ('aatli>, n'iinii <i»e Ir prttt-nom 
 " da IB dita aooi4t< oonimareialn avnc aon dit frarn «t In dit Kdwnrd (.'linplin, nt n'o/fiuitii rpu ttour U 
 <' amjfH , k vrq^, tl PiitUrH d'iciU* Jtmiirt m)rt4t4, Ina dita D^rnnduum ui> aeruifnt niAmo i)aa (Una rn cm, 
 " an vartu^u dit acta du 80 Jullint, 1R4I), tniMiaotoblig((aooiiiinncautionaiinlldain'adn PtMnmiiMir Man- 
 " rioa Onvilllar an favaur da la I>emandar«aan h rataon et par auite d« I'Accnptatlon par lu Hit Manrirn 
 " OuTiUiar daa ditaa traitaa on Inttrva de change tiniaa par In dit Caatlu nn autant qun la valnnr, caiiio 
 " ou eonaidAration d'ioallna ditna traitra ou Inttrna tin ohaiign non plm (luo la canan on lu ootiaidiVotion 
 " da I'aooaptation d'ioalle par la dil Maurice Cuvilliar m cMfrmaMiK nt la liaHulalum ni U liglemntiin 
 " »(f tir m d* In dit* ddnant ncUU da ' CtniUitr if Soni,' ni <iii(-tin eammerec imliridutl du ilit sfaurue Cti' 
 " wIMtr, at Bttandu qua Tacceptation d'ioallea traitea ou Inttroa dn nliangn par In dit Maurice (.'uvillier 
 
 " na OOMBTrrUllAIT a RON £hABU que DBI CB^.ANCEa U'UM CABACTkUB I'l'URMBNT ( IVir. KT NON (,011- 
 •• MIBOIAL rr NCR Uft AVKl) LB BkOUCMBIIT BT I.A (.WIIIDATIOR Ilia DITR8 ArrAIRRX DK X,\ DITK Ct- 
 " DBYAXT aOOlftTt DB CUVIM.IBB A 80NH," 
 
 •' Qu'ib no aoiit nullamaot tanua et obligda uomnin cautiona aoliilairo* du Dt^fntidour Mauricu 
 " Cuvilliar, au paioniant doa ditaa traitaa ou lettrna de cliangn nnmtionn^ea on oette cauw tirfiua par In 
 " dit A. Cuvlllier A Co. aur Henrr Bull & Co. pavablaa h I'ordro du dit Mauricn Cuvillior et endoaa^ea 
 •' par en dernier, ni au paiemnnt du billot du dit J^rAnie (irenier on t'avcur do A. Cuvilliar Si Co., en- 
 " aoaa4 par oea demiera nt ouauite ondoaa^ par lo dit Maurice Cuvilliar, atteudu r/«« In valnr, eauH nu 
 *' emuidtratioH iU$ ditai Irailu el du dit billet qui tienmnt d!4tre meMvmMt in dtrMtr lieu nnn plua que la vnlnur, 
 " cwiaa ou oonaidiration du dit tndouemmt par U dit Maurice Cueiltier tur icellci demitret trailei $ur ieilui 
 " denutr bilUl ne conecrnaieHt ni la li(|uidatiun tt U rhlement drt dilei ujjairei de la dite ci-dn-nnl im-im de 
 " CuviUitr JjfSoiu ni uucuh commerce indieiduel du dit Maurice Cueitlitr, mart mnrtmnient lei affairtt de hi 
 " dite MtiHt de A. CutiUirr If Co., et ce U la connaUianct dc In DemaHdtreue. 
 
 " Que d'aillaura eu auppoaant qu'ellea n'nuaaout paa concern^ icullo deruiftro aociAtt^ rfudoiae- 
 *' nwnt par le dit Maurice Cuvlllior aur icellea derniArea traitea ct lur iccini billet conitituerait ci Figard 
 " dudil Maurice Cutillier une obligation nulltment Hie d nucim cmiimerce iiidiriduel du dit Maurice Vurillier, 
 ** ttiam riglewunt dee affairei de la dite ci-devant tociM de Ctivillier if Som rt jnrlaiit ne lombant jmh ioui 
 '* ViffiU du dit aete de cautionnemenl du dit 80 Juiliet, 1840. 
 
 " Que lea produita ou montanta r£alia4!a par lea eaconiptoa doa ditoa traitim ou lottrea do . .iigo 
 " et billet mentionn^a en cetto cauao n'ont tt6 ni pour lo rigleinent et la liquidation doa aflkirra do la 
 " dita ci-davant aoci^ttf de Cnvillier It 8ona, ni pour l'<<gurd d'aucun comnierco individuel du dit Mau 
 *' riaa OoTillier, maia qa'ila I'out M pour le comple, le mvfit el I'intMi de la dite mci4ti A. Cutillier if Co. 
 " dam tm Umrm da laqmlU iUjigureut et que tout ct que druue a tu lieu /) la connaitiaHtx jdeine et mfihe de la 
 " dit* Dmmmiirm*, an du p e r ioimet ff4rmiU tee ^airm," 
 
 " Qa'attendu oo que doaana Tea dita DeTendeura ne aont nuUenient toniica ct obligda nu painment 
 ** d'anonna daa ditaa aomtnaa rcclam^ua par la Demandercaaoi icellvii ditna aoninioa on prtStcnduua crd- 
 aacea na tombeot point aoua VeWvt du cautionnomont quo coniporta le dit acto du 90 Juillut, 1S49." 
 
 laaua having lieen joined and ovidonuu adduced by tlio partiea, tlio judgment now niidur rnvinw 
 waa pronounced ou the 30th of April, 1808. 
 
 Maurice Cuvillier. though one of the Defendants, waa oxaniinud ua a witneaa nu belinlf of liix 
 Co-dafendanta although hia teatiuiouy wna objected to by the Bunk, a motion waa inadu to ovriruln thii 
 taatimony, and to atnke it from the fyleit, and the judgment bcgina by dispoaing of thin niutiuii which 
 ia reJeetM. 
 
 The Contideranit oa given in tho Court below are ■• that the laid i'laintilf hutli failnd toeitubliah 
 V the matarial allegationa of the declaration, and particularly that the laid Defendants Angnliquo 
 " Cuvillier, Mary Anne Cuvillier, and tho laid Luco Cuvillier, are liable in innmiur and form nn 
 " complained of ; then, " that it ia fully eatabliahed in evidence by tho aaid I)efondii/it'<, that thn billM 
 •• or draila and promiiaor^ note aued on in this Cauae, wore not given by tho «aid Mauii<:« Cuvilli(>r tu 
 ■' the Raid Plaintiff in thia cause, in the prosecution of any husineaa carried on by Die aaid Mauricn 
 " Cuvilliar either in mmling up the butineu nf the late firm of Cucillier S^ Sone, or in carryitiq mi amj buti- 
 *' M«M qf trade and commtrct in hie own name, further that tho said Drfendunta hiivo fully eatabliahod 
 " by lagal and anffioient evidence that tho drafts or bills of exohongo lirstly, secondly, thirdly and 
 •< fourtnly aued on, Ac, wore accepted by tho said Maurice Cuvillier, and were discounted bi/ the taid 
 " Plaintiff for the benefit of the firm of A. Cuvillier if Co., of which firm tho said Munrico "Cuvillier 
 " wu h member, and thit to the knowledge of the mid Plaintiff;" then "that the said l)ef'undaut» nn^ 
 " not liable to the aaid Plaintiff, oa the surety of tho said Maurice Cuvillier, as tho said dratls or bills of 
 " exchange were not ditcounted by tho taid Plaintiff' for the mid Maurice Cutillier, in the prosecution of timj 
 " Moarate trade or commerce either in hit own name or in teinding up the iijjairs nf the laic firm of Cuvillier 
 » ^Shnt." 
 
 Kext, " that the several drails or bills of exchange drawn b^ the said firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. 
 " on the firm of Hannr Bull A Co. of Belleville, in favor of the said Maurice Cuvillier, and discounted 
 " by the aaid Plaintifl!, were in point of foot dittMuntedJor the betufit <iflhe laidfim of A. Cuvillier 4- Co. 
 " aa tfie aaid Maurice CavilUor the payee and endorter of the mid bills, was at the time of thu drawing mid 
 " andoraing tho said bills, a member of the taid firms of A. Cuvillier ^ Co. and oj Henri/ Bull i^ Co., of 
 " BtlUtilU, to the knowledge of the taid Plaintiff';" further, " that the said promissory note made und siicned 
 ** by the said JerOme Qronier in favor of tho finn of A. Cuvillier <!!; Co., and ondoi'sed by tho said Mau- ' 
 " rice Cuvillier, uxu alto ditcounted for the benefit of the laidfi, m of A, Cuvillier <ji' Co., of uhich fir/ii, the 
 " taid A&iMrice Cutillier teat at the tame t'lmea member, and this to the knowledge of the said Plamtiff ;" further, 
 " that the said last mentioned bills of exchange and promissory note were not d'lscounied for the said 
 " Maurice Cutillier, in tho carrj'ing on 0/ any separate trade or business or in the uinding up of the affairs 
 " ^th» late firm of CutUtier if Sons, anA by reason thereof no action in law hath accrued to tho said 
 •' Plaintiff to compel the payment thereof from the said Defendants as tho sureticg of the said !Munric«> 
 " Cuvillier, under and by virtue of the Deed or Bond of Suretyship, set out in the Dcilaiation of the 
 " aaid Plaintiff," whereupon " tho Court doth mointain the exception of tho said Angeliquo Cuvillier, 
 " Mary Anne Cuvillier and tho said Luce Cuvillier, Dofondaiits, os pleaded by them to the action of tho 
 " aaid Plaintiff, and doth as rcgarda tho said Angelique Cuvillier, Mary Anno Cuvillier ond the sold 
 " Luce Cuvillier, dismiss the said action with costs." 
 
 The judgment then proceeds to condemn Maurice Cuvillier upon his Confession, to pay to the 
 Plaintiff the sum of £4107 13a. Curreaoy, with interost and costs of suit, as proyed for. 
 
 In examining this judgment, the first point which presents itself is, the admission of Maurice 
 Cuvillier, aa a witness, for the Defendants, ho being a Co-defendant, and no judgment having been 
 entered up aa against him at the time of his examination. In support of this ruling tho case of 
 
 ■ !R*V. 
 
 ■ fM 
 
Wormll VI. JooM, 7 Bingtaun 396. and Pipe ra. Steele, S. Qaeeii** Bench Beport* 734, were cited br the 
 ReqiODdenti, but in tlieie oaeei, the witnen had raflGned a judgment by de&ult, and the taattmeiw 
 wae tendered I7 the Plaintiff and net u in thia oaie by Oo^efSmdanta. The general rule which 
 exclodei the evidence of a puty to the record, ia the rule to be followed in thia oaae, 1 QfeMileaf on 
 Evidanee ^99. 330. It aeemato be admitted i^A tin judgment ia in tiiia rMpeci fimltr, buiifeiaa^ 
 that the complexion of the oaae ia not changed b;^ tne rejeotion of the evidence of Maume Ourillier. 
 
 Before proceeding farther, it ia to be noticed that the DeCendanta have not alidad in their 
 exception, that the buainsaa of the firm of CuviQier ft Sona waa ever wonnd up, or that the liabiUtr of 
 the Defradanta under the Deed, waa ever diacharged or that it never attachedat i^L Now in expreaa 
 terma,the Defendanta became liable " for all debta heretofore contracted," and generally for aU the 
 prtttnt and future liabilititt of the aaid Haalrice Cuvlllier. 
 
 The liability of the Defendanta waa undertalien ibr "ihatth* mid Manriet CniUm hath, mm* M« 
 " itath </lA« laid me AMMtH GumUitr, earned on and ](/ropoaaa to carry on trade and commerce in thia 
 " Giiy and elaewbele." Their object waa *' to enable him todo ao.mi lo meet the «»gagemmntfih»»aid 
 " lau^m of Ciniittier ^ Soh$," for which purpose " he wtff require dieeowUi mui peamUny airitumeee to a 
 " eoMtdenMe extent from the uid variiet if the third and Jburth parti rtifeciittlif." In what leladon do the 
 partiea, Defimdanta, atand towania each otiierY The firm of Ouvilhcr A Sona, oompoaed of the late 
 Honorable Auatin Cuvillier, and of hia aona Auatin Cuvillier, the younger, and Haunee CuvilUer, had 
 been diaaolved on the Uth July, 1 8i9, by the death of the &ther. On the Mth of the aame moatk of 
 July, the deed in qoeation ia aigned, in the abaenoe of Auatin Ouvillier, the youDgor, in Enaiaad, by 
 Dame Marie Claire Ferrault, tne widow of the deoeaaed, praoumpttvely oeaniiMe m Mm» witk hovbua- 
 band, and her three daughtera, hia natural heira. The Ddimdanta had an intereat in the liquidafionof 
 the aiBtin of the firm of Cuvillier fc Sona, manifeatly, and Auatin Cuvillier, the younger, who waa 
 examined, aa a witneaa for the Defendanta, aweaia that " after the death of the late Honorable Auatin 
 •< Cuvillier, in the year 1849, Mawiee Cmillier vai appointed by thejamily CmiUier to windvp 1ttic0ain, 
 " at the aame time with hia own busineai." 
 
 Maurice Cuvillier, aa the Defendanta' witneu, aaya, " I am poaitive that I commenced winding 
 •* up the aaid eatate previoua to the execution of the osed filed in thia cauae by the Plaintifii u their 
 " Exhibit number S, (the deed of the 6th July, 1849). I ceaaed to wind up the aaid eatate at the time 
 " mentioned (about November, 18S8,) in conae<}nenoe of ita aettlement being oom|^tedfty(ii«pMraAaM 
 " hymyhroAer AM»^nandmyHlJfifomlh»oUi»hetnjfmylatefiuherotiMihatrtmaiM»ddM»li>it." I think 
 it right at the outaet to notice the marked distinction between the poaition of the Defendanta, and 
 that of ordinary aoretiea under the usual eavtiannmeni, although aubae<]uentlv, it will Iwve to be dis- 
 cuaaed more at length. Maurice Cuvillier waa their attorney or mandataire, ana in undertaking for him, 
 they undertook for themaelves, in the management of the common busineaa of all, and their joiin intereat. 
 
 " The account with Mr. Maurice Cuvillier waa opened (at the Bank of Brit: h North America) in 
 " July, 1 849, and continHed iq> to the time if the fitilure of Maurice Cuvillier." Evidence of David Davidson, 
 the Cashier, a witness for the Defendants (Pase 35 of the printed Beoord, line 16). 
 
 The case with reference to the four billa of exchange, drawn by Caatle and discounted at New 
 York, stands upon a different footing, from the drafts drawn by A. Cuvillier ft Co. and the promisaory 
 note of Jerome Grenier. The bill transaction is distinguishable from the others, in this important tea 
 
 pect, that neither the name of A. Cuvillier ft Co. nor orBull ft Co. appears upon the fiuie or the paper, 
 the acoeptan<!e being that of Maurice Cuvillier alone. 
 
 Upon the thnory of the defence, it was for the Defendants to shew that this transaction did not 
 come within the guarantee or catitiomtement and to coimect it with business foreign to the purpoaea of 
 the deed, in order to exclude the liability set up againat them by the Bank. Let it now be enquired, 
 has this been done 1 The three letters or requisitions dated the 90i, 10th and 91st of Ootober, '16S4, 
 explain the origin of the four bills drawn from New York, sued upon by the Bank, and now bi question. 
 It is to be noticed that the originals are printed for^-, such as ate in common use at the Bank- wMi 
 blanks which art, filled up in writing, and that the concluding portion of the piiated form *' iUin 
 " guarantee and obligation is intended to remain in force, ftc.,"ia inapplicable to the position of Maurice 
 Cuvillier when signing them. The applicant is Maurice Cuvillier and his request to the Bank ia " to 
 " order a credit to be lodged with the Manager of your Branch at New York m favor of C. H. Caatie, 
 " Esquire, same place, for the sum of 5000 dolUrs or ^£1860" (3000 dollars or ^£700, and 6000 dollan 
 or ^1260 respectively) which is followed by, " and I hereby engage to honor his dimft on me for thia 
 " amount to oe drewn before the SOth instant (the 28th instant and the 31st instant re^jMOtivelv,) 
 " at ten days sisht." Pursuant to these requisitions a credit is opened to Castle at New York, by tne 
 Bank, and the mm bills drawn by Castle, on Maurice Cuvillier, are received in consequence. The 
 deed of the 26th July, 1849, states " that the said Maurice Cuvillier hath since the death of the aaid 
 " late Austin Cuvillier carried on and proposes to carry on trade and commerce in this city and ebe- 
 " inhere." 
 
 Mr. Davidson, the Cashier of the Bank, when examined by the Defendants as their own witneaa, 
 " is asked, " Were you not informed by Maurice Cuvillier for what purpose the credits on New York 
 " and, specially the proceeds of the drafts forming Plaintiff's Exhibits numbers 1, 2, 8, and 4 were to 
 *' be used, and if so state what that purpose was 1 " His answer is " Mr. Maurice Cuvillier applied for 
 " these credits in favour o)~ hi) agent in New York, as stated to me in connection with business, which he 
 " na.Ki^edfor BMand Company of Belleville. The Drafts sued upon, formed part of a long I'eriei qf 
 " nmilar traniactions of which the foregoi.i^was the only explanation. * I remember to have received.' " 
 The same witness says, " the account with Mr. Maurice Cuvillier, was opened in July, 1849, and 
 " continued up to the time of the failure of Maurice Cuvillier." The Bank positively declined to have 
 any transactions with A. Cuvillier and Company. " I am certain that I informed him (Maurice Cu- 
 " villier) that in all the transactions with the Bank, the Bank depended upon the said warranty," the 
 " deed of the 26th July, 1S49. The paper now lued upon would never hate been diicounied except in reliance 
 " upon tluu lecurify." " I recollect distinctly that I told Mr. Austin Cuvillier on more than one occanon, 
 " tnat the Bank would not traruact any butineu with hit firm." 
 
 In looking at these four bills in a commercial point of view, their value depended upon the 
 ostensible parties to them, and in the whole process of their issue and negotiation, the party mainly 
 interested and liable, is the individual Maurice Cuvillier the acceptor, upon the face oi^ them. The 
 Defendants have sought to shew, that the appearance of the bills was fictitious, that Maurice Cuvillier 
 was merely a prtte-nom, and that the party really interested, was the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. From 
 this plea of the Defendants it is to be inferred, that the resort to a feigned party, must exempt them 
 from liability. But, admitting it to be the fact, that Maurice Cuvillier, purposely omitted the name of 
 A. Cuvillier and Co. in order to procure a discount or pecuniary advance which would have been 
 refused by the Bank, if the transaction liad appeared in its true light, is the Bank to bo made the victim 
 of the deception ? The Bank trusted Maurice Cuvillier upon tne faith of the Defendants' deed, and 
 his representation whether true or false bound them equally. The misappropriation of the credit, 
 cannot preiudice the Bank. It is to be ascertained, howevei', now far the Defendants are justified in 
 asserting that the funds obtained by Maurice Cuvillier were resorted to for the payment of liabilities 
 by A. Cuvillier & Co. Three witnesses depose to this. Austin Cuvillier says, " the drafk 
 '■ 1, 2, 3 and 4 were discounted iit PlaintifTs Bank agency in New York, and the proceeds were 
 " applied to meet engagements of our firm there." Benjaman 8. Curry says, " the proceeds of those 
 " drafts went to the credit of A. Cnvillier ft Co. in C. H. Castle's account current witli them, and 
 " were drawn against purchases of groceries for them in New York. The said drafts were charged in 
 " A. Cuvillier ft Co.'s books to C. II. Castle." 
 
 Edward Chaplin says, " I declare that those drafts were made, accepted and discounted for iui 
 
 f 
 
 
4 
 
 '« MmweofiMfaMQMdin A. CimlUar* Oi».'a bmiiMn and wera inpanolieti to tiieir credit in C. H 
 *• &MWI Mooont irith tiMm. This luieouiit ia wodaoed as' Defendtnta' ExhiMt number one and ii - in 
 •< Mdoiteee irith A. OavilUer A Go.'i btfoka wbere they ttond ohkMfed to Mid Cattle. I obwrw bv thii 
 •^M0omt tint tha rmaining foniom of the proaedt tf the mw dtnfti vfil» credited by Caatls to 
 « H. Ball A Company." 
 
 Tbebookaof A. CwdlKer fc Company bare not been prodnoed, nor have any extracts from 
 tbem baap ahawB or prorata to contain true entriea. Parol teatimony cannot aupply the want of 
 iham. iMain Dafimdants' Exhibit number'one ia not prorvd. It purporta to be an account current 
 batwoan A. CuTiUier ft Co. and C. H. Oaatle, \vith interest to lat NoTember, 1864. The debit aide 
 «atataina' ehaigaa iiram the lat—itb Kovemberi ] 851, to the 30th.— 9nd January, 1S56, and the credit 
 aM»two eharaaa of WOOO each pnrpDrtinR to be drafts on H. B. & Go. one at three monthi, and the 
 other due lStn~-lSth Ifansh. It u ao< liakuteed, nor dated, nor ligned, I'here is nothintt to shew 
 tb«t H waa erar rendered by Caatle or any one authoriced by him, and no attempt whatever haaoeen made 
 to prov»«ny «f the itaniai or to ahew whence it proceeded. Thia paper does not bind Castle in any 
 ■uauMf bat aa between the Plaintiff and the Defendanto, ita contents require to be proved, and it is a 
 mtro piaae of waata paperupon tblarecord. 
 
 Both Anatin CttvUlier and Curry are in error when they spealt of the application of tlie proceeds 
 obtained from the Bank at New York. That application did not lie within <tneir knowledge, and they 
 aould'only apeak from aurmisr. Curry undertakeatosay that the drafta " were drawn againstpurchases 
 of gnceiiea Sot them (A. CuviUiev Se Co.) in New York." The informal paper called account currant, 
 if woiihanyUiing.ahawaby thafirakfiveiteaiaonthedebit aide, amounting in the «ggregat«;tolSQ7 9 
 doUaia oat of a toM of 10798 dollan added up on that ride, that instead of (p-oceries, the drafts ai-e 
 made to meat a bidanoe of account, and four acceptances of other drafts. Austin Cuvillier says, " the 
 ipiocaeda were applied to meet engagementa of our firm there,''a8 has been remarked by Chaplin, this 
 auppoaed aeoount current af Caatia eontaina two items of 1000 dollars, each credited to B. & Co. that 
 i> proiwUy Boll * Co. a firm in which A. Otnrillier & Co. had no interest^ although Maurice 
 CnvJUliar itadiTidadiy had an interest. It is to be noticed also that the credit side of this paper 
 > tfittogaidiaa the dntna on M. C, preaumably Maurice Cuvillier, from one under date of the S6th 
 ^tOotobar 18S4 "A. C. ft Co. acceptance of my draft due to day 1600 dollars." The two items of the 
 Stat and 94th October 1864 " leaa credited B. ft Co. 1000 dollars " imply necessarily another account 
 eorrent «lith B. ft Co., but this ia neither proved nor even alluded to. It was for the Defendants to 
 ham enmined Caatle, for he orhia clerks could alone prove the purpose and object for which the 
 eradit at New York waa procured and in what manner the funds raised from that source were applied 
 dr dtopoaad of. The Defendants themselves have put their own construction upon the words " less 
 artdited B. ft Co.," for Chaplin their witness says " t observe - by this account that the rmaniing 
 " ptrtion of tk»fnc*ed$o/'th« mid draflt mu credited by CcMle lb H. BnH &(^ 
 
 The Court below then was in error, in assigning as a ground for dismissing the claimofthi: 
 Bank udor ilie foar Irills of Exchange in ducstion, that they " were accepted by the said Maurice 
 '• Gtt'vinier and wrt» diaoounted by the iaid F' irttiff for the benefit of the firm of A Cuvillier & Co of 
 " which firm the said Maurice Cuvillier wat » rjember, and this to the kni»c{edge of the said PiaiutijS. 
 Thaoradit waa in the name of Caatle, who waa tree to use it for any purpose ho thought fit,.«ather in 
 ooimaetionwith Mamice CuvilHer's individual business, or that of A. Cuvillier & Co.^ or Bull & Co. 
 or ia any otiier way. It wu Impoamble fbr the Bank to foresee what Castle wobld do with their funds, 
 orar which they loat all control, the iaoment they came into bis poMession. 
 
 The Bank could have no knowledge that these discounts were for the benefit of the firm of 
 M.'OwtOim ft Co. The Daftndanta have not pleaded that' Castle tO» was a prtie nam, and no correi- 
 » oa< * na a ItttWaea Um an* Ai OwrHUCr ft Co. on the subjeet of these credits is produced. If even 
 the indiridaal account of Manrico Cnvlllier with the firm of Austin Cuvillier ft Co. had been produced, 
 the item* would require to ho proved to make them evidence against the Banli. The statement of the 
 Daftndanta' witneaaea that the Ottriea in the books of Austin Cuvillier ft CO. corresponded with those 
 in tha aeeoiaiit k^t by Manriee Cuvillier at the Bahk, is worth nothing, it is no evidence, without the 
 podaotion of the hooka and acoonnt, neither of which are before the Court. But even beyond this, 
 ihia portion of ttie tMliiaony ia disproved by the Defendants themselves, the Bank account with Maurice 
 COvulier must have stated the amount of the credits in full, plus the Bank ohargo for discount.'. The 
 bAoka of A. Cuvillier ft Co. if even they 'torrespohded with tne paper called account current, wock 
 ibdua no notice of the two thousand doUart -redited to Bull and Co. 
 
 The purpose for which the deed wa.' signed by the Defendants, was to obtain a credit witit llic 
 Bank in favor MManrice Cavillior, to enabie him to wind up the estate of Cuvillier ft Sone, nnd to 
 en ga g e in IraiiBeas, on his own account^ at Mtmtreal and elsetvhere. 
 
 An aoflonnt waa in oonaeqtlence Opened by the Bank with him, and in his own individual name 
 The firm of A. Oaviliier ft Co. had an existence before this apart from Cuvillier ft Sons, no connection 
 with Cuvillier ft Co. on thepartof MauHce Cuvillier is pretended to have existed prior to 1861, ^yhcll 
 Chaplin aoya " Maurice Cuvillier took an interest in the bosiness tn the lUuurc qf , a partner having a 
 ehtirt (what share t) m the pr^i and partaking of the tiabilitia." The declaration of partnership required 
 by tha Provincial Statuteof the IS Victoria chapter 46 is made by Austin Cuvillier, Maurice Cuvillier 
 and Bdward Chaplin at the office of the Prothonotary on the 31st July, 1852. (Schedule No. 40) 
 
 Thia declaration is of course proof against the. partners, yet, though not proof as to. third 
 parties, taking for granted, the date of 1861 or that of May or June, 1863; there was an 
 interval between anon date and the SMth July, 1849, when the Defendants signed the deed upon 
 which the Bank has brought its suit Darinjg these two years or three years as the case mny be, the 
 acoonnt between Maurice Cavillier and the Bank, according to the pretentions of the Defendants thcm- 
 aelvea, muathave been confined to his own business apart and distinct from that of A°. Cuvillier ft Co. 
 If the aridenoe of Maurice Cuvillier is to be roceiviBd he continued to wiud up the Estate of Cuvillier 
 A Sona tilt November, 1861, when he and his brother Austin purchased the interest of liis sisters tlio 
 Dafendanta in their father's estate. Although ho asserts •' I have done >m regular butincu oh my okii 
 oceoaM iitiMiiuiUi/ since my father's death," it follows from what has been said, that the Defunilaiits 
 waia liable to the BAnk, under the dee<!, unon their own theory, for all discounts and advances mndf 
 to him duiiiw this interval of time. The account of Maurice Cuvillifer with the Bank was never altered ; 
 Austin Cavillier ft Co. aftor the accession of Maurice to the firm, opened no new account with the 
 Aimellanta. The Bank would have no transactions with A. Cuvillier ft Co., who kept their accotiut 
 With tha Montreal Bank and the City Bank. Nb notice was given to the Bank of the sale b^.tho 
 Dafendanta to their two brothers as stated by Maurice, whether such sale took place Or not, (for ot that 
 there is liot due proof) but the mere aoertion of Maurice Cavillier only. The terms of this sale arc 
 not stated, but it is in evidence by the Defendants' own witness Benjamin 8. Curry (page 40 of printed 
 racorth that at the very time of his oxaminutiori " lam nowemjtloyed by Mr. A. M. Beliak (one of t/tf. 
 Dtftniantt) to balaitee the Bookt at Bellevilk of the late firm of CutilHer i,- Sons." This was as late as the 
 lat April 1867. It is qnite intelligible now, why the Detendants have not pleaded that the estate of 
 Cuvillier ft Sons had been wound up and' liquidated, and why their exception makeino mention of any 
 eonneetlon between Maurice Cuvillier and Bull ft Company. 
 
 The Defottdants object to the connection with Cuvillier and Co. as relieving thorn from liability unJur 
 the bond, but are silent as to Bull ft Co. Now Mr Davidson, when examined by the Defendants, 
 aaya " I nndentood that Bull If Go. were largehj indebted to the firm of Cumllier ^ Sons and that Mr. 
 " Maurice Cm>iUier teai endearoHrinr torreottr that debt, and that hit traiuacliont with Bull Ijt Co. had refcnnce 
 '• to that ol^eet." Down to the 1st April 1857, long after the transactions now in question, and even 
 after the bringing of thia suit, the bookS of CuvillieF ySons were not balauced andthatcstiito continued 
 
 n 
 
unliquidated. The pepe' styled account current make* a duMinction in the (ame traniaction originating 
 with Maorioe Cuvulier between the respective intereita of the two firms of Cuvillier If Co. ana 
 Bull If Oo. in the same round sum of money. But by what ear^mark could the Bank discern that the 
 credit in the name of Cattle, was to be apportioned at all, and what proportion was to be allotted to 
 each of the two firms, or any of them t 
 
 The Defendants have sought to establish a nq^re that Maurice Cuvillier carried on no buiineM 
 for himMlf individually. Their witnessee express opinions mora or less strongly upon this point. But, 
 on the part of the Bank, every credit which they gave to Maurice Cuvillier In their account with him 
 was an Individual transaction with him, forming part of u series commencing from the date of the 
 deed, and continuing unbroken and unaltered tin tne dose of their transactions. He bought bills of 
 Exchange^ In his own name, payable to his own order, he accepted billi drawn on himself in^ividuiklly, 
 he endorsed negotiable securities in his own name, not a farthing was drown in his account with t&e 
 Bank, but upon his own checque, he dealt individually with Bull & Co. in one shape or another, he 
 openi. credits on New York in his own name, but all liability for this is relieved by the word prtunom 
 and the mere vague opinion of wit n ess es , without means of^ ascertaining the fact On this point, it is 
 only necessary to ask to whom was the credit given by the Bank ? The only answer must be, that it 
 was to Maurice Cuvillier, in reliance upon the security afforded b;^ the deed of the S6tli July, 1849. 
 With reference to the four bills of Excnanffe, the name of A. Cuvillier & Co. does not appear at all, 
 it was not upon their credit then, that the Bank took them. A; to the other four pieces or negotiable 
 paper, althoiigh bearing upon them the niune of A. Cuvillier & Co. they are only discounts for 
 ,Maurice CuviUier upon his individual credit and signature. Why should the Bank require this 
 signature, if the pergonal liability of Maurice Cuvillier was alone looked to apart from the deed. As 
 a partner, his liability was as perfect and as great under the signature of A. Cuvillier & Co. as with 
 the addition of his own name. Wbv was this addition required by the Bank ? Only to bind the 
 Dafeadants, in the terms of the dead " gtiterailu for all tK* prtteiu and future liabUuit$ o/ tht nid 
 " Maurice CmtUlier towardi the parties of tSe third and fourth parts respectively, whether as maJcer or 
 " drawtr, eiiiorter or acceptor of iugoti%Ue paper or otkerwue, and '.rhether resulting from dUcounts, 
 "pecuniary adtamcet or any other eaute «kateter." The Bank all along relied upon the security aflfonled by 
 the deed, without which credit would have been refused to Maurice Cuvillier as it was to A. Cuvillier 
 k Co. The officers of the Bank had an eye specially ta this deed, and even took advice, as to the 
 extent of its operation. Although the Dafeadants have attempted to shew that credit was given 
 irrespective of it, even supposing the evidence of Mr. Austin Cfuvillier to avail ogaiust the terms of 
 that deed, I can attach no weight to it, aftsr the oontradiction given to that evidence by Messrs. 
 Davidson and Paton. It may have been flattering to the vanity of Mr. Austin Cuvillier to believe that 
 the Bank req^ulred no security from the deed. But it is not to be supposed that gentlemen intrusted 
 with the affairs of the Bank, and knowing their reipoosibility, would feel themselves at liberty, to 
 treat as watte paper, a document of the strinmnt character of that in question, and so formalin its 
 import. Upon the most careful consideration oT the evidence. I arrive at the conclusion that the four 
 bills of Exchange declared upon, are altogether unconnected with A. Cuvillier & Co. in their concoction, 
 tliat they xte to be viewed as representing advances made to Maurice Cuvillier, individually, that they 
 were taken by the Bank upon the faith of the Deffsudants' guarantee contained in the deed and upon 
 the reliance that Maurice Cuvillier would apply the procMds pursuant to the trust reposed in him, 
 that if any part of these proceeds was applied to the purposes of the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. it 
 was undistinguishable from the rest by the Bank, and bjr all the world, except those behind the scenes, 
 that Bull & Co. actually obtained a part of the funds raised, which may or may not have profited the 
 estate of Cuvillier & Sons, as the case may be ; and that for aught that appears to the contrary, 
 Maurice Cuvillier individually may have profited by this transaction a* well as O. 3. Castle, whoso 
 participation in it is wholly unexplained, and who alone conid throw light upon it, as a witness if ex- 
 amined by the Defendants. 
 
 I am of opinion that the Defendants have wholly failed to prove their exoeptton with regard to 
 this portion of the demand of the Bank, and that the statement contained in the judgment of the Court 
 below, that the four bills in question were " accepted by the said Maurice Cuvillier, and were 
 discounted fty the laid " Plaintiff ht the benefit of the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. and this to tht knowledge 
 " of the mid Plaint^," is not sustained by the evidence of record, but is directly contradicted by it. 
 
 To proceed now to the consideration of the three drafis, drawn by A. Cuvillier ft Co. on 
 Henry Bull aud Company at Belleville which were discounted by the Bank upon the individual 
 endorsement of Maurice Cuvillier in his own name. 
 
 It is to be obser.-ed, that the judgment of the Court below upon this head of the demand of 
 the Bank, asserts that these drafts " were in point of fact discounted for the benefit of the said 
 " firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. as the said Maurice Cuvillier the payee and endorser of the said 
 " bills was, at the time of the drawing aud endorsing the said bills a member of the said firms 
 " of A. Cuvillier & Co. and of Henry Bull & Co. of Belleville, and Mm to the knovMge of the 
 " taid Plaint^." The exception of the Defendants does not set up, any partnership with 
 Bull k Co. on the part or Maurice Cuvillier, and does not seek to impugn this transaction, 
 upon the ground of such partnership, as in the case of Cuvillier & Co. The evidence as to the 
 connection of Maurice Cuvillier with Bull ft Co. is very loose and unsatisfactory, and hardly would 
 warrant the statement, that a co-partnership was proved. 
 
 But, however, this ma^ be, there is nothing to shew that Maurice Cuvillier, being connected 
 with both firms, obtained a discount from the Bank, 'vc the benefit of one of them rather than the 
 other. Nothing to shew the state of accounts between the two firms, or to exclude a> personal and 
 individual interest on the part of Maurice Cuvillier, in getting this paper discounted. A connection 
 between Cuvillier & Sons, and Bull & Co. is proved, of the precise nature of the connection there 
 is no proof, nor ou the part of the Bank was this necessary. If Bull & Co. were indebted to the 
 estate of Cuvillier & Sons, or if there were accounts between them, (as beyond doubt there were,) 
 the Bank in discountinK paper upon which the name of Bull ds Co. appeared after Maurice Cuvillier's 
 endorsement was affixed, had every reason to suppose the transaction real and not fictitious. In 
 discounting this paper, the Bank credited neither Cuvillier & Co. nor Bull & Co. but the proceeda were 
 
 Cut to the the credit of Maurice Cuvillier, with whom alone there stood any account open in their 
 ooks. Against the credit upon this discount, Mauriee Cuvillier might checque for himself, and on his 
 own private account, or upon any account whatever. There is nothing to wammt the conclusion 
 stated in the judgment, that in point of fiut, the drafU were discounted for the benefit of the said firm 
 of A. Cuvillier k Co. However Maurice Cuvillier may have used the proceeds, the Bank could only 
 have made the discount for its owu particular customer Maurice Cuvillier, and not for the two firms 
 who were not customers ond had no account there. 
 
 As has been already said, the Defendants have not set up, either that their liability under the 
 deed never attached at all, or that it came to an end at any particular time, or was not a continuing 
 guarantee or that it had been defeated. If the Defendants nad pleaded tliat Maurice Cuvillier by 
 becoming a partner in the firm of A. Cuvillier A Co. on a particular day, had put an end to the 
 guarantee, or tliat the affairs of A. CuviUier k Sons had been entirely liquidated and wound up on a 
 given day, and that therefore the guarantee had determined, the defence would have been intelligible, 
 and would have furnished an answer to the demand of the Bank. But the attempt to distinguish 
 the trausactioiis of Maurice Cuvillier, into those lying within, and those " honde ton commerce indtnduet^ 
 " n' ayant pas pour cause on objet un commerce indietduel de m pmri, et n'etant d ion tgard indinduel aue 
 •' dt> oUi^atione on dcttct d'un caraetere eicU, nond^un earacterecBmmereial, " seems in my apprehension 
 *' very wire drawn and thin s^un." It seems singular to compel a Bank to draw the line 
 
 I 
 
 K^*^/^-^ 
 
 I 
 
of diitinotion between " dettet d'un caraetert civilt" ftod " dettet tPun caracttrt commercial.'' If diatinotion 
 there be, why did not the Defondantfi who u hairi of the late Austin Cuvillier, and listers of Maurice 
 CuTilUert oonid best discern it, point out this distinction, and notify the Banli, that an association 
 between Maurice Cuvillier and his brother Austin CuTillier the younger, drew a line of demarcation, 
 as to future transactions? The theory set up ' y the Defendu^ts is, tnat Maurice Cuvillier never had 
 any " eommeree individuel " at all or an^ " <i«<(ei d'un caracttrt commercial. " Then, why was any account 
 commenoed at all with the Bank in the name of Maurice Covilliurf It is not denied that the 
 liquidation of the estate of Cuvillier & Sons was in the hands of Maurice Cuvillijr, acting on behalf of 
 the family Cuvillier. 
 
 In the interval between the date of the dead and the connection with Cuvillier & Co., mercantile 
 paper of every k<nd must h&ve passed between Maurice Cuvillier and the Bank, in which the Grm of 
 Cuvillier is Sons, in liquitlaticn had an interest. la it to be argued that the Bank was to look at each 
 individual piece of paper, " ' trace its pedigree u* to Cuvillier & Sons before dealing with it ? Such 
 a pretension would l>t- ;>r .irous, and it cotr doly excite a smile to notice such a statement as that 
 ofthe witness Curry, tib ~ the cheeks deposited by Maurice Cuvillier, in the Plaintiff's Bonk the 
 *' greater proportion hr 1 ^.reviously been received by A. Cuvillier (c Co. in the ordinary course of 
 '• their business that is to d'iy the name of the firm was mentioned in the greater portion of these checks 
 " as the payees of them." As, if in taking a checque to bearer over the bank counter, anything else 
 was looked at than the name of the drawer and the amount, and that there were funds to meet it. 
 The Defendants have attempted to. prove a negative, that notwithstanding the terms of the deed Mau- 
 rice Cuvillier, never engaged in bulincss on his own account either in Mowtroal orelsewb^re- The crpss 
 examination of the witnesses, shews their inability to do more, tUan to express more surmise, 'or 
 opinion upon this point. Every endorsement by Maurice Cuvillier of negotiable paper discounted' at 
 the Bank, was in Law a new drawing and an individual transaction of a commercial nature between him 
 and the Bank, in the terms ofthe deed binding upon the Defendants. The credit having been once opened 
 to Maurice Cuvillier pursuant to the deed, it was for the Defendants to close that account and their liability , 
 at tha same time by proper countermand and due notice. Admitting Maurice Cuvillier to have been a 
 partner both of Cuvillier & Co. and of Bull & Co., there was nothing to prevent him from negotiating their 
 paper for his ovra account, and of disposing of it, upon his own individual endorsement. It was that 
 inaividual endorsement which was guaranteed by the deed. If it were improperly given, and loss is to 
 occur, it should properly fall upon the Defendants by Whose actthecredit was procured, and not upon 
 the Bank, — upon the co-heirs of Maurice Cuvillier joint and several obligors with him under the bond 
 rather than strangers. These observations apply equally to the proinissory note of Grenier, the last 
 head of the demand of the Bank, as to the Bills and drafts. By the endorsement of A. Cuvillier & Co. 
 it became the property ostensibly of Maurice Cuvillier between whom and the Bank its discount became 
 a new and individual transaction, irrespectively either of Grenier the maker or Cuvillier & Co. the 
 payees and endorsers. Why should the Bank have questioned the title of Maurice Cuvillier to this 
 note, or have refused to discount it at his request, and to place the amount to his individual credit, in 
 the account standing open in his name, and undisturbed ^om the time of the signing of the Deed ? 
 That title could no more be questioned, than the title of Maurice Cuvillier, to the bill of Exchange, 
 sold to him by the Bank and made payable to himself or order ibr a tliousand pounds sterling, which 
 was purchased by him, out of discounts upon the paper of A. Cuvillier & Co. Maurice Cuvillier might 
 endorse this bill to A. Cuvillier & Co. on their account or to any one else, as they might endorse Gre- 
 uier's note, to him, to be discounted on his private account and in his individual name. The judgment 
 ofthe Court below states that the Bonk has not made oat its case and that the Defendants have proved 
 their exoaption. I am of opinion on the contrary that the Bank made out a primft facie case against 
 the Debndants, which antiUed it to judgment, and tbyt the Museption ought to have been overruled 
 and dismissed, for want of proof, if for no other reason, as to legal sufBeiency . 
 
 The point however which has been chiefly debated between the parties, turns uponsthc cons- 
 truction of the deed. The Defendants have viewed that instrument, as as an ordinary surOtyship or 
 cautionfienMf, they have contended "natura fidejussionis est strictissimi juris et nondur at vel exten- 
 " ditur, de re ad rem, do personA ad personam, de tempore ad tempus." The Court below has 
 adopted this view, and even the bank has consented, to treat the contract as one simply of suretyship. 
 I have never been able to see it in this light. The personal interest in the business of the Estate of 
 Cuvillier and Sons, on the part of the Defendants, is manifest. That Estate was wound up and 
 managed by Maurice Cuvillier acting for his mother, his sisters the Defendants, and himself, and his 
 brother Austin Cuvillier the younger. 
 
 The business of the Estate was evidently a very large one, not confined to Aloutrcal alone but 
 extending to Belleville in Upper Canada. It has come out in evidence, by the very witnesses of the 
 Defendants, that at a given time, they sold or transferred their interest in their father's Estate to their 
 brothers Maurice Cuvillier and Austin Cuvillier the younger. The price or the conditions of this 
 transaction are not stated, but it moy reasonably be supposed, that a large sum of money was involved 
 in it In the absence of a direct interest in the estate it would be difficult to understand, how a widow 
 and her three daughters would undertake a joint and several liability with Maurice Cuvillier, such as 
 that shewn by the deed, which contains no limit either as to tiftie or amount. But when the true 
 position of the Defendants towards their father's Estate, and relatively to their brothers, is properly 
 considered, it becomes plain that their interests were all bound up together. It was with a view to 
 that interest «nd for their own profit and advantage, that they raaoe " themselves jointly and severally 
 " liable to and in favor of the said parties hereto of the third and fourth parts respectively, they thereof 
 " accepting, for ali. debts heretqfore contracted, or that mau hereajter be contracted, to and in favor of the 
 " yartta of the third and fourth ■part$ retpctiuly by the laid Maurice CiidUier, and oenerau.y for AU. 
 " the present and future liabilities of the said Maurice Cuvillie', whether as maker or drower, 
 " ENO0R8EB or ACCEiTOB of NEooTiABLE PAPER or OTHERWISE, and whether resulting from discounts, 
 " pecuniary advances, or any other cause whatever, hereby jointly and severally promising and 
 " obligiug themselves, to meet and pay, the said present andf future dedt» and liabilities of the 
 " said Maurice Cuvillier, as if THEy, were jointly and rbvebally the principal dehtors tiiERKoK." 
 
 Is the construction of this obligation to be restrained and limited, by the rules iippliciible to 
 the ordinary every (liiy cau<(onnem«« ? I cannot bring myself to believe this. The relation between 
 the parties is that ti( iirincipat and agent, not that of principal and mrcty ; and in this case the agent was 
 not the ordinary procurator, but the procurator univertorum bonoriim, and procurator in rem suam, at the 
 ■aihe time. 
 
 But, assuming hypothetical ly, that the contract under consideration is to be viewed as a 
 eautionnement I the terms of it are so extensive, so general, or rather universol and compreliciisive, 
 that it is plainly an exception to the usual and ordinary eautionnement or suretyship. "Lorsquo les 
 " termes du eautionnement sont gdnuraux et ind^finis, le' fidejusseur est cens^ s'Atro oblige d louics kt 
 " obligatumi du principal dfibiteur, r^sultans du contrat auquel il a accede, il est consiS I'dtnir cautionni 
 " in omnem camam, Pothier Obligations No. 404." 
 
 " Si les lettres do credit ne sont point resireintes i\ uno somrae d^termintle, ellcs donniMit iiiic 
 " action au banquier pour toutei cellet que Ic mandant lui aura adrestit c'est le cas d'epplicjiier la loi »i itn 
 " 65 Digester, do fidcjussoribus suivnnt laquolle, li verba tunt ad itfinitatem tolerotnr inlinitqs. Digest, 
 4(j. 1. 66, si ita stipulatus. Denizart, verbis, Lettres do credit." This law 6(5 is from Patiliis lib 2, 
 quoestiouum, and as follows. "Si ita stipulatus a Seio fuero, quant am pecuniam JV/m quandocjue 
 " CREDiDKRO. dare spondes y et fidejussores accepero, deinde T/rio naepius credidero : nciupc seio 
 " in 0MNE8 suHHAS obligatus est et per hoc fidejussores quoque." 
 
 The glossa f. upon this law is irrJo hxtensiva et inhnita, inniiitatoin inducuiit: at que ita 
 
ixmr 
 
 s*a5»i 
 
 8 
 
 IMVIMITM TOLER^Tci:. Di 'Mtt«v .fi 1611 Pandeotarum Juria Civilis, tomus tertius, psgn 1110. 
 Lugdani Samptibu: ViiU'tvouo .18. '* The general rule is HdejuMore* iiou obligari nd id quod mora 
 " debitoris ad princip.V i Vi'.igationeni aooedore potest. But if the surety had bound himself in 
 " omntm eatuam he is liable for whatever interest becomes payable by reason of the debtor's delay. 
 " Ho will be liable to the full extent which the tervu of the M'gatim or Ikt natHrt o/tke aeljor which he 
 " hai oUijged himulf wiU learraHl, Thus if the term are gtnemf and indefinite, he is bound for ail the 
 " Migatwiu of the princijpal debtor neeettarihj incident to or resulting from the contract or act for which he 
 " hai become lurety. In this coso he is said to be a luretij in omnem eatuam," Burge, Suretyship 68. 4. 
 
 " Quicunquo actionis out nogotii, olicujus uomino, intercedit, in omnem cauiam intercedere inlelligifur, 
 mm TAXATioNEM OBBTAU, fldojussioni apposuorit." Hering. fidejuss. cap. 24, No. 109, S, 4. 
 
 " Autont I'article SOlfl ordonno do ne pas do passer les limites du oautionnement quand cet limiiei 
 " lonl dffikiee, autanl it lui dontie de latitude, quand il a M contrneli indifinimenl. Un caulionnemenl ett 
 " indejini lorsqu'll a 6til contracts in univebsah causam pour me servir des expressions do Paul (I. 00 
 " de) edilitio edicto, II dit in omnem caubam dans la lot 05 Dig. de Fidejussoribus. Et il a oe carac- 
 " tftre loTK/ue ri«n dane h contrat ne Is reilreint d'une maniire erpreete ou facile. En pareil caa le crtaneier 
 
 I erpreeee 
 " ett ceHt4 amir itipuli qu'il icra pitinement indemnity }>ar le fidff'uneur. 
 Troplong du cautionnement No. 157. 
 
 pareil 
 Indemnrm UK 
 
 crianeier 
 PBffiSTABIS." 
 
 Connexorum et dependenlitm ideniest judicium, " II est Evident que le lidojusseur d'une obligation 
 " s'oblige non seulement i\ la chose, ii laquelle le d^biteur principal s'eet expres86ment et directemont 
 " engagd mais encore ft toutes les causes non exprim6oes qui peuvont provenir de la nature du contrat." 
 Simplex fidejussor nlicuius contractus (dit Casaregis) non solum obligator ad id ad quod •• principalis 
 " debitor oxpressd ant directs tenetur, sed obligutur ctiam pro omnibut illit casibui et cauiit non exprtttit, 
 " qu» youunt jnomnire ex naturd t;M>»< eontractiti. Discursus 68, No. 40, Vol. 1 p. 825. Venetiis, 1740 
 ex typography BalleonianA. Troplong, ut supra No. 168. 
 
 Caaaregis citds first among his authorities the Law Latinus 66 Dig. Edilitio Edicto, and adds 
 what Troplong has omitted " nee non tenetur pro omnibut aliis nccessoriis, connexis, et dqiendentibut 
 " ab eodem contractu. £t in lerminit migii dubitabilibut, quod scilicet fidejussor obligetur in casn etiam 
 ■■ resolutionis contractus ob cu^m unius ex contrahontibus." Nos. 41, 42, 43, of tlie same Discursus 
 63, and he adds No. 44 " Et ita semper judieatuni fuit Genuoe per nostra tribunalia ob preediotaa 
 " rationes contra fidejuuoremfavorc Cambiita," 
 
 " Fidejussor, (says Potliier ad Pandect, lib 4C, tit. 1 sect. 4 No. 34) facit entelligiiur so oUigane 
 " EODEM MODO (}uo se obligavit reus principalis. Qui oenebaliteb fidejubet pro oo qui ex aliquo 
 " contractu obligatus est, intelligitur fidejubero in omneu oBLiOATioirEU quoe ex illo contractu 
 •* descendit." No. 35. 
 
 " Toutes ohoses igalei de part et d'autre, la clause doutouse doit s'interpr^tor centre celui qui 
 " par la nature du contrat ^tait raaitre d'endicter les conditions, fit-ce mime le dibiiew, lorsque s'^tant 
 •' engag6 bafh bkbtbictiction il veut knsuite en supposeb, parcequ'il <5tait inaitro de ne pas s'obli- 
 " ger sans prendre ses prticoutions, 1 Pardessus Droit Commercial, partie 3, tit. 1, cap. 2, sect 3. 
 " No. 191, p. 328." I ' • 
 
 " On doit tenir d'abord comnie maxinio invariable qu'il n'est permis d'interpr^ter que ce qui en 
 " a besoin, Pardessus ut supra, p. 326." 
 
 " La caution qui n'a pas limitd son engagement ft une somrae d^termintSe doit acquittor en ehtier ce 
 " qui sera dft ft I'^eh^once ou ft I'fivdnement, tant en principal qu'accessoiros et dommoges int^rftts. Suivant 
 " la nature de fobligaiion cautioimee ou la position bbsfective des pabties, c'est ft determiner I'etendue 
 " du cautionnement. Pardessus Droit Commercial, part. 3, tit. 7, chap. 2, No. 686, Vol. 2, p. 486." 
 Troplong Cautionnement No. 160 lays down. " Elles (les lois Romaines) pnivoient le cas oil un 
 " contrat est r^solu par la faute du contractant qui a ttb cautionn^ et dies elendent k la caution toutes 
 " les couBtSquunccs do cet <^v6nement. ICi, Nous les voyons m6mc d<$clarcr la caution responsable des 
 " agitsemeiu qui se rattachent par vote de conu'quence et de connexile a une convention ligaUment di—oule. lOS 
 >* C'est sur I'autorit^ de ces lois que Casaregis d'aooord du reste aveo le Ouidon de la Mer et Emerigon 
 *' decide que lorsqn'on emprunteur k la grosso, (lequel ne doit rendre la somme pr6t6o qu'fn caa 
 " d'beureux rctour) pratique un linittre franduteux, ton Jidcjuteeur ett tenu de la restitution de cette lomme aux 
 " priteurt, altendu qu'il ett tenu de la faute et du dol de celui qu'il a cautionni." 
 
 At No. 146, of the same treatise, Troplong saya, " nous r^p^tons done que les cibconstances 
 " ONT ICI UNE iNFLUbNCG 80UVEBAINE. Les cxemples ne doivent 6tre pris <iu'a\^c pbecaution, et il 
 " est dangereux de conclure d'un cas & I'autre, saus avoir £gard k la quality, des pebsonnes, Atx 
 " RAPPOBTS RESPECTiFS, Au STYLE DC COMMERCE, uux liabitudcs des places, etc. Sans doute le can- 
 " tionnement ne se presume pas, il ne fixut pat itrejaeile d I'admettre mais il ne faut non plus exioer la 
 
 " FRONONCIATION DES MOTS 8ACRAMEKTEL8 ET REFI.'SER DE I.G VOIR DANS LES CLAUSES OU L't'SAOE ET LA 
 " BONNE FOl l'APEBCOIVENT HABITUELLEMENT." 
 
 At No. 147, the same great lawyer says : " Quoiquu Ic cautionnement ne se presume poa 
 " cependant la loi l'admet de plgin droit dans cebtaines cibconstances." I cannot hope to 
 find stronger " circonstancet," in any case, to hold the Defendants liable for the intromissions of 
 Maurice Cuviilier, in the business of the family or for contracts entered into, upon the credit of his 
 name individually, as stipulated forbv the Deke.vdants ik rem univebsam, with this Bank. The 
 pretensions of the Defendants seem to mi>, against good faith, — and in judging of this cause, I rcpoao 
 the fullest and most entire confidence, in the evidence given by Mr. David Davidson, on the part of 
 the Bank. His relations with the Bank had ceased at the time of his examination as a witness, and if 
 any loss is to follow to that institution, by his conduct in tiiis matter, I see no reason to charge him 
 with it. In my opinion, the Bunk, were entitled to rely upon the deed, and my belief is that they 
 did, and tliat they never trusted Cuviilier & Co. with wliom they would not even deal, or Bull iS; Co. 
 of whom they had not satisfactory knowledge, but that they advanced their money upon the credit 
 due to the estate and succession of the Ilonorable Austin Cuviilier, as pledged by the deed upon the 
 name " Maurice Cuviilier" individually and alone, not to be doubted or mistrusted, but to be viewed 
 in the selfsame light, as the name of Cuviilier & Sons in the handwriting of the late HonoraWe Austin 
 C4ivillier himself. Htcredilat jiemonam dtfuncti imtinel. Why did the Doi'cndants intervene in the deed, 
 unless as the personal representatives of the deceased, and why did they undertake a joint and several 
 obligation, soltdairc, unless to add to the individual obi igation of each of them as heir pro parte virili and to 
 become answerable in omnem aniiam for their co-heir Slaurice Cuviilier, whom they trusted, in univenani 
 causam, to whom they gave a letter of credit, without limit or restriction whatever, ns to time, cause or 
 amount. The caution used by the Bank in refusing to deal with Cuviilier & Co., was expressly declared to 
 MauriceCuvilliertheagentoftheDefendants, and to Austin Cuviilier thoirbrothcr. Was this made known 
 by Maurice to the Defendonts by their procurator hi omnem ctiuiiiml If so they arc expressly bound. If not, 
 they are answerable for the suppression of the fact. They must suffer for the fraudulent concealment by 
 their agent Maurice Cuviilier ot'a matter which it so much imported them to know. But, notwithstanding 
 the doubts of the Bank as to Cuviilier & Co., the DetlMiduntssccm to liaVo had none themselves ; the>i mla 
 their interest to Aiitlin Cuviilier at well iii tn Maurice ; tlicy trustMl Austin Cuviilier the younger themselves, 
 when the Bank would not trust him. With wliat fucu con the Dcfendantspbjcct to transactions connected 
 with Cuviilier & Co., or Bull & Co., when they thoniselves deal with Austin Cuviilier, their own co-heir, 
 and sell out to him and when Mr. A. M. Dclisle sends up to Belleville, on the behalf of the family 
 Cuviilier, a person to balance the books of Bull &. Co., oven ofter the bringing of this suit? Bull & Co- 
 were " connexed " with the Estate of Cuviilier & Sons, by the showing of the Defendants themselves, 
 why then, have they not proved, that in the Bili transaction ut New York, with Castle, the doings of 
 Maurice (Juvillier were ciet/ and non commercial f Not but that if they had given such proof I would 
 disuharffc tlieni from liability under the deed, for, the minuppropriutinn of the f(ind«, if such there were 
 
 I 
 
. 
 
 ^j^fxf 
 
 \ 
 
 Sren to Maurice Cuvillier upon the faith of tliia inatrumflnt, ia op way exempts the Defendants fVom 
 e liabilities of their own trusted agont, who got tlie mone^, to use or to abuse it* only bacause the 
 Defendants hod itiptilatod Uiat the Bank should bo " indemHU," 
 
 I have said that in my view of this cose, it is not one of principal and surety, but of principal 
 and agent. As I regard it, it falls within the observation of Troplong, da mandat No. fio " Dana 
 " certeina cas le manoat peut ii'6tre pas ^trouscr avx affairtt du mandataire hi-mima, Mais ce n'est 
 " qu'autant que ton itiUrtt a trouve miu A celui d'me autre jiertonM que I* mandat regardo plus particu< 
 •' lldrement. Quia teilicti, dit Cujas, et uko neootio tuck au<)Uantvm admixtuh rueaiT. Ainsi le 
 " mandat, peut coDcernor,simuItan6meut le mandunt et 1o mandataire comme parexempla quand Piene 
 •• demando it Francois de prAtcr ik Jacques, uno sommo d'argent quo ce dernier doit employer AU paorrr 
 " DU FBEUIEB. Cc mandat inienknt DANS l'int£b£t i'bincipai. du mandamt de Pierre, nais il n'est pas 
 " dtranger non plus & I'iutdrdt ou mandataire qui rB^.TE son aroent et en botibe deb pbotitr.''^ 
 
 I regard this case as ono uf " Communon," and I apply to it, what is said by Troplong, in his 
 Traits du mandat 605, 600 and page 895 inlerim'lation de yrocuralion. Procuration gfn&rme aim libtrA, 
 page 968. 
 
 I view it as u Commiasiou facultative, in the words of D^^iamaro and Le Poitovin, vol. 3, Nc. 204, 
 " Le choix dks hoyens d'ex£cution ou de quelqueb uns de cbs iioyens est abandonn^ au libbk 
 " abditbe de celui qui L'ExfccuTE aucuii mode ue tui ert exfhe8s6ment ihpos^, ipse sibi est lex. 
 " Par consdquont, quelque soit celui qu'il se trace A Lui-MftUE, on nb saubait dibe qu'il exc^de 
 ■■ LE UAMDAT. Do \h, cctto maxlmo do Casaregis " In maudato collato ad libebum abbitbiuh manda- 
 TABii, NuiiQUAU INTBAT <jC(EgTio EXCE8SUS MANDATI." 1 8CC in this caso, a mandate by the Defendants, 
 ad Ubemm arbiiriim, of Maurice Cuvillier, as to which, in its exercise, the Defendants nave no right, to 
 complain, against the Bank, who gave a credit and trust, as they were told to do, in omntm cau$am. 
 Excess of authority under the circumBtauecs is not to be thought of, nor can the distinction between 
 da obligationt tTnn caractirc civil and tliose d'un CABACTfeRE comuercial, be recognised for a moment. 
 It is a distinction without a difference, Troplong in the traits ^a mandat says No. 285, page S96. 
 " Dans le commerce on peut m6mo concevoir plus do latitude dans l*interpr6tation de la procuration. 
 " les circonstances en udcident. Par oxempfe, je vons charge de faire le commerce pour moi et & 
 " ma place dans lavillo de Nancy, et il est reconnu que pour &iro marcher ce commerce, vous fites 
 *' dans la n^cessit^ do souscrire des billets il ordrc, ou d'emprunter, dans la mesure od j'aurais dft 
 " le faire moi-mdmo si j'avais H6 present. Nul doute que vous n'ayez agi dans les termes de votre 
 " mandat g6n6ta], C'est la doctrine de Deluca, Ilinc non improbabiliter de jure dicendum videbatnr, 
 " subdicto mandate, son institobia oenebali istam quoquo facultatera contineri, quoniam procuratorc, 
 " constituto ad aliquid agonduin, demandata censentur omnia ea quce fbo eg neootio exflendo 
 " NEOE88ARIA SUNT ; ilia pr(Bsertim quoe do communi usu fieri sclent et qua vcri timiliter, idem frincifcdu, 
 " proeodemnegoiiocxplendofiiceici. Do cambiis discure. 13 No. i\ 7. Ces dornidres paroles sent dignes 
 " de remarques." 
 
 Now what is the contract which the Defendants by their theory seek to repudiate ? A transaction 
 with their own brother, Austin Cuvillier the younger, their coheir, whom they trusted themselves so far as 
 to sell to him and Maurice Cuvillier their interest in the father's estate, and another with Bull & Co., a 
 business connection of their father, whose Books, at Belleville, were lougailcr this, balanced by a person 
 fixpressly employed for the purpose by Mr. A. M. Dolislc, acting for the Defendonts. Whotmore natural 
 then, than deoling with such parties? At No. 274, Troplong again says : " Le sons de I'article 1987 est 
 " quo la procuration est gdn^ralo alors mCme qu'oUo renferrao to mandataire dans uno certoine fonction 
 " pourvu que dans cette fonction ello lui laisso le •pouwir de /aire toutet let affairet primes ou imprevuet 
 " qui $'y rattachent succcsiivcmint. Ainai faitct Ic commerce d ma place daiu la ville de Smyme, voil& une 
 " proouration g^n^rale, bten que le mandant n'autorise le mandataire que pour le commerce et nulle- 
 " ment pour sea autrcs ailhirea <Strangdrea au commerce. Mais comme dans le commerce que le man- 
 " dant veut fait h Smyme, il communique au mandataire le pouvoir d'agir do la manidre la plus 
 " ontendue la plus libro, relativemcnt h toutes les affaires quelconques que le commerce ndcessite, ce 
 " mandataire h un mandat gdn^rol." Deluca De Cambiis discurs. 13 No. C uses the phrase " institor 
 generalis " and I know of nono which more definitely and appropriately characterizes the relation 
 between the Defendants and Maurice Cuvillier, under this deed. To cite again from Troplong mandat 
 No. 604. " Quoii^uo nous ayons dit tout h I'heuro que le mandant n'est teuu envers les tiers qu'autant 
 " que le mandataire a agi conformdmont ii ses pouvoirs, il faut cependant temp^rer cette r^gle par une 
 " exception et cette exception a lieu quand l'abus du mandat loin do ressortir de la procuration est 
 " au contraire, couvert par la procuration mfime dont la production a induit les tiers en erreur. Je . 
 " m'expliquo. Je donne procuration & Pierre d'emprunter 300 francs, Pierre fait il Primus cet em- 
 " prunt. Mais au lieu de s'arrfitcr 14, il se sort du mandat pour contractor en mon nom un deuxifemc, 
 " un troisii^me emprunt do Secundus et de Tertius. Bien que Pierre ait fait de ma procuration un 
 <■ usage excessif, bien quo les deux derniers emprunts soient contraircs il mes instructions et par consG- 
 " quent ill6gitimes, jo n'cn suis pus moins obliged personncllement envers Secundus et Tertiup, s'ils ont 
 " et§ de bonne foi. Pierre avait un pouvoir apparent los tiers ont eu juste sujet d'y croire. II n'y 
 " t •*; aucune sOrctt! it trailer avec un absent, si on les rendait responsables d'un abus cach<5." 
 
 cu5. " Et la raison est ici d'accord avec le credit priviS, qui milite pour les tiers. C'est en effet 
 " la faute du mandant de n'avoir pas prficisO la personne aupr^s de laquollo il voulait quo I'emprunt 
 " fut foit. Ou bien, si it cet <!gara il n'est pas reprochable, c'est sa faute d'nvoir laissfe la procuration 
 " aux mains do son niaudutairc apriss quo lo mandat dtait accompli par Ic premier emprunt. Ou bien 
 rapport, il a do bonnes excuses, il est dans tous Ivs cos rcs^ojisahle d'acoir mal 
 lui rmi doit en souffrir H non pas U» TIERS QU'll, A MIS EN BAPPOBT AVEC CE 
 Puulicit! ropugnat aequitatidituxccllcnnncnt Ansaldua. Discursus 30, No. 4, 
 " Civili que commercio quod quis sinc^ril fido contrabcns, cum iiliqno prwrnanibus habeite publicum 
 " instrumentum mandati dubcot sub istft bonfV fide decipi. 
 
 606. " Ces cxemples no sont pas les sculs. I^a procuration peut avoir ut6 ruvoqu6o, lo mandataire 
 " a forjail d »t» devoirs en coHtinitanl une f^cstinn qui hit est interditc. Mais quand cellc revocation est 
 " ignorfe dct tiers, de quel droit Ic manJani la Iciir opposrrnil-il ! Fourrait-il Icur faire un reproche d'avoir 
 " eu confianco dans cette procuratioii, dont sou ' datairo (Stait portour? Pourquoi ne I'a-t-il ipas 
 " retirde des mains do ce deriiicr ? i'ouniuoi a-t-il ioissiS ce titro do nature i\ attirer la bon- 
 " fiance des tiers, quels moycns les tiers auraient-iis done tic sn premiinir centre ces nl)ns impendtrables 
 " it lour recherche, oi"i scrait lo sftrcte dans les affaires? 
 
 '' Si dominus scivcrit prociiratorem suuni fines mandati cxcodero, et non cuntradixerit, assentiro 
 " fideiur." Straccha, mandati 18. If it bo true that no business was done by Maurice Cuvillier on 
 individual account, before he entered into the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co., why did not the Defendants 
 countermand the credit opened for him at the Hank under their Deed. No public notice seems to have 
 been given of his having formed this connection, tlio entry made in tho office of the Prothonotary, 
 gives no notice to tho world, it is lodged in silonuc, and roiiiains in the pigeon holes of the officer, until 
 searched for. The Bank account coiitiniiod in Mnurioe Ciivillipr's name, after the formation of this con- 
 nection just as it stood before. 
 
 '_' The Scottish Banks (soys Burge, page 60) have been accustomed to open with their customers 
 a peculiar sort of cash account or bank credit, which has produced great benefit to all branches of trade 
 and manufactures. A cash credit of this description is on undertaking on the part of n Bank to 
 advance to an individual, or to a partnership such sums of money as may bo from time to time required 
 not exceeding on tlie whole a certain definite amount to be repaid, and a continual circulation kept up 
 by the replacing in the bank of small profits and sums as they come in." The present transaction is of 
 that class, only unlimited as to amount or to time. ii„v 
 
 enfin si sous co second 
 " jdaci sa conjiancc, c'est 
 
 " MANDATAIRE INFIDEL. 
 
10 
 
 Bum unin p. 64, mw " In flcoil»nd, whew them ii a ohaQae on the part of the creator, 
 when) a oaSh oSSt Und te granted to a banking houee. the partem oF whtoh hwpen to he tnaterWly 
 Zi«d. daring the cuiwney of Ui.. .MU, do t^o cautioner. Y^.^^f^^f^^^^^^V^^l 
 
 iJLiaJUZt ohaw Md withou]»my notice <>' •Y„'!™)r!if»«£l^?K Ja^rfT^ 
 would be a treat barS^ •^n ontha oMtometi, if on enn chum aH t&e bvomMm^ta tbUA- 
 ^ZZ^mTtoUn^w^, butthere doee^not «K.m in taw to be anyny^ritr for tto. and gen- 
 eShTtbere ie a .tipuUtion againrt in the bond. I Bell Commentano. on the Uw of Scotland V)i. 
 
 ' ^iAKatnaiao of foSriiinga to be made to a Company will not authorize ftamlriiing after a 
 •• ndjeia ofaanM in paitnerdiip, though if luoh flimidilngi are made bond Jiie and w igmmmct^ any 
 " oteMJ tktimmwmtita b, drtm-al- BeU. «** ■"P"- " ■'««'««"<«*» "« nuuatumi w/ nova pa^Jdcta a 
 "mavStonkmmntmfi>mamutmkavu oblatobubbii et non Dtvvotk ad noticuk couwurovu- 
 " Lnm HOM wfnwomrr fbiiubtah oBUQATionv w dictw vntMia oowmcTAH. CaiaregU DUcni- 
 •ui84.Ko.ae, Tol.l. p. 181. Potierime attento importantia istarum Uterarum qua oblatobui 
 nunoapantur. oow ve adeo religioM cuetodiontur et ouitodiri debent inter meroatoree, ut eas temper 
 flxa etinvioUbiliter aerrandiB eunt, dohbo pbb actok bktbo MMttKii kt imcovAxivtm NOTinoirra 
 coHTBABiuM ooBBBSPOKBAUBUi. Ka ufnon aolum quBCumque Immutationee non lubitantialei wd 
 
 KBC rrUM PACTA EBeBMTMLIA BT PUTBDCrriVA, NOH DBOUCTA TAMBK AD MOTITIAM COBB1WP0H8AUOII 
 MlXim ATTIKDAirT VB W rBACTIOnH OBUOATIOKU COMTBin!* IB BUOBM UTBBU OBUOATOWM. *< bene 
 
 POT pm^ per Rota deoiwonem 161, coram B»wendiiito»o Domino meoDecano. OMaregii I>|fomw» 
 M, i*»r5«, page IM, t«1. 1. In ttia «me 9i<»un«w, Oaiaregii marki the distinction as to liabiUty 
 between the oaie of " prapodtionem et inititoriam partioularem et inititoriam generalem. Handatnm 
 •• aeu prapoaitio ad negotiandum totaliter eiinrat post mortem pneponentia oft mutationem latiu obttn- 
 !ttg*num£prmto$iiom inttiio bbodb w PBJtPoamo sbu iiARDATtni im utbbm obi^tobiu essbt a 
 •• ?BJtP0KBOTKDKiv8BaAUiBB DATCH." The crodit given by the Defendanta to Ifanrioe CuvilUer 
 their imtUor waa ualimited and uniTenal. It wa» to hu individual name alone that tbe Bank bad to 
 lool(, hia name when pat by him on negociable p»er wan the name of the Defendanta themadvea. 
 Institoria actio aemper prmapponit, inratorom, ins&torio dve priBponentii nomine contraxiaae. Mttl- 
 lera' Piomptoarium, anb voce Inatitor. vol. 3, p. 641, No. 6. . . j _^ j 
 
 Knowledge ia not brought home to the Bank as contended for by the Beipondenta and aiaarted 
 in the Judgment of the Coart below. Of the good faith of the Bank I have no doubt whatever. 
 
 In «molunon I am therefore of opinion to reverse the Judgment of ttat Court and to enter 
 up judgment against the Respondents jointly and severally toUdairement with Mannce CuviUier, 
 
 T. C. AYLWIN, J. 
 
 Montreal, ISth April, 1300. 
 
 >kti 
 
 'h^ 
 
 A 
 
 ._# 
 
i 
 
 1 
 
 / 
 
 ;}Dli'-i'7vV;v-; 
 
 r$ 
 
Court of %ppt»iii* 
 
 MOISTTREAL. 
 
 li 
 
 J? 
 
 THE BANK OP BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 
 
 Appellant. 
 
 AID 
 
 OUVILLIER n al., 
 
 RBBP0NDENT8. 
 
 Tbo praient Appeal ii from a Judgment of the Superior Court, at Montreal, of tho 30th April 
 1858. The Action wita inatitutod in March 186S. by the Appellant, against the Reipondenta who 
 are alleged to bo jointly and severally bound tovrarda Appenant, amongst other liabilitiea, to tho 
 payment of the sum of ^£4107, 12s. Currency with interest, &c. 
 
 Tho Anpellant's claim is mode to rest on a Notarial Deed of the 86tk July 1849, between 
 Appellant ana Respondents, as heroin afterwards stated. 
 
 The cause or motive of the Deed is apparent fVom the following : 
 
 " Which said pnrtios declared to us t!io said Notaries, that the said late Austin Cuvillier, of the 
 CitT of Montreal, Mcrcliant, now absent in England, and tho said Maurice Cuvillier, ekrried on 
 trade and commerce at this City, upon an extensive scale, under tho firm of Cuvillier k Sons, nntil the 
 Itth day of tlio present month of July, when the said firm was dissolved by the death of the said late 
 Austin Cuvillier ; that the said Maurice Cuvillier hath, since the death of the said late Austin Cuvillier, 
 carried on, and proposes to carry on, trado and commerce in this City and elsewhere ; that to enable 
 him to do so, and to moot tlio engagements of the said late firm of Cuvillier A Sons, he will require 
 discounts and pecuniary assistance to a considerable extent, from tho said parties of tho third and fourth 
 ports respectively, and that with a view of making tho said parties of the third ond fourth parts 
 perfectly secure with respect to any debts which now or hereafter, may be due to them respectively 
 Dy the said Maurice Cuvillier, and with respect to tho present and future liabilities of the said Maurice 
 Cuvillier to the said parties of the third and fourth parts respectively, the said parties of the second 
 part are willing to become security to and in favor of the said parties of tho third and fourth parts 
 respectively as hereinbefore setforth : — 
 
 " Now therefore, the said parties hereto of the second part do hereby make themselves jointly and 
 severally liable to and in favor ot the soid parties hereto of tho tliird and fourth ports respectively, they 
 thereof Boeepting, for all debts heretofore contracted, or that may liereailer be contracted to and in favor of 
 the porties of the third and fourth parts respectively, by the said ifaurico Cuvillier, and generally for oil the 
 present and future liabilities of the' said Maurice Cuvillier towards the parties of the third and iburth parts 
 respectively, whether as maker or drawer, endorser or occeptor, of negotiable paper, or otherwise, and 
 whether resulting from discounts, pecuniary advances, or any other cause whatever, the said parties 
 hereto of the second part, hereby jointly and severally promising and obliging tliemselves to meet and 
 -pay the said present and future debts and liabilities of the said Maurice Cuvillier, as if they were 
 _oictly and severally the principal debtors thereof, and especially renouncing the benefit of the excep- 
 tions of division and discussion, and all other such exceptions, with respect to the said debts and liabilities 
 and the obligations so hereby contracted by them. For thus &c. 
 
 Done, &c." 
 
 The parties to the Deed are : 
 
 Of the First Part,— MAURICE CUVILLIER. 
 " Seed. Part,— The late Mrs. CUVILLIER and the Hespondcnts. 
 " Thd. Patt,— THE BANK OF MONTREAL. 
 " Frth, Part,— THE APPELLANTS. 
 
 Maurice Cuvillier appeared in the cause, with the other Defendants, hut made no defence ; and 
 in September 1867, while the Respondent's Enquttc was proceeding, he confessed Judgment. 
 
 There were three Pleas fvlcd by the other Defendants. 
 
 By tho first, they pretended that the Deed was an absolute nullity, and that the Action should 
 be dismissed. 
 
 By the second, they contended that if bound at all by tho Deed, they were, at any rate, only 
 bound in respect of transactions, either having reference to the liquidation and settlement of the afiairs 
 of the late firm of Cuvillier k Sons, consisting of the late Hon. Austin Cuvillier, and Austin Cuvillier 
 Jr., and Maurice Cuvillier, or wherein Maurice Cuvillier had acted on his own account nnd for his own 
 profit solely ; and were not bound in respect of any transactions having reference to any trade carried 
 on by Maurice Cuvillier in partnership with others ; that soon after the date of tho Deed, Maurice 
 Cuvillier, to the knowledge or the public, and of tho Appellant in particular, ceased to trade on his own 
 account ; that from the spring of 1861 to about May 186S, he to the like knowledge, traded at Montreal 
 in partnership with Austin Cuvillier Jr., his brother, under the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. ; that from tho 
 beginning of Afay I86S, till then, ho (to the like knowledge) traded at Montreal, with the same Austin 
 Cuvillier and one Edward Chaplin, under the same firm ; that since the date of the Deed, he (to the 
 like knowledge), had not traded at all at Montreal on his own account and for lii'^ own profit solely, 
 or otherwise tliau in such co-partnership with his brother and Chaplin ; that to the A}i|>ellflnt s knowledge 
 the four Castle Bills of Exchange, had no reference to the liquidation of tho old firm of Cuvillier & Sons, 
 or to ony trade of Maurice Cuuvillier s own, but were drawn and accepted for account of A. Cuvillier 
 ft Co., and were discounted by tho Appellant at New York, in pursuance of a U-tter of credit signed 
 by Maurice Cuvillier in favor of Castle, ho Maurice Cuvillier being throughout, a mere prdic-nom for A. 
 CfuvilUer & Co., ond the whole transaction being really theirs'; that (to the like knowledge) the other 
 three Bills of Exchange and the Promissory Note sued upon, were altogether, the nfiitir of A. Cuvillier 
 & Co. ! and they, the Defendants pleading, were therefore liable upon none of them. 
 
 The third Plea was ono of simple denogation. 
 
 Issue was joined generally. 
 
 Madame Cuvillier's decease was shortly ofterwards, suggested ; and the Appellant thereupon, 
 desisted from the suit, against her. 
 
 The Appellant's case, at £»7ffc<c, rested upon tho Notarial Deed of the 20tli July 1849, ond 
 upon proof and admissions, in usual form, as to the negotiable paper sued upon, &c. 
 
 The Evidence of the Respondents is voluminous. 
 
Amoiiff tlio witnciHi produced by Retnondentt, is Maurice CuTJIIIer. A motion wm msde snd 
 rcnewod by Appellant, for the rpjeotion of Maurice Cuvillier'i dopoiition, on the Kore of inturcit. 
 Thli ovidoiice at Empt^U, wm allowed to be taken dt bent tut, and waa not rejected on ihe merit*, but 
 allowed, the motion to reject it, being itaelf rejected bv the final Judgment 
 
 The final Judgment dtami«n the Action, onou the Brinciple that the Diafti «r Bttla of Exchange, 
 iued upon, were dlecounted by Appellant for the benefit or the nnn of A. Ourillier A (/O., of which firm, 
 the laid Maurice Cuvillior wa« a member, and thii, to the knowledge of Plaintiff (Appellant) and not 
 ditoounted for Maurice Cuvillier, in the proMcution of any leparate trade or commerce. 
 
 I entertain no doubt aa to the interpretation to be given to the Deed. It ia, in mjr opinion, • 
 plain question about which a great deal ofidle argumentation baa been indulged in. 
 
 Tlio Deed in limply two-fold, in its motive, vii : 
 
 lo. To enable Maurice Cuvillier to liquidate the liabilitiea of the old firm of D. Cuvillior k Bona. 
 
 9o. To enable him (Maurice Cuvillier) to carry on, trade and commerce iu Montreal and 
 eliewhere. 
 
 Now, unless the Bank of British North America has established, that the discounts obtained bv 
 Maurice Cuvillier, were for hmtir, or for the liquidation of the liabilities of the firm of the late D. 
 Cuvillier k iSons, the sureties can t be held bound and responsible. There is no evidence of that. On 
 the contrary, several merchants have proved that it was well known in the commercial circle, Uiat 
 Maurice Cuvillier was a member of the new firm of A. Cuvillier ft Co. Why then, did the Dank 
 diaoount notes to Maurice Cuvillier? 
 
 Is it bocaus«) ho signed his name ? But Mr. Davidson must have known what every one knows, 
 that as a member of the co-partnership of A. Cuvillier k Co. Maurice Cuvillier was bound by that 
 signature T Why get his name t llie natural inference is, that, knowing well the sureties were 
 not bound bv the Deed of warranty, for such discounts, he tried and expected to brinfj them under the 
 operation of the 1 )oed, by means of the inditidml signature of Maurice Cuvillier, which he probably, 
 imagined he could twist into an act of individual trade and commerce. In that attempt, Mr. Davidson 
 has overshot his mark. 
 
 I am clearly of opinion, that the whole case reduces itself to a nut shell, and that the Appellant 
 has taken a position which cannot, for a moment, bo sustained. 
 
 In my view of the case, it becomes useless to discuss the question of the admissibility of Maurice 
 Cuvillier as a witness, he being a party to the record. 
 
 I am, upon the whole, of opinion, that thi& Oourt should confirm the Judgment of the Superior 
 Court. 
 
 CHARLES MONDELET, 
 
 A. Q. B. 
 Montreal, 9th April, 1800. 
 
 I* 
 
 CANADA. 
 
 COURT OF APPEALS. 
 
 /^■' 
 
 THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 
 
 (Plaintiff in the Court below,) 
 
 Afiptllanti 
 
 ^Viwr.' 
 
 Mm 
 
 ANO. 
 
 CnVILLER KT AL., 
 
 (Defendants in the said Court,) 
 
 Retpondtntt. 
 
 This action was instituted for the recovery of a sum of ^4107 12s. CT., with interest, alleged to 
 bo due by the Defendants to the Bank in virtue of an acte de auaionnemtnt (suretrship) executed before 
 Doucet and his colleague, at Montreal, on the 2Cth of July 1849. (This Deed is printed in the Tran- 
 script, p. 16.) 
 
 In this Deed it is stated that tlie late Austin Cuvillier and his two sons, Maurice and Austin, 
 carried on trade and commerce, at the City of Montreal, on an extensive scale, under the firm of Cuvil- 
 lier k Sous, until the 11th of July 1849, when the partnership was dissolved by the death of the 
 father, the late Austin Cuvillier. That Maurice uvillier proposed to carry on trade and commerce in 
 the City of Montreal and elsewhere. That to do so, and to meet the engagements of the late firm of 
 Cuvillier & Sons, he would require discounts and pecuniary assistance to a considerable extent from 
 the two Banks, parties to the said Deed, and to secure to the latter the payment of such monies as 
 they might advance to Maurice Cuvillier, the Defendants agreed to make themselves jointly and seve- 
 rally liable for all debts heretofore contracted, or that might be subsequently contracted in favor of 
 the said Banks by the said Maurice Cuvillier, and generally for all Ihe present and future liabilities of 
 the said Maurice Cuvillier towards the said Banks, whether as maker, drav/er, iiidorser or acceptor of 
 negotiable paper or otherwise. (See the whole clause printed in p. 10 of the Transcript.) 
 
 The whole question turns upon the interpretation to be put on this clause. 
 
 Is the undertaking of the Defendants a general, unlimited guarantee in omnem caiaam, as the Bank 
 contends? or is it a special limited guarantee "for the causei and purpotet pUiinly tt forth in the D«td, and 
 well underttood by all the contracting partiet f " 
 
 I am of opinion it is the latter ; that is, a npocial, limited guarantee. The parties have put their 
 own interpretation on the Deed. 
 
 They declare that Maurice Cuvillier will require pecuniary aid and assistance to meet the engage- 
 ments of the late firm of Cuvillier & Sons, and to carry on his own business, and to secure the payment 
 of any moneys advanced for thete two specific purposes, the Defendants hold themselves responsible. 
 It would be a perversion of all language to declare this a guarantee in omnem caruam. The Defendants 
 have guarded against such an interpretation iu the most positive and precise language. 
 
 Pothier, in bis Traitd des Obligations, No. 404, says :— ■• Lorsque la caution a exprimd pour quelle 
 " Bomine, ou pour quelle cauie clle so rendait caution, son obligation ne uMtend qu'il la somme ou & la 
 " caiue qu'elle a exprim^e." TouUicr, vol. 6, p. 338, says : — " Quelquei gdntoiux que soient les tonnes 
 " dans lesqucls une convention est conf uc, elle ne comprend que les choses sur lesquelles lesparties 
 " se sont proposd do contractcr." In supprt of this: opinion, dictated by plain common sense, Toullier 
 refers to Pothier and Domat. 
 
 These rules have met with the approbation of the most distinguished writera on our own law, and 
 will bo found not inconsistent with the rules which guide the Courts in England. (See Addison on 
 Contracts, p. 850, last edit.| Pothier, in the same treatise on Obligations, No. 91, lays down the rule : 
 " On doit rccherchcr qu'elle a itd la commune intention des parties contractautes, plus que le sens 
 " grammatical des termes." In No. 90 ho says : " Une clause doit s'interpr^ter par les autres con- 
 " tenues dans le mdme acte, soit qu'cllcs pr£c6dent ou qu'elles suivent." (See further No. 98 and 99.) 
 These rules arc in strict accordance with those laid down for the interpretation of Contracts, not 
 questioned at this day ; they will be found confirmed by the following writers :— Troplong, du Can- 
 tionnement. No. 150, says : " Le cautionnement ne s'^tend pas d'une personne & une autre. Quand 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 X 
 
 ■4^ 
 
 ■5. 
 ? 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 " Je MUtionue une iooiiSt6 do Gommerco, jo ne luia pM crntii eautlonner la 8ocift6 nouvnlU qui lul 
 " lUM^de «t prand la lulto doi tflklrai." 4 Pankmu, "Droit comnwrcial," No. 97A. 
 
 The prMent ii a muoli itrongar com agniiitt the Appellants, a« will bo liiewn by the facta heroin- 
 after meDtioned. 
 
 But it has boon argued that the liability incurred ia for all debti. I aniwer auch it not the case. 
 The preamble of a Deed fomii a part of the contract, in so far as it malic* known the object the con- 
 tractlDg parties had in view, and explain* thoir Intention. 
 
 Touliior, 0th vol. page 304 layi i " Le pr^ambtiin dee acte* (ert dgalement ik on interprtftor les 
 " clause* et A d^couvrir I'lntentlon cominuno den partio*?" 
 
 The Deed abovo referred to establishes that the monies wore to b« a<lvanc«d by the Bank for two 
 purpoMi." 
 
 1st. To enable Maurice Ouvillier to meet the enoagements of the lata Arm of Cuvillier & Hons. 
 9nd. To enable Maurice Cuvillier to carry on tnule and commerce. 
 
 By the evidence adduced in thi ) cause, it is clearly proved that tho monies advanced by the Bank 
 were so advanced for neither of these two purposes. 
 
 It is proved that Maurice Cuvillier aid not carry uu trade and commerce na contemplated by the 
 deed. He had no counting house, no office, no place of business of his own. Not ono Montreal merch- 
 ant could bo found who would «ay he knew Maurice Cuvillier carried on trade ; on the contrary, it is 
 fully established that he had no private funds, and that ho was employed as principal manager of all 
 the flnancial business of the firm ui' A. Cuvillier & Co., attending daily on their promises ond nt their 
 offlee from morning until orening. 
 
 The evidence of Mr. Davidson, tho Manager of tho Bank, shows he knew well the monies were not 
 advanced for the purposes mentioned in the Deed. Tlio fact of his induc'mg Maurice Cuvillier to tndoru 
 the note* and bills of other firms then dealing with the Bank, very clearly indicates that ho intended 
 to include these debts in the guarantee, not a* the debts of Maurice Cuvillier, tlie maker or drawer, but 
 as those of Maurice Cuvillier, the Indorier, that is, the person whom he himwlf had induced to guaran- 
 tee the payment of debts contracted by others, else why resort to the clumsy eipedient of making one 
 partner endorse, in his own name, the notes or bills of the co-partnership ? To this question Mr. 
 Davidson has given his own answer, by saying, he knew tho guarantee did not extend to the debts con- 
 tracted by these firms. 
 
 Partner, why was tho account of the Finn of A. Cuvillier A Co. kept open in tho books of this 
 bank in the name of Maurice Cuvillier ? The firm of A. Cuvillier & Co., had got a groat deal of accoin- 
 modation from the bank, — it deposited its moneys there — all was dono in the name of Maurico Cuvil- 
 lier. It would certainly require an unusual degree of boyish credulity to believe that this was not the 
 result of cool calculation. 
 
 All knowledge of these proceedings was studiously kept from the Defendants. Hod the^ been 
 made aware of them, would tney not instantly have made known their determination of rcsiitmg the 
 payment of such demand* ; saying truly that they agreed to assist their brotlier, if ho continued his 
 trade, but that thoy never agreed to become answerable for the commercial speculations of men unknown 
 to them. 
 
 Had Maurice Cuvillier carried on business in his own name, the Defendants might have protected 
 themselves by inspecting his books at regular intervals, and stopping tho busineiw as soon as they found 
 out that the losses by far exceeded tho profits. 
 
 If the Defendants should bo condemned to pay this claim as tho sureties of Mourico Cuvillier, 
 Indoner, not maker or drawer of tho Notes and Bills, would not the creditora of the jomt estate of 
 A. Cuvillier A Oo. claim in preference to the Defendants? Can this bo said to be justice to the latter, 
 and that they assumed such a risk T 
 
 In weighing these facta we rau*t not forget that all took place under the immediate control of tliu 
 Manager, not alwayi in accordance with the wishes of the parties, — a gentleman represented by the 
 ■vidence as ono possessed of great information and experience in commercial matters. 
 
 The Defendants, tliercfore, justly soy to tho BanK : You knew Maurice Cuvillier did not carry on 
 trade and commerce j your own evidence estobiishes this important fact. You knew Maurice Cuvillier 
 asked from you no advances of money to meet tho engogements of tho late firm of Cuvillier & Sons. 
 You know tho monies advanced by you, wore so advanced, not to Maurico Cuvillier, but to the firm of 
 A. Cuvillier & Co. of Montreal, and to that of Bull & Co. of Belleville. Was not Mr. Davidson, tho 
 Manager of your Bank, right when he said the letter of credit was worth nothing quoad these advances ? 
 I am of opinion he was. 
 
 Here it may be proper to notice a statement made, that the Defendants did not, in reality, become 
 answerable for aebts contracted in which they hod no interest ; tiiat tho children are tho heirs of their 
 late father, and tho widow, commune c« bieni with him, at the time of his decease. In ouswer to this, 
 it will suffice to say, thoy are not sued as such. We cannot travel out of the record. If wo could, we 
 must all say, that luch U not the fact. Tho children are not tho heirs ; the wife is not commune en bieiis. 
 ■I will closo these remarks by referring to tho objections mode to tho admissibility of Maurico 
 Cuvillier, a co-defendant, as a witness. 
 
 This being a caso of a commercial nature, wo are bound by the rules of Evidence laid down by 
 the laws of England. 
 
 On such a question, the Judges in England will not require infurmntion from the Judges in 
 Canada. I shall, therefore, bo brief, referring, without commentary, to the following authorities: — 
 Warral v. Jones, 7 Bing., 399 j 3d. Starklo on Evid., 1063. Any further reference to cases to be fomid 
 in Phillips, Buller's n.p., and other works, is not deemed necessary. 
 
 Although entertaming no doubt on this question, I deem it proper to add that the evidence, with- 
 out referring to the deposition of Mourico Cuvillier, is, in my opinion, conclusive in fiivorofthe 
 Respondents. i. , ,-, 
 
 I add a note of English authorities, which will bo found to coincide with the views of the I rench 
 Jurist* :— ■ , " 
 
 CoUyer on Partnership, ^ 624 : A guaranty given to the urhole firm, shall not, pnmdfanc, enure 
 to tho benefit of tho remaining partners. 
 
 Also, § 625, 62S. The reasoning in these and following paragraphs is very applicable to tlio 
 present case. 
 
 Gow on Partnerahip, pp. 135, and following. 
 
 1 vol. of Bell's Com. on the Lows of Scotland, p. 374 (II), and following. 
 
 (Signed) J. DUVAL, 
 
 " J. B. R. 
 
 Quebec, 17th April, I860. 
 
PROVINCE DU OANAUA. 
 UA»-oAMADA, Mroiai 
 
 
 I 
 
 EN LA OOUR I)U BANC DE LA REINl. 
 
 (IN APPlt.) 
 LA DANQtIE DE L'AMERIQnE MRITANNIQUE DIT NORD, 
 
 DAME ANOftLIQUK ruvtLLIEU it VIR, ir AL, 
 
 Opinion lilt Jiigi en ChfJ, jut, lunt h ilmitr, Ion </< '• y'/^i"/' "ilion dn Jugmtnt, 
 8ia LouH H. La Kon i .ink, Bwt., J n ( 
 
 L'opiiiion (Idyk exprim<a par den ■•■ Hoiiurab1«i . nul formant 1a innjorlU <!« o«t(« oour, me 
 
 UiiM) h\on pi'ii Ik iliro. 
 
 L'acto du guraiitii' on du cautiuiiiMiiuoiit dout II »'»if\t, ii'm 6t,A conwiiti auu pour dtiux lina p«rtlou- 
 U6rM, vxprou(^im«iit 6nuiH'^'t!a dstiH I'nota, wvoir ) I'uur Mm Mauricu (.'uvillicrt to. A iktiMoire kux 
 •ngaKuiiii'nU do la oi-duv«iit §or • Ciivilliar <t 8oni" ; tu. i\ t'airo eommoro* an ton noni muI ( ot 
 non pour aucune autre fin, (moi> i moiiH, pour lo oommerc<i <|'i" Maurice OuvilUer preadmit lur 
 
 lui do fiilre on luoiiU^ avco d'aut> .idividuH. 
 
 II ii'y a auouiie prouvo, <!o la part do la lUiiiini', appoluute, quo 1> uranoei qu'elle a faitaa, at 
 dout alio |H>unuit lo recouvremetit, aiei <' par olio iiiiti'i U Maurice Ouvillior, aeul, et mrtout qu'ellea 
 lui aioiit 6ii I'aitoa Mclutivoniont pour 1 ..uo on '' ntre (leu deux tina i)nono<i<'f daui lo ' utioonement. 
 II lui itait iiupuuiblo do fairo uiiu |tareilla preu\. , <:ar olio lavait fort bien quo coa avaucoa avaiont eu 
 liou |H>ur uii tout autre objvt, pour lo profit et l'iul<<rAt du la iiouvelle aoo!(!t6 " A. Cuvillier A Ole., 
 dout Maurice Cuvillier iStait inembro ik la coniiainauco du la Uanque elle-mAiM. 
 
 M. David l)avid«ou c«t lo nrinuinal ti<linoiii do la lianquo. 
 
 II a 6t6 dit qu'il est dout d'uno iuttdliffuiice peu commune. II oit facile d« »'»a convainora k la 
 lecture de ■<<■ rdponioa, maia il u'y a paa (riiitollif(euo« qui pouvait y tenir. Aprto I'^tre elbro* ion^- 
 toiiipa ik nlpondro do inniiidre h no paa adniottro (ju'll connut I'exiitenoe de la nouvclle aooidt^i il fintt 
 enlin par rccommttro qu'on oflot oetto nouvollo looidt^ exiatait, qu'il eu avait oonnaiaaaneo, ot que 
 Maurice Cuvillier no iitimit paa uu commorco i^-par^ teul en ton nom. II ne devait paa tant baiter k falre 
 cetto udmiiaioii, puiaqnu lo fait quo Maurico c'uvillior ^tait en «oci6t6 aveo d'autrea iiuHviduaeat tftabli 
 par troia lettren du niuia d'Ootobre 1804 produitei de la part du la Danque elle-m£mo, (voir c^duloa Noa. 
 4a, 43 ot 44 du Uoiord, paffoi 07 ot 3S.) Et cotte aocietfi est conntatt^ iior fecrit Aire cello de A. Cu- 
 villier It Co. par lottro datdo do Liverpool 6 Juin ISAa, adroaofio par llolderneaa A Cbilton, ik la Dan- 
 quo oUe-mOmo, U Muntr^l, (cMulo 40 du llocord |>ago 39.) Kt c'eat I'une doa lettres, lur leaquellea la 
 finnt^ue faiaait dox avauooH i\ A. Cuvillier II Cie., tout on prenant en m^mo tempn, etde plua, la aigna- 
 turo ludividuoilo do Maurico Cuvillier. Comment la Banque pout-olle pr^tendre aujoura'hui quo aea 
 avancca n'6taiout pas fditoii & la aoci6t<! i 
 
 La quoation do I 
 exoluaivemont. 
 
 L'ttctc, qui conticnt ce cautionnnmciit, doit 6tre iuterprdtd favorablemeot A oeox qui I'ont donn(, 
 mail rigourouieniont contre cuux au prulit deaquoli il a (itb donnd. Jamaia lea cautiooa n'ont eu I'ln- 
 tention do n'obliser pour doi avancoi taitoR ik la nuuvollo aoci6t6 " A. Cuvillier ft Co," la Banque lo 
 aavait ou dovait lo anvoir. Cop«ii<liuit toutci son iivaucea, dont elle pourauit 1e rooouTremonl, out 6t6 
 faitea h cetto nouvcllo BoniiStiS, ct cxiliiilveniciit pour I'intCrftt do retto aociiSt*;. La Uanquo cspdrait 
 
 l« pruHta. Elle doit aujourd'bui en aubir lea oouwSqunooea. 
 
 L.H.LAFOKT.'/'NE, 
 
 J . en Ch«r. 
 
 Je conooun, 
 
 (8ign«) 3. C. Monk, 
 
 A. S. J. 8. C. 
 Montreal, 13 Avril 1800. 
 
 rofiut du cautionuement oit une queation qui doit Atredteidde parle droit Fronfaia 
 
 douto on tirer du plua gronda pr 
 
 ; auja 
 (Signd) 
 
 ^y 
 
 TRADUCTION, 
 
 ^"SwEH cLm, ?o w^?' S IN THE COURT 0¥ QUEEN'S BENCH. 
 
 (APPEAL 8IDB.) 
 
 THE BANK C BRITISH NOBTH AMERICA, 
 
 Appellant. 
 
 AMD 
 
 DAME ANOELIQUE CUVILLIER et VIR, and AL, 
 
 RupviiJcnU' 
 
 OpinioH o/lht Chiej Junice, who ipoke lait, on the delivery rfthe Judgment. 
 
 Sib Louis H. La Fontaine, Bart., Chief Justice. 
 
 The opinion already expressed by two of the Honorablo Judgca, who form a miyority of thia Court, 
 leaves nio little to Stiy. 
 
 The Acte of guarantee or surctyshij; <.■ m": '"i wos mode but for two particular purpoaM, 
 wliich are expressly sot fortli in the said Acto, to v to niil Maurico CuviUier : Firstly, to meet the 
 ennagemcnts of the late firm of Cuvillier & Sops ; i t .. ■'• ■ . t.> cai rv on trade ond commorco m hw own 
 individual name, and for no otlier purpose : niuc • lei si . „v -radoo' iisiness which Maurice Cuvillier 
 might take upon himself to carry on in co-purtt,Ci •',:■> ■.-.'. oil'or Lni ividuals. 
 
 There is no proof on the part of tlic Bank, il,. Lw^ .>■. lilt tlio odvinc-i which it made, and 
 whicli it seeks to recover were ever made to I.!i)v.i-:ci Cuvillier alone, r-K, r recially, that such 
 advances were made exclusively for one or the otiio* purpo,. fiontioncd in '.;,o aaid Act of guarantee 
 or sinctysliiii. It was impossible to make such proot, lor it waa well known that these advances had 
 l)C(Mi iimd« lor a totaly dilTorent object, namely for tiio interest and profit of the now co-partnorahip of 
 A. Cuvillier & Co. of which Maurice Cuvillier was a member and this to the full knowledge of the 
 Bank itself. Mr. David Davidson is the principal witness on the part of the Bonk. It has been atotcd 
 that that gentleman is gifted with more than common intelligence. Of that fact one is easily con- 
 vinced by the reading of his answers ; but no amount of ingenuity could withstond the truth. 
 
 After the most strenuous cflorts to answer in such n way as not to bo supposed to admit bis know- 
 ledge of the existence of a now co-partnership, lie ended by admitting that, such a co-partnership aid 
 exist ; that he had a knowledge of the fact, and that Maurice Cuvillier did not carry on commerce 
 separately in his individual name. >, i. it 
 
 lie should not have hesitated so much in making this admission, because the fact that Mounce 
 Cuvillier was in co-partneixhip with other individuals is established by three letters of tho month ot 
 October 1804, which were produced on tho port of the Bank itself (sec Schedule Nos. 42, 43 and 44 
 of the Record, pages 37 and 38.) 
 
 ^■*fe-\_. 
 
TIm (lust of tha axiatanea of nii eo-|i«rtnpnhip bolitR th*l of " A. Cuvllll«r A Ro." !■ MUbtbtMMt 
 by a ieM«r <ltt«<l Uv«riH>ul Juun Ath, |na;i, A<lilrnw<i<l by Mnwra. iIolilsrii«M mul (.'lillton, to tlm Itaiik 
 ItMlf •! Montr«»l (*«« tbe MlHNinln 44 i>f th« Uworil |nii(« as.) And thb ia uii« of tb« letter* iii>»n 
 whieb tb« lUnk mwln •iIvimm* A. Ouvllller k Co., taking, bml<lM, at thn Miiia ilmo, thn Indlviiiiial 
 ■Uiiftsuvd Ot Maui ics (jSTtiiiaft 
 
 How un tha Mank now nnitnnil tbst (hvaa advancM war* nut matla to tha laid t^o-nartnnnihlp f 
 
 Tba iiuaation aa to tha (>ir«ct of ilia aakl Acta of Knarantaa or iiiratyibip i« imw which la nntlrcly 
 
 Mil axoluMvaly to bo itatnrniliUMi by tha French law. The act which cimtniiu the aiiretyahip muit ba 
 
 lutarpratad favorably to thoia who gav<' it, but rif^lilty agalnit tho«a for whoaa profit it waa nlvnn. 
 
 Thn atiraltiea never had thn liit«iif 
 of •• A. Cuvilllur A (^o." i the Ilank waa a 
 
 Yet all the advancaa for the racovarv 
 new Arm of A. Cuvilliar A Co. and for n 
 
 The Hank hoped, no dniibt, to •li'rlt 
 
 It miut to day itaud all tba coiiwqn 
 
 "f 
 
 thimirmlvc* for ailvanrca mailc to thn now tirm 
 
 t eononri 
 (flljmad) 8. 0. UoMt, A. 8. J., S. 0. 
 HoBtnal IS Aptil. IMO. 
 
 >bliBln)( t 
 rn or ilioiild havii been awani of tbia fact. 
 ■I wliii'h III!) Ilnnk I* now pmiacuting ware made to thn lald 
 nxoluai I'l'in'tit. 
 ■-■eBter uiuii' '"•» tiioh a cuiina. 
 ... >f ila eondukit. 
 
 (HlKned,) L. H. LA r JNTAWl, 
 
 U" 
 
 \ 
 
 <