■^%. #. .N^^^C^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /^. 1.0 I.I 1.25 ^m mis £f lit c US 112.0 U 11.6 Pnotograpnic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 V iV \ :\ % .V ' CIHM Microfiche (Monograplis) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Note* techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliog.'aphically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee □ Cover title Le titre de missing/ couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents CZl y-i Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion '' I along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure D Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filmees. JL'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exo-iplaire qui sont peut-£tre uniques du point rid vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de f ilmage sont indiques ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ k^get restaurees et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite inegale de I'impression n Q Includes ir Comprend Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de I'en-tfete provient: □ Title page of issue/ Page de titre de la I n livraison D Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la livraison Masthead/ Generique (periodiques) de la livraison Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires: Includes some text in French. This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction mdique ci-dessous. ^OX UX 18X •rt' — -L.U.-. 30X _J J 1 1 j 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X "J^V The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: IMational Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la g^ndrosit^ de: Bibiiothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et d** la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprlmde sont film6s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en torminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 32 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 SI CONSOLIDATED SUPPLEMENT No. 1 TO SHARP'S CIVIL CODE OF LOWER CANADA. ^ / CONSOLIDATED SUPPLEMENT No. 1 TO SHAEP'S CIVIL CODE CONTAININO ALL STATUTORY ENACTMENTS AND A DIGEST OP ALL REPORTED CASES AFFECTING THE CIVIL CODE '^ OF LOWER CANADA PttOiS THE 1st OCTOBER 1888 to h,, OCTOBER 1895 BY WILLIAM PRE8C0TT 8HAKP, B.C.L. ADVOCATE. MONTREAL C. Theoret. Law Bookseller and Publisher 11 & 13 St. James Street 1896. q% a Entered according to act of Parliament of Canada, in the year 1896, by C. Theoret, in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa. PREFACE As stated in the preface to Supplement number 3 to my Civil Code (1891), I apprehended that the publica- tion of another yearly Supplement would make the number of volumes to be consulted too numerous for speedy and ready reference and, consequently it was improbable that a fourth would be issued I added however, that, at the end of five years from the date of the publication of my Code, I might issue a Quinquen- nial Appendix, consolidating the three yearly Supple- ments then issued and adding thereto the jurisprudence etc., ot the two succeding years, but that this would depend upon whether there was any expressed desire on the part ol the profession that this should be done. More than seven years have now elapsed since N^ publica- tion of my Code and, during the past three yeirs, I have been asked by many members of the Bench and Bar to bring the work up to date and, my publisher having assured me that such was the general desire of the pro- ession and repeatedly urged me to undertake the work 1 tmally resolved to do so. .K ^^n' .?i"?' ''"*^^''' ^'^ Statutory amendments to the Civil Code together with all reported decisions of the Courts of this Province, of the Supreme Court and t!\' ^«IL^'""'" ''^^^^"S *^^^'^t^' ^'''^ the 1st October 1888 (the date of the publication of my Annot- ated Code) down to the IJth October 1895. Occasion- ailv. reiereTifPs ai"o ni'ifl" f/- j^„- .•._. <• ,, „ --^ . (ii^ nittUv. 10 uei;iKiuiJs oi the Courts of \ VI Preface Other Provinces, wl.on tliey relate to matters treated of in our Civil Code. It will be ren)cinl)ered that the amendments to the Civil Code, effected by the Revised Statutes of the Pro- vmce of Quebec, were inserted in the first volume of mj Code as an Ai)i)cndix, the Revised Statutes not tiaving been i)rinted when it went to press In the present book reference is made, at each article thus amended, to the volume and page of my Code at which such amendmerits are to be found. In using this work it will probably be observed that the bremats of cases are sometimes quoted in full when only cei-tain poi tions of .uch cases refer to the articles at which they are inserted, the remainder applying to other articles of the Code. This has been done in order to avoid repetition and cross-references have been made at each of the other articles to which such ca^es refer The following are the exact points up to which the various Statutes and Law Reports have been digested in this work. ° % t ■4 L.R, (1894) A pp. Cae.,— the whole M. L, R., 7 Q. B.,-the whole M. L. R., 7 S C ,-tho whole 21 R. L.,— fhe whole 17 L. N.,— the whole 35 L. C. J.,— the whole U Q. L. R.,— the whole 23 S. C. R.,— the whole R- J- Q., 1 C. S.,— up to p. 384 R- J- Q., V B. R.,--up to p. 192 1 R. de J., — up to p. 432. Dominion Statute. 58-69 Vict.,-tho whole Quebec Statute, 68 Vict.,--the whole. f Preface VII ▼ II The amendments to the '• Augi Law," passed at the inserted atthe poper artieles, although the Quebec Statutes for that session have not yet been issued. W". Prescott Sharp. Montreal, February, 1896. L. f ApF L. C L. N M.I M.I Q. L H.J R. J B. d( R. L S. C. R. H. R. S. D. Q f AT^nilEVIATrONS. L. R. (ISni) A|>p. CaH. rVivy roiincil Appeal Cnsi-s. ■^I'l'- *'''■"• • KiiKlisli Law Reports. Appeal CnHes heforc th.' PHvv Counc-il. '^- <'■ J Lower ('anada Jurist. L. N Legal News. M. L. R. -Q. U Montreal Law Reports Queen's Bench. .M. L. R. -S. (; Montreal Law Reports Superior Court. *^' L. R Quebec Law Reports. '*•■'• '^^ *'• ^ Rapports .luilieinires Om.iels de Qu(5l)ec -Cour Hupf't- rieure. R. .).Q.-B. R Rai)ports .Tudieiaires Offl, iels de Quehec--( oiu' du Banc de la Reine. l^-deJ Revue de Jurisprudeiieo. f^- L Revue LtJgale. *^' C. R Supreme Court Reports. I*- ^' Q -. Revised Statutes of Quebec. I*' S. C Revised Statutes of Canada. D Dominion Statutes. Q Quebec Statutes. ^ CONSOLIDATED SUPPLEMENT N... 1 TO SHARPS CIVIL CODE. 1. Sectio,, l,n of the ,i„ion Act, 51 Vict., cap. 29, provided for an appeal, m certain case.s. tVon. the award of avhltratml T .t Act wa.s as.sented to on ti,e 22nd May. IHHK An award had been i.nden.d on the IStl, May, 1.S88, hut had only l,.on .served on Appellants on the 2(>th June. It was contended that no appea ouM 1^ had as the awar. was n.ade hefore the Act authori.ing'L appeal //^rf, that an award has the force of rkos. Jucje. Ix-twe-n the pa ties on y Iron, the date of service thereof and that'the award in que"^^ |W„.g been served upon the Appellants .after the passing- of'the A Wtirt 7 "■'" ""?'^' *" ''' '"^'^^'«* «^ *'- 'Weal provide f.rce'lJ1;!!,r ■ f "t ''''^'^"' '*'"'! -'"ff^'-''-^^ -^ -»"- - la loi qui est en torce lejour de la prononciation de ce jULrement— MvpurPir I AtlnnHc ...I Nortk West H,, r... Pn,.dluLnXl ^X^: Sh,h'"f TV'' ';''""f»"'^"'" "-^'HiMde fer .,ui, avant la pas..ation .hi Statut du Canada .le \HHH (.31 Viet. ch. 2!.. .s. 161), ,,ui donne le dro a^^. U. sentences arhitralesH.ant Tindennnte .'.tre acco;d^ l.ropu^ta re expropne, a pron.is de .soun.ettre a une sentence arbitrale r:S' n t -"- I-;ios arhitres no..n.s avant la p^::^;^: c St tut, ne pent appeler de cette sentence, m^n.e si elle n'l ete rendue uapn^s la passa ,on de I'acte.-MATH.E., J.-^AUarUi. ,nul ^ ;^- ^^e.^as colle en force lors du Jug"-" - ('(msoluhited Supplement A^o. I.— Art. '2. iiient.- -C. '^.—Atlcmtic imd North West Ry. i.\s.PominviUe, 34 L C J., p. 24J. o. Semble— Que sur un appel d'une sentence arbitrale, sous k section 161 de I'acte des chemins de fer de 1888, le droit d'appel est rt'f,'! par la loi en force au temps oil la sentence a et^ renduo, sans ('■•;ard au droit existant lors du commencement des procedesdexantles arbitres.— Q. B.—Atl. J. A rt. :^. <|uand il s'aoit d aftaires anterieures a la pas.sation du statut 54 Vic P ?n ".^'^''''t; ''**' ^'•^'"-^-J'^'r''-^. J -r%.^^v.o« vs. St. Jean, i\. J. Q., .i (.. ,S..p. 45!t. la By sectiuu 3 of tbe Supreme and Excl.e.juer Courts Amending- Act oi 1891 an appeal .nay be to the Supren,,. Court of Canada from ... Superior Court m Revu-w, Province of Quebec, in ca.ses which In- ■ I / '. ,!'"''" "'"■ '^PP^'^''^'-'^ direct to the Judicial Co.nm.tt.. ot h.. l^.,vy Council. A .judgn.ent was delivered by the Nupenor Court ,n Rev.ew at Montreal in favor of D.. the respoifdent . .n the same day on winch the amending Act came into force. On an aj^ieal to the Supieme Court of Canada taken by H et at Held t at the appellants not bavin, shown that the Judg.nent was delivered subsequent to the pa.s..ng of the Amending Act the Court had no ,,ur,sd.ctK>n ( .... Whether an appeal will lie from a judgment pronounced aiter the passing of the An.ending Act in in "a^t on pend.ng before the ..hange,>f the law.-SoPUEME Cov^y.-mJ^ .(■ Desmarteau, If) S. C. R., p. 5(i2. ^^'(''niinse ^. oo?' ^1 ''I "'■''"' '"""f ' ^'^' '-''^P^'^dent against the appellant for CW ''silt^^: •'"; "■'""' r' ''^^" ^" '''''""' "^y ^he Superior ->... the Sup.ior court in I^^:!^ ^ihet^::! C^ orcZS was sanctioned, the Judgment was rendered a month later in tWor of he respondents. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada : Hek o Id n7'l "',"1 T""''"""' ''•' '''^' *'- -Pondent s. right uld not l,e prejudiced by the delay of the Court in renderhic .^'Ptunbei, nhen the case was taken .n ddih.>n^, and therefore the case was not appealable.-Sfi.HKME C.>uiiT-r. ,/«. T «>»/ / 21 S. C R n 981 ' on rill e d- Iioiic/iiif«t/i(f(ih'. was, by Aw law ol' tlie Provinco of (^uelmc, appealable to the Judicial Committee. Tho statutR .")-!, and o.", Vic, eli. 21), was passed on tlie :i()th September, I.S!»l, but the plaintiffs aetioii had l)een instituted on tlie 22nd Noveml»er, !«!)(), and was standin^>' for judy;ment before the Superior Court in the month (if June, 1891, prior to the passing of 5+ and oo Vic, eh. 25. On an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court in Review to the Supreme Court of Canada, the respondent moved to quash tlie appeal for want of jurisdiction. Hdd, pei- Strong, C. J., and Fournier and Sedgowick, .h]., that the right of appeal ^iven by .54 and Tj.') Vict., c!i. 25, do.-s not cKt ;mI to eases standing for judgment in the Superior ('jurt prior to the passing of the said Act. (OoiUure tK liuac/nn/, 21 S. C. R., p. ISI, followed. Tasehoreau and Gwynui, JJ., disseating) P,u- KotJKNlKH, J.— That the statuti' is not applicabli' to cises already instituted or pending before the courts, no special words tothat ettect i)aing used.— SirpuEMK CoUUT. — Wlllid nis ((■ Tvniie, 22 S. C. R., p. I OS. Ki. Que le demandeur pouvait prouvei- la reijuisition, la nature et la duree de ses services en vei'tu du statut 54 Vic, ch. :{2, see. 2, bien que ce statut fut posterieur aux .services en question.— TA.scwKRB.vr. J. — Hiwroiiiilis I's. To'i'i, t,f [jui'liiitf., R. .1. (^., G C. S, p. .Si)4. I 7. Where a i-ight has been e.xtinguished b}' prescription, a .subse- ([uent change of the law, extending the time necessary to prescribe, will not revive the right.— Q. \\~Dedieiie i(- ('itij >>f Monfnuil'R J (^ 1 B. R.. p. 20(i. The judgment in the above case was eontirmed by the Privy Council.— L R. (IS92), App : Cas., p. (i4(). 18. Le statut du Camula, 5() Viet., ch. .•]!, acte concernant les temoins et la preuve, s'appliciue a la preuve au sujet des billets promissoires qui est una niatiere tombant sous le controle legislatif du parlement du Canada. Ce statut ilu Canada s'applique meme dans le cas oil le billet proraissoire est —Hame.s vs. Iir(Hvn,~K J. Q., 7 c. S., p. 287. i^OHERTy, I . t valahl^ment 3 ongagor fn ia Province de yuebee 4 payer le •'* 6 (Jonnoliihitpd Supplemnit No, I. — AHh. S-I..'. montant d'un billet sign^ de la mison sociale dont, il faisait paitie. !=on incapacit6 6tant, d'apms ces lois, absolue, ot devant s'apprecicr d'apri's les lois de son domicile. — Jette, J. — Tdiwx /w. DirkivHon R J Q., 7 C. S.. p. 818. H. I . In the absence of proof to the contrary tlio laws of a foreij^n country are presumed to be the same as the laws of this Provincc."- Q. B.—Prime(m ,(■ Giles, M. L. R, 7 Q. B., p, 4«)7. 2. Qu'aucune preuve n'ayant ^te faite n nf Jjt'vis Id be paid slature (54 :ed to pay" til, the piv- ible, that it sire of the s death, in id that tile ir children. '■(msn/uhiffd Snppletunif JV(K /.—Art. I i. desired to secure to them, during |,er administration, a larger income out of the revenues of the estate. It appeared tl„.f tl.. ." . ,,„ , , , ,. iii^i'taiLd ciiat tlie revenues of thee..tate were amply sufKciont for the pay„,ent of the increase allowances. Hell : That the terms of the statute •• is autho^LH pay were permissive and not imperative, and that M... testamenta.v oxeeutnx might refuse to pay the additional allowance without beh'- '^IT^T^rkTI^' "^' ""^"^^'-^- '-^^^-"^ '^ -i. Un reglement municipal qui frappe d'un droit de S5 eha„u.. ••heval et chaqu.; voiture, etc., est confonne au statut qui auto s •' c6, pour la section setomlant dc la rue Lamontaguc •' aux limites oucst de la ville." /(t,/«' (intirmant le jucremeufc de'la (]nur Superieura a Montreal. J)avid.s()n, J.): Que la disposition sus- citf^e est pot.-statiw efc n'impoHc pas a la cite de Montreal Tobligatioii de faire les dits travaux d elargisseinciit.— C. \i.~B8) Ad Cas.. ].. 104. ^ 7. An appeal to earlier law and d(!cisions for the purpose of inter- preting tlie provisions of a statutory code can only be justified on some special ground, .such as the doubtful import or ' previously acquired technical meaning of the language used therein. (This case is noted in full in this Supplt^ment at C. C. I05()).— Pmvv CouxVcii.. — Rohivmii r.s. CnuuUirn I'tirijic R;/.—h. R. (|8<>2), Ap. Cas., p. 47«. 14. Per PATTEitHox, J.— Assuming that the subsequent amend- ment of the general banking Act forbade the t^xking of such security by any Ijank, the amendment did not alter the charter of the Ex- change Bank, .S5 Vic. ch, 51 (D), under which the Exchange Bank had power to take the shares in (juestion in its corporate name as II net's aval it Lainontafjiic eiiiont (Je la Position sus- I'obligatioii /ton I'H. Cifji iliat the Ap- l(»(il by the and in suit, and fishinir getlicr with to or reconr- iory. That oi' recogni- ian Act, 18 t there was boundaries thorized by nissiujjf the 1 made, the give effect o the claim y prescrip- rl disc'osed 3t apply. — (1 80S) Ap se of iuter- nstitied on previously (This case ' Council. 'as., p. 478. nt aniend- h security f the Ex- nge Bank ! name as ('<>ii-''iiliilrfs. Art, 14 C. C. whieli declares that prohibitive laws import nullity bus no application to .such a ca.se.— SLfPKEMK Court. — '/'/,< Exchaiuii- IhiiiL- (,i('aim. R, p, II. ■ -'i- - ■ ^. . 15. That .Art. .■i!l77 H. S. Q., uhieb pn.vides that the Provincial Medical Hoard ■ has power to grant the same privilege (/. ,'., a licen.se to practice without examination) to holders of degrees or diplomas of medicine and surgery from other British, Colonial or French univer- sities or colleges,' does not make it imperative on the Provincial M.nlical Board to grant such license, but merely vests the Board with th(> discretionary power to grant or refuse a license, as they see fit.— (^. B.— CoWw/r ,/rs .Uedcrhis e de la memo manifere (|ue toute dette onlinaire a la poursuite de la couronne seule. ou de toute partie privee poursuivant tant au nom de la couronne qu'en son propre nom, conforinement a la section 7, du chapitre 7, .'U Vict, et «le I'article Hi C. C. et qu'un individu ne peut en poursuivre le recou- vrement en son nom personnel. (S. R Q. art. 80 et -SI).— Q B — ] hour II ({•• (ioKsi'l'iv, in R. L., p. 340. 17. This article, as r.'plaod by the R. S. Q.. is noted in full in \ ol. I, p. 722. _ '4 >,W//*."/i/. -Clause 8 of paragraph 14 of the schedule to article I / of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, as it is contained in article 5775 ot the Revised Statutes, is replaced by the following: V /'"t'^'",' ^'^'^'''"' '''^ J^^P'P'i^^iy. Ash Wednesday, Good Friday faster Monday, the Ascension, All Saint's Day, Concepti.m and Christ- mas Day."— Q._.5(i Viot. cap. 8S. As to affirmation by Quakers— See Vol. 11, p. 577. 1. The power to appoint a warden implies the right to accept his resignation and name his successor.-WuRTELE, ;i .-Gorporatiov of t<^. County of Pont iar rs. Puntiac Pa<- 1 fir J auction Ry., ]1 L N n 10 < omolidah-d Supplemmt No. I.— Art. 17. ^\!t ^: !:'"'' n' '•--l""rIcsliqui.latours .lune banqu. liquidation et l.s .v. .nim.. r " " ""'"""^^.""'•^ *' »"'^- ''"nq"<' "«. 'Ui"^adera,.tieI.:^H('r ■•;,;" ^;"' '"" p ^""^ '"' •^«'"'-'' (.ILL, J.-(,ow/„/r ,w. r,/.,/ uj\]/,„nnt/, II. J, Q.. 4 ('. S„ ,,. HI. •vert possilj,. ,1a,,-,.,- „,■,■,. „„t „™,|, ,„„| „||„;,| ,■„,„„„, ,„,,, * .' l,i,„s8lt „,,,,,.,. „ , >'"'"»l ti'^ w, 'lu (Icriii.-r Hi Q. L K. :pr<)pi-iatioii ►loHtroal lie nissaire est La citi' Jic par cl < '. ne of the k now ill j;- i^ies (hnt>itlidate • R S C c. 113.— R. S. Q., art. 0228. 26. This article, as replaced by the R. S. Q., is noted it. full in Vol I, p. 725. Armndtmnf. -Article 2(i should read as follows : •' 2e. Aliens cannot serve as jurors."— C. C. 2(J : B. X. A Act I.S(i7 • Imp. Act ;« v., c. 14, ss. 25 and 2() ; R. ,S. C, e. 174 s Kil 4f; \- Q ' c. IH, .s, 8.— R. S. Q., art. (i22(). ' ' 27. 1. The principal establishment within the Province of Vuebce of a foreign corporation doing busine.s.s in the province, is its .lomi<-ilr T/ithm the meaning of Art. 34, G P. C, though its head office may be m another country. Service at such domicile, upon the manaovr of the corporation, is equivalent to personal service within the meanin.- of sa,d Art. 34, C. P. C-Q. B.-Bank of British N„rfh Amerir, .(■ btewarf, R. .1. Q.^ ] n_ R p ^(j K; If f'it„nnfi(/ilt^^/ Suftfihiiiriif \i>. I Avtn. .'S- J>). •r rn I Wlieiv Hii iili'-M, ii.)t resul(iiit in tlio Pntviiicool' (Jiut-lwciH hu.mI ifi itscoun for tlir fiilfiluifiit of iiti ohli^ration cnntnietiHl \,y him in n foreign country, tlic .nu;stion is not ono of jinisdiction hilt of duo -ervic*' ()f pn)r'.'ss, am)' 'f thr .Icfeii.iiuit iippcurH aiid does not nttack tJit! service made upon htm '.y an exception to the form lie mnst he- held to l)e properl\ hefore the court.— VVl'KTKI.i;. .1. -/{ii.rf,:, Sfrrfiin/ H. .1. Q., 2 ( '. s., p. 4!l(i, '-if*. The rijfht lo "ontrol tlie Composition of a city eouneil, in this l'r<.vince, wliether \>y vole or l)y rosoi t to the courts, is u privilege attiiched to the <|u.dity of Hritish suhject : a non-naturaliz.ul alien i.s not a per,s. 150. a». Decision No H. noted in tiiis article {(innH, Vv rs. l)iif,ms) i.s also reported 20 H. L, p. 142. I. '^u'il n'y a pas lieu a la revision d'un jugement interlocutoire rejetant une demandede e lutionnement pour frais.— ('. K.—Lafricain >'K. Faassr, i(i R, L., p. 44^, 2. A Railway (.'oinpany, bein<,' a corporation, can have only one residence and that its head office. Such Company having its head oHice outside the Province of Quel)ec, must give security for costs The defendants, altiiough residing in the United States, may ask that the plaintiffs he ordered to give security, without being themselves obliged to furnish secnvity.-GLuw.ssKY, J.— Canada Atlantlr Ry vn StiinUm. M. L R., 4 ,s. c., p. IGO. •i. Que dans le cas ou il y a plusieurs demaudeurs, lont les i-ns ont leur domicile dans la l^rovince de Quebec f o '< .-. -.uirt. .n dehors de la Province, le 'lefendeur a droit d'obtonir le cautionnementytt(Zica not Htt>u;k III) nnist \m Itti.rlf.r il..,'fi^rr rs. 7V..«;,.,. |k |{. ]j., p. i'Al). 7. Mu'uiie cf.rporation (,ui a son l.ureau principal d'uHkiresdai.s la provmoo d'Ontario et .|ui a une p|,iee daftain-s dans la ( i, • ,|,. Mont- n'-al, sera tenu de iournir cautionnement pour les tVais. M ,ri\\Kr .1. — Hunk Of (tiifiii'n, I's. h'onhf, in R L., p. r)77. -S. <^uelors(|Ue,dansuu iMvhl'assijrnation, un des demand urs for- mant parti., dune .soci^te commereialo, est deerit .•omui... res, Ian t en dehors de la province de Qu,'.|„.c, d ue sera pas tenu d.- douner m. eautKmnement pour les frais.— ( 'ii am|.a(j\k, I) M - I//,;,/,, „ ,•. I>iv ''x. Drsnni ro'is, M. L. R., Ii S. ('., p ■>7,S 10. (^ue ropposant aHu de conserv.T. non residant dans lu I'ro- vmce de Quebec, est tenu de fournir ^-un / rs /,'„.s. ) R. L, p. i^.")!). 11. Qu'un demandeur, residant en dehors d.- la Province .,ui i„ tente un proces, conjointenumt avec .lautres demandeurs, .,ui resident dans la Province, est tenu de fournir caution pour les frais.-M xTiirFr j._ (,,/,hurinmerciale faisant affair.js ici, n'est l)as tenu de fournir le cautionnement j/t/i(;a('«,/yt .s(;/y/ dans une action intentee an noin de cette societe. — Jettk, J.— Cmvie vs. McBmn, R, J. ',».. I C. 8. p: :V.]l.— The above judgment reversed the interlocutory judurrnent of M.\THlKr, J. reported in— R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 2!)!>. !."). Qu'une ordonnance d'un Juge en ciiambre condanmant le de- m ui leur a fournir cautionnement pour frais, parcequ'il n'a pas sa residence dans la pnn-ince (Art 2!) C, C), pent etre revisee par le tribunal, et le demandeur decharge de cette obligation. — Mathceu, J. — !>>' Av(idi'< r-i. M(i.''/ R J Q, 5 C. S., p. 811. 'A 4 (le cession. — lilatoire, efc or- ation pour les er a la chari^e que le deman- nfcestation raal C/uuiebois,' 21 ce de Quebec, rair.)s ici, n'est ms une action ^f, C. C, cette instance ou action, d'une Parsley, R. J. Conmlidafed Supplemenf No. I.— Art. i-'- 15 19. line personne qui suit les cours, eomme etudiant, d'une univer- s,te s.tuee en dehors .le k province de Qudbec, et qui revient k sa r^si- -l.uce apre.. que es cours sont terminus, n'est pas tenu de fournir caution 35. 1 . Que la reclamation r u- la Couronne de la succession d'une ix.rsonne condan.nee a la peine capitale empeche q„e cette succession puKsse e re con.s.leree con.nu- vacante, aux termes de I'article hTc < .-De LoiiiMiEU, .l.-Diivp/,y vs Turroffe, 18 R. L., p. 230. 2. Que leStatutIn.perial .S3-84:Vict., chap. 23, n'est pas applicable Hu Canada. Que la confiscation des biens d'un condanme n'LVoTll con.^uenceUe ruK-apacite de transmettre ses biens que la loi'eiviL l.ononce contre eelui qu. a encouru une peine capitale ; que cet In! capacte est exclusn-ement du droit civil, qui regit to^t^e qu eo"- e rne Uta des per,sonnes, le droit de propriete et celui de succ ssTon .)ne par; I'acte de I'Am^rique Britannique du Nord, 186 '' s 92 „ r ' a propnete et les droits civils sont exclusiveu^ent du rlsort dt' legislatures provmciales. et, qu'en consequence, en adoptant 1 Tlpo Mt.on contenue dans les .sections 3(i et 37 du ch IM d.VVf '?? Ket.ndusduCan.ia, en autant que cette dis^ jln 1^^.^^^ oonfiseatjon des b,ens d'un condan.n^ k une peine capital le Pari ..ent federal a outrepasse ses pouvoirs et que la loi ainsi vot^e tf .^onst,tutom.elle et ne saurait etre appli uee en c:^ ;:^ • ^ ;!::.!;::.: s;:!:.!rv^" t^'-t^'^' ;'^-^?<- -^ -^-^ion::;. lamne a i que cette loi n'a pas ete atiectee par les dits n lieritc pMs de son fils cond statut>< et peine capitale, ipres les di.spcj.sitions du ilroit de 1 mme a une telle nei <|ue le p ere 111. •ns sont d'abordaff'ectr la confiscation ne pent s'appl luitef^.—Irrn:, J. -/>„,,,.;/, peine. Qu'eii principe, I province .sur e^tte niatiere, les ainne et que ettes lu paiement des dettes i<)/i(/atif(l iSup/th'iiicif No. /.—Arfy. jjii-.')//. >{'} I i As t() tlie meaning of the woi'ds " Protestant elmrcli an. .)7«. 44. This article, as replaced b\ the H. S. Q., is notcil in full in Vol. I, p. 72(j. I. Qu'une congregation juive ayant ete forinee sous le statut it- 10. Ueo. IV, ch. 75, il n'en peut etre forniee une nouvelle. — P.ujnuri.o, J, — ir Louis Aronxoii, 18 R. L. p. 55. 2. Les cures, pretresou ministres, des.servant les egliscs, concur/ i;v- tions ou societ^s religieu.ses autorisees k tenir . d in full in id in full in I in full in d in full in .V les avonx is.sion de iu ige, pour la un mariage iiariagc. est ,'oi' uu dans m, R. J. Q., ('onsolidufed f^upplemenf No. J.— Arts. IJa-fUkt. 17 53^/. This article was added by the R S. Q. and is noted in full in Vol. 1, p. 727. This article was discussed in the following case — O h—P.nr^.-. r, le d.'.ces vlu dit Edward C. (Joodnovv, savoir : ■ 'I'his certifies that [, William Kerr, .sVv■<<-,^ of tl-e City of Calais, " attende'l the iiiteriiient of the remains of tlit- late Edward C. Good- " now, and the following is a true copy of the r<'r<,nl as kept bv iiic " to wit : ^ "Mr. Edward C. Goodnow, intei-red in Calais eenii'terv, Kei). 17. " l«!)l, aged :}!) years, .S months. Lot 9, northwest, 20 "feet from " ™^"n avenue William Kerr, Sexton." -( 'fmon', ,].—l)arl„:.,n- 'w. Beaulica, K. J. (^)., c ('. s.. p. !l. «»'<. This article was a.ld.Ml by tli.' R. S. (,). and is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 72S. Amciuluuuil. See " An Act to amend the law respecting intei-- ments and disinternjents."— (^. 52 Vict. cap. .S(i. See also " An Act to amend articles ;I|.7,S and o2.5;} of the Re- vised Statutes of the Province of (Quebec (respecting disinterments and cemeteries)". —Q. r,:} \ict., cap. 44. 7«» For an interesting ^/> North Aiurriru ,(■ Str>n>r/, R. J. ()., | ]]. R., p. 04 rf ,svv/. ' ' HO Dcrisio>, Xo. :i. noted a,iarnsl tin. ortirlr. ,ro.. ofjinor./ tnl the Privt/ Convi'il. n'hirh h»til that : — 1. Where a pei'son, who.se dmnicile was not in the Province of Quebec, was married in that Province and declareflrestrr r, (irL •>,) K. L., ]i.jS!). (^ recovery of the note may be bron.d.t there.-DELouiMiEH, J.-/ian,,ae du Peu.ph >:. Prom.f M L R (i S. G, p. «8. 20 R. L., p. 7. 3. Qu'une lettre de change faite et .iatee a Montreal, payable a Montreal, mais acceptee par les defendeurs k Coaticook, ne peut ^tre recouvree en justice k Montreal, la Cour nayant pas juridiction ; I action doit etre intentee au lieu ou la lettre de change a ,^te acceptee ce dernier endroit <3tant le lieu ou a pris naiss.nce le droit .racLn.' Qu une lettre de change acceptee sans que rien n'indi(,ue a quel endroi elle a ete acceptee, est cen.see letre au domicile de celui qui la«cept.'.-MATHIEI^ ;f.-noekerh;i v. Weir, M. L. K., 6 S C p -^SO '20 ConsolidaM Supjden.mf A'u. J.^AvL. S6./,m. ^'t'.er than the real do Zr , ""I' '"' "^'""^^ ^* ^ P^'^ i'l-c(iftherehonoTnlaionot- "7 f"" "' ^'""'^'"'^ '^^ -^'' based on the u.itin. "a Kr^ .? "fr "^ ^'^^'""•'^' '^"^ ^" ^^«"«» <'^- f-s elected do. iede -O fi T , T^^'/'" ''^'^'•^ ^'^ ^ourt ■*«*. La feiiiiiie dont le inari esf ,iiiv P'f ,f rr • ,. . Iv absence prevue a I'article 180 C r J I '^, '''' J"''*'°'^'- '^'' et ne doit pas n^J^reZ^' -^T "'"" ''^'"''^ ^ ''^''t'^'^ eient to Jtab.i,,, ^.jtZ^^^ 'f '-"''"-eA wa, U M. L. R, 4 S. (■„ p, :|34. "• ''—V'heKker m. if,„ur, «rt.,;,i„srr;ra*ietr:ot'".„'r':= "* ^"-*"" »' ^^^ IHt'll Cnn8olldate„fl,™e,l by tl,o Pri^ Co n ,1 /f' " ■,"°'".'' noted in thi,, S„pple,„„„t „t c. 0. (13 and 4 "'"« " »'.nniiv T .„ ^- F^^""t;» manage et tie I existence du nrcniier :zii.t\rtr rp'artierr^"' ''■- -**- ""'■ - -"- ,>artie,_c„ntr„ ^.ZJ^S^Z;,!:^::^!. '"'"'''^'""' "« '" ■■n H \ e.s «an,svaou,,„.. eett. a.huissiou soifc fait, .lans un plai.loye't u J- W; 4 L. S., jj. 44(i. •" 150. St'c cases noted at C ('. 1 |!». nui tr p,„testant sans 1 observation daucur.e des fonualitos roquises emanJ i ";'"."'""'^ T'^ puMication do bans, sera annuls a la demande d un des eponx. -Mat.uk,-, J.- Va/ad.vs. Vonsin.vu., R. .J v., ■i U S., p. i)2.'!. 1«0, A'rr«//o.,. TIh. .■efe.encc to tlie Cod.- Napoleon at tin's article should be to article lOo-not 145. snffl.!"?. '■ ,^^''"'''" ""■ '■'■'■'■"""' ''^ " '"'^'•'*"''" P'-^'I"'''ty are barely ANmtw . ' """"^^''."""=<';'*' '-^- i»«ano child in an asylun..- ^ " 2 ; '"'^;^*«;"fV"f '''^*"^" 'lepayeraun tiers deschoses i I n. jj., p, ,{,55. ' f. ''''■ •^•';li«Htion to furnish aliment bein.- founde.l on rela- t^orslup and ho nature of the obligation not b^ing changed by the ac-t hata,ud,.nent has been rendered against the :iebtor\, enfor ts tulhln.ont, the obhgation is not transn.itted to the heirs or leJl represeutafves of the person subject to it: nor does such obli 'at^tn con.st.tut a charge on h,s estate.-Q, B.-'A«-„,.,. ,f. Mulligan, R. .1 Q.. .^ b. R„ p o2.S.-DAvn,.sox, J.-R. J. Q . 4 Q S., p. 117. C.a^9(i"' ''" ""' "^ ""'^■'" "• '^'■"''' '"^**"' '" *'"^ «upplen.ent at I6«. (^„e I'obli.ation de la part d(>s enfants de payer une pension H^. mentmre, qu.nque n'c^tant pas solidaire suivant IV Jeptat on X" abment re,ue du mot oblige cependant ceux des d^biteux' pours;! vh •saut le rocours de ces derniers contre les autres co-d,^biteurs -O R ^^^Ue , Vorl.n, .. L. C J., p. ,70 ; I. R. L., p. .0;^^!^^ ( \rnsn/h/afn/ Sap/den.nif ,V„. /. ,1 w.s. /f;;./(J,s: 28 l«r 1. (^u.. la .lett.' aliimmtaiiT „.■ p.-ufcetre r^clam^e de la bolle- Mlrapros I.. ,U.:. ,lo s„„ u.ari, sans .nfants. al„r,s mumo quo cette — iKIli;,, .].-.Mndolenfant.-W,n,TK,., ^.-^MIi,n.^ r.. l.terZ, -VI. 1j. k,, (, ,s,_ (\ p o<) -^A dauKhter-in-lavv has uo clain. for maintenance again.st a wUhin't'h 'p"' t?T''' ''^' '''' '"'''''■ ^^'^^ -'^ temporarily I h h TT" 1 ?"''"'' "^"'" •'^'^''"^'^ ^^^"^ ^he writ of summons, and that by the aw ot h,s domicile, which was also the place of plaint - lii s ,narr,age to lus son, no obligation is imposed on a father-in-law to maintam or contrd,ute to the support of children-in-law.-DoHERTv ■i—fia.rnrs /w. Browv, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 287. 4 L'obligation du I'^u-pore do fournirdes aliments a sabelle-fillo r ^ '^'^^^'' f"*\r^*^ •'" •"^"•^^'^ ^1" beau-pfere, et ne procede pas du manage du f, s. En consequence, la Cour Superieure ^Montr J n'est pas compotente a jugor une demande de pension alimentaire intentoe parlabru contre son beau-pere r^sidant k Quebec, m^me lorsque la .uoc son n.ar,.-M.vrHiEU. J.-Snodgrass v.. Plunket, R. J. Q 7 C il I 24 <'<>nHolul,ile,l Snf>,,l,m,,il No. I.~ Arts. KlU-im, l«». I. g„,. ,,,|ui u,,„i .Irs ali nts s.,nt .li.s ot qui, unros „„.. l-rsu,t. pou.. los oht..,.i.., tnu.si,. .vo. s... .I.^t.it..,n...t lu- .p .. HK. ronto aiuuHI.. .l,'.,..n.M,..V, „.. pon.n, ....suit, pour uiv.v ! '|U.- s., pos.t.on a Hntn.. ., ,,„.. s.-s lu-scins ,mt au,MM..„t.'. -lepuis la ytl,.art„lav.ts prn.lu.v.l in .support ..f it, that M,o tVn,la-,ts .U-. ,n a pos,t,o„ to pay tl... ali,n..uta,-y allowanc dain.,!, or , y a U.em.f,s,.hp.t.t.o„willl.....,j.,H...i..,/. .._T.,t,J.-a'; ■•}. L.'s aiinu.nts m.sont .lus par I'dlH .!.■ la loi ,pu. ior> m, il ...nt K n,u. ^p.an. pourvoi.:..us l.s s p.^nts .. futlu. .1.. coiui .s alin.on s .-t .,u. a v^cu un c.rtaiu fcnup.s sans h. n.-hnnor. u. pent .-n J^^:^l . r;: li^n^ ;:;;:r " '" •"-'^-^•■^•••-- •^- ''■^"' ^ ^^^'' : ITl. Qu.' lorsqu'il .xist.. MM .l.-saccor.i ct ui.r ineor.mtil.iUr. 1 1^-. clK. ...... la ,.ru no sera pas ac.pt.V ot oil. sera Ji:^X I. s ga. ant.os nec.ssanvs a m s.'.eurit.'. a, un action contro lui on contr. soncurateur, pour pension aiin.ntairo. in.U^pendannn.„td "io rec" Q^, 2 a'^lfi^Hl '■'""''"'"•'■'• ''-'"""'"" '" ^'-Z'- "'^ son .na.?de !""'"' ''''""^ 'f .*'"'°'" ^"^•- '"^ ""^"'-^ traitenu-uts d. sou man de \ iv'iv sftnurdd Aix In! ..11 . i . ivii wpartt I., lui, (.|1,. p,.„fc porter contrc lui une action pourpe„s,<,n a nnentairo, tant pour ollo-n^n.e, que pou ' e e L quisont/i sa diarge, sans avoir remup. .>. r.„ • ''"""^ " ^ *"^'^"t'' corn^ rl.,',.ll„ \ "(ouis a taction en separation de uHce . P^f P'-'^'- -tt." action sans avoir .'e nonu.uV tutiiee de ses eniants nuueurs.— TAHciiKHFii- ^ n 1 pnirsuivi 0.. l„, f..,„.,u.. .Inna:..),. <-.'tt.- p-Ms,on alinu.ntain. tai.t pour ..||.. ,p,o pour IVnfant u.'. -I. so,, .nana-., av.r I,, .lefomleur. -L,„un.ikh, .\.~\' n neHs,,,,.!/, rs /';/,,//,■ 1{. J. Q, :u;. S.. p, (ja 4. Tl.chusl.au.| l.asanacti..,, i„ law tocoi,.p,.| l,is witVto livv will, "in, au, ,u .k.fault of l.or coinplyinjr w h thr onl.T of the ( 'ourt to l.avo ,t .Lclar,..! that sl„. |,as fo,f..it.Ml all rijr|,ts uu.j.r horcontract of marnag,..-|'.\fiNi.KL(.. .1. -/.';«//,-/■ r,s. Wrhslrr. U ,1. (,)., (i (J. S., p. 2:.. .-,. Lorsrp.o le n.ari vA, l.i fn,n„e nou s.'.par^s -If .•.,rps sout ..o,,,- su.v.sconjointe>nout,ilsumt.J'i..,ii,p,...!,.,lo,„icil.Mlui„an,lafoi..,m.M,. pouvant avoir d'autr.. uou.icile ,p,o colui dv so,, ,„«ri -(' |{ _ Lamanhr rs. iJartin, R. ,1. Q., u c. S., p. o(i. I7«5. (^u.^ la f.uiuuo coinuuiiiu on Wens ,pii pou,suit, av.;e lauto- nsation .1.- son n.ari, la rcvendication .lun inunuul.le .pi'dio xm-Wwl lu.appartonir ..n propro ot .lout Taction est debout.'..- avo. depcns n oblige pas la connnunauto pour l..s frais de poursuitc auxtpicls ,-ll.. est condan.nee par le juge.uent renvoyant son acti(.n, et, quVn suppo- s.int meine que co jugement aurait leffet .I'obliger la co,„,.,uuaut.-- il ne pent etre execute, sur les biens de ectte dernie.-e. sans une po.'..-- siHted.ngee contre le marl, vu ,,ue ce dernier netait en cause m,e -pour autoriser .son epouse.-C. R.-Gadm,., rs. Pi.,.,,,, |(i R L, , 648, ' ' ■ 2 An action against a married woman, which ,loes not ai)pea,- to have been served upu.i he>- husband, will be dismissed o,i the groun.l hat she ,s not assisted or authorix.d a rsfrr ...Jasfn. as required bv L. C. 17(,.-AnDRE\V,S,J._J;.//,s./».s- Prru«nn:,f linihlnn, Snnet ,, r. Lrminix, 15 Q. L. R., p. ;i5. -J. A umrried woman, common as to property, may bringan action m her own name, authorized by her husband, for pe.-sonal inj.irics - lAiT, .].~tiivimons rs. Elliott, M. L. K., 5 S. C, p. 182. Confirmed u. Appeal.-Q. B.-20 R, L., p. (JHO : 34 L. C. J., p. ;«« ; M. L J{ .i H B., p. 308. 4. Que, dans une poursuite centre une f en)me .separee de biens, il 2(i d (''oluhtte,l Hiip,>ln„mt No. l.-Arf. ////. M.St pas .H'>c..,s.sair..,lall.'.guorsi .11.. .-st s^pamMl.. hionn par cufcrnt V .1. . t . u.u. cnmnc.. ot qui pours.m ..„ .anuui. um t Irs „ui sV,t ; .g ;cla payer p.,u.. HI. nVst pa. t.-i... .,. .■ iaii. aut:;.^ ^ -y'"::,,, rs. I'hili;,,.., IN \{. L, p. .574 " -HAIIIIKI .). _ '». <^ue la tViu,,... i.arie. p.ut etre poursuivi., saiis laut,.ri,sati.,n .l^- s.... Mian, pourcnti-avnitioi. a IWto ,1.. licnc.. -MATHrn' 7l ..n c ;Hnt aur son laan. ,,u. ost pou.snivi, tant pc.rsonu..|lnnont ou.. poui autuiKs...- p..ut otiv c..u.la,.uuV dans c-.tti action unoinu, ...an ,l.^caro,„'iI ivfuse s.,n antorisation a sa tVn.nu- pou ' li L , H. gu'il n'.vst pasnocussain. ,k' in,.ntionn..r dans \v lavMc sunnna .on ,ue a fonnno nui poursuit avec lautoiisatic.n du ju,.' Td Z le .le dn man est autons.V, et .p.-il suffit d'une a legation 1 1 ffo dans la dec.laration.-M,v,.„r.., ,l-.,rr,aulf ... /VW.M R "j 'i'-> ' ' • ►^., p. o(). !>■ Dans un.. dei.mnde de cession de biens adressee a une fenune ...ariee. marchando publique, le n.ari de cotte fem.ne doit etre m . •anse pour assKster sa femme aux tins de la cession do bien It " " taut da,l..esse.. la de.nande ,le cession au nuu-i conune k ^L^ " 10. Lorsque, dans une action en doni.nages contre mari et feinn.e ^nunuiis. le premier declare qu'il nenteniixridnh;l Sn,,,>h.„i>'nf Xo. I. Art./;/; 27 H'ft.. action ..a,.|.Hrti,.nt p.s ..x,.|„.siv..„H.,.t hu inari (.„„..,... «|„.f ,|.. h o..n..nuMaut,..-l'A,rvrK,,,, .l.-/^.;,. /„,;.. .. si,,.,,;/. li. J, u, ,; ,- s p, .{SI. * 12. t^nc la ivflaiiiat '•iens, produitc ..iiti>' li^s mains .| illll llSSlTNlfUtfT li'llll,. fcllll ivabit I cuniti'iir mix l)i( lie ii'.ariec.st'piiv dc sans lassistaru ii rautorisatioii .1 us Hfcatioii. — Ocimmt, .1. // •'lit t!X|)rfsspni('nt invocpi iii'Hi'ster I'll justioc il.sMirrf. I'M. •' <'n reponsc a ti-lli I'ruii/.r, I K. ,1,, ,J |, r,j^ of R The ju(i/<.:_(,^,„. |„ f', assistance dc son inaii. u '■mine separe,. ,le hiens (pii a pnxhiit, avait trati droit de fair, di ne i-eclamation contre nnc faillitc cette invidiiction n'etant sans ce (pi'elle quiiii aete d'adminia- f'"" P'-ut 1 ,,ondre, sans I ai.turisation ou lassistance ,le so , mari H une cc.ntcstation de collocation .pii ante faite en sa favenr -C R - IhiM^v'r^ 'X /'roHl.r, R. J. (^., 7 (<. ,s., p. 274. 14. Where the husband has been .sun.n.one.I merely for the purpo.sc '.^ .uthon/.n... Ins w.te (defendant), the plaintiff will not be iuoled -n a m<.t.on to amend the ori^rh.al writ and .leelaration. to make the' .usband a party to the action personally, without summonin! 28 ConsidUldJf'd SapiiU'ni'nit Mo. J.— Art. r/r-lls. mison s ,.,ale de sa fo„u.,>, u>, l.illot d. c ).nplaisa.K.. en favour .I'un nonrne \M lard. Phis tard, on Ht a I'appoliute urie .lemuide de ces- sion d.,' .s>'s hiens, mais le mari ne fut pas .nis en eaino pour I'assisfcer ' aux hiis de cotfce cession. Cependa-it I'appulantf tit cession de ses bioas ,3t dms le bilan qn'olio prodnisit, inscrivit lo no.a do I'intime au nom de ,si..s creaneiers. Jiuie : Que la ratlHcation .le lappelaute de 1 ondos.semcnt non autori.s^ de son n.ari .,u'on faisait decouler du d^potdu bdan de I'appelante indiquant Inifcinioau noinbro de ses crean- cers, etait mile, faute .raufcorisation maritale, le mari n'ayaafc pas 6te iius en cause sur la demande de cession de biens fait a la'femnie Que dadleurs, \v proinetteur,-qui etait solvable lors de lendossement — ayant tait tadhte avant le dep6t du bilan de I'appelante, la ratifica- tion de 1 appolante .levait etre couverte par I'autori.sation de son mari donnee a lepoque meme du dep.U du bilan.— Q. K—Paquiv .f: Doav snv, K. J. Q., 4 B. R. p. 72.— (\ R.-R. J. Q., (; Q. 8., p. 48. _ 17. An action to s.-t asid.-a will is nota n.atter of simple admin- istration, and therefore a Nvif,> separate I as to property cannot Lrino- sudi action without the authori;.ation of her husband. It -'s ml sufficient that the wife alV-gesin the .leclaration that she is authorized by her husband. He must be a party to the cause or ^i ve his consent 111 writing. The want of authorization is a radical nullity which cannot be covered by the husband's ratification or consent ^^iven sub- sequently.— (1 U.—/Mmai>f(M/Hr' /w. bninrntiunie, M. L R '7 S (? n lfi2;:i5L. C.J., p. 73. ■ ' ^ r77 The making of a reduction in the rate of interest, oavable on a hypothecary claim, is not a mere act connected with th.-'admin- istration of her property which a wife, separate as to property may •lo alone, without the authorization of her husband, but is iu reality a donation, which is null and void, unless f,he husband becomes^ party, or gives his con.sent in writin.r. (C Q 7()8)— Q B~ffarf (■ Jo.^rph^ M. L. R., (J Q. B., p. 301 ; 20 h. R., p. 5]o a-i.i p.'55(). See also cases noted in this Supplement at article 1 7(;. V7H 7 . Sur le refus du mari d'autoriser sa femme a ester en jus- tice pour poursuivre un tiers qui I'a assaiUie, le juge pcut alors accorder cette autorisation.-ANDHEWs .^.-Ex part. Leniu,., R J H; " ^- S., p. 404. 2 L'autorisation donnee par le juge a una femme mariee d'ester en justice, sans que l'autorisation du mari ait eteau pr^alable requise hrtl <'<>iinuru/(iJed Sitfipl^nient No. /.—Art. I7!t. 29 est suffisanto si la requrte demandant I'uutorisation du juge a ete signi- fH-e au inari avant sa presentation et si I'atitorisation du ju cat endossen.ent t que la femnjo I'a subsequemn.ent ratifie ur,e nouvelle autorisation maritale n'est pas recjuise pour rendre cette 'rati- fication valable, vu que I'autori.ation necessaire existait .lejk par I'en- dossement et que la ratification retroa.^it jus,,uau jour du' contrat.- L.. a.- Dawson r.v. Hejhird, R. ,J. (^)., (j (', s., p, 4s. TIk, decision in the above case was reverse.l in appeal an.l is noted in full m th,s Supplement at Article I7 rs. ffn»fn; K. J. Q., ♦; ('. s., p. 2.5S. 1«0. La femme dont le n.ari est aux Ktats-Unis .rAm.'.ri.iu,. dans un endroit inconnu pent etre autorise.. par le juov a .sterVn justice. Labsence prevue a I'article 180 C. C, nest pas' cell, detini. a I article .S(i et ne ,l.,it pas necessairement en reunir les confte ;>■ iVo/e/, R. J. Q., 4 n s., p. 488. 1»J. Dansrespece. la procuration generale donnee par la tVuim.. au man pour gerer .-t administrer etait insutti.sant.- pour aut..riser t.ls ondossements. Dans le cas present I'acquie.scement subs.H.uent de la temme, non specialement aucorisee a cet effet, a ce que la ban.me sa„- propne .les actions a elle appartenant. .-n paien.ent .lun.. semblabl creance, est nul : ^ pareil acquiescen.ent r-.^uerant I'autorisatinu atC.C. l.]0]).-Q. h.~Jndom ,(■ U Banqura'Horhda.jaJi .) (, ;j K. R., p. .%._Pagnuelo, J.—R. .). Q. 2C. S.. p. -iTb-. ' ' • ***'-/;v^^'''' "^PP^'^^'^^'s interest in the policy su,.l on ua. as ass,o.„ee ot Dan.e M. H. B., the wife of one Charles L, to vvhon. the rrsured had transierre.1 his int.'rest in th.. policy on the 27th Octob.-r, [ u ff ^^^' ;^™'^'^- Tascheheau and (Jwvnne, JJ.) that tlu' Appellant ha. no hem standi, there being- no evi.lence that M H H l.ad been authorized by her husband to accept a transfer of th,. .sai.l pohcy^-^UPKEME C0UHr.-/i.,cv- cC. Pl.rai. Mafanl Lif. /..... rj 14 S. (. R, p. 72.3.-Q. R,_M. L. R., 2 Q. B., p :}2.S. Coiisol'uhtted Sicpplcmeiit No. 1. \rt. IS.;. ;{| 2. It is ,H,t sufficient that the wif. alleges in the declaration that she au honied I.y her hushand. He u.usfc he a party t<. the cause or give Ins consent m writing. The want of authorisation is a radical nul hty which cannot be eovered by the husband's ratification o c n- r7Ta;:^^:t't;^^.V^:"-^'---- --"•m:. to JoJ!Z ^"' 'Y''^':.r^' ''- '^-""-d the quality of separate as to propeity .n a deed ot lease to her. .loes not debar her, in an action agamst her ,n that <,uality, fron. pleading by exception to 2^2 ^ pS H " ': ^- '"""' '^^ '^ ^'-''^'''■'y ''''^ '-- '-■^•-' w if an . r" •^"^\^"«-'-tanccs, will be allowed to an.end the ^ut and declaration by describing the wife as conunon as to propertv Whe,e th, Husband has been sun.noned merely for the ,, Ipise f authon.n.g h.s wrfe (defendant), the plaintiff will not be allowed on a motion to amend the original writ and declaration, to n.ake th. husbanl et doit etre mise de cot^ par la Cour, meme si ce moyen n'a pas ete invoque par la contestation. Que pour contester la collocation sur telle reclamation et obtenir son renvoi avec depens de contestation contre la femme, il n'est pas necessaire que les contestants assignent ou mettent en cau.se le mari pour autoriser sa femme a ester en justice, quand rriiMue tel moyen serait expressement invoque en leponse a telle contestation. (The holding of the Court of Review is noted at Article 176, decision 18.)— Ouimet, J.—Busslire vs. Proulx I R. de J,, p. 58. I'**7. i. Que dans une action en separatiim de corps pour cause d'adultfere, la defenderesse accusee de ce d^lit peut obtenir, ppr motion, ijue le demandeur lui fasse connaitre les endroits, les circonstances des adulteres et les noms do ceux qui les auraient commis avec elles.— M.^THIEU, S.—Lapirrre »s. Granger, M. L. R, 5 S. C, p. 154. ■2. Que dans une action en separation de corps, le mari qui accuse sa feiiune d'adultL're, doit indiquor le temps et le lieu oil la femme se serait rendue coupable d'adultere et les noms de ceux avec qui elle aurait commis ces adulteres.— Mathiei', J.—Pofrin rs. Gramier 18 RL, p. 571. -^ ' 3. La prouve de I'adultere dans une .action civil.; par le mari contre ('ovsol'idated Supplemenf No. /.^Arfs. I8H-J,sy. 33 le complice de sa femme peut se faire par t.^moins, commo celle des 'I^hts et quas.-dehts. et par des indices et presomptions. II n'est pas necessaire pour etablir lexistonce de ce delit que los coupables aient ete surpns ^n ^psa tarpitudlne, mais la preuve peut r^sulter de pre- somptions violentes, precises et concordantos qui ne laissent dans lesprit aucun douto ra.sonr.able. (Par la C. S.. C. R. et B. Rj Dans I'esp^fece .1 r^sulte de 1 ensemble de la preuve des presomptions violentes qui ne laissent aucun doute que I'intime a seduit et enlev^ la feinme de appelant et a commis I'adultere avee elle, et le jugement de la ^our de premiere instance, condamnant Tintim^ a payer a I'appelant la somme de $500, k titre de dommage vindictif est Lintenu. ^Cour de^revKsioncrm/. vs. Corhril, 83 L. C J, has a'rilhtT, 'd 'i'" ^"" 1?'™''"" '■'"" '^"^ '^"•' ^--^' *he Court has a right to determine the custody of the minor children of the parties and decide that the father .shall have .such cu.stodynotwith standing a provisional order made in another cause be'^^w en the same parties giving the custody of the children to the grandmother The fa her will not be deprived of the custody of his children except tor gross misconduct, of which there was m. evidence in the present ..se. and the minors being boys, aged II and 9 yelrs, aid h mother being guilty of immoral conduct, it was ordered that th! son droi de surveillance sur leur education et qu'il pent m me ecou nr ^intervention de laju.stice. dans le cas o Ja mL ferTun usa " 33T c J ;"2or '"' '"' '^ ''' ^^""'^-^^' ^-^"^'^'^^ "• "-S tairpfsl'f ^" ^"'""/'='': P^ '^'l"'^' »" "^*" donne une pension alimen- taire a sa femnie s^paree de corps avec lui, par sentence judiciaire perd tons ses ettets par suite de la reconciliation survenue subs^quem ment entre les ^poux.-Q. B.-Smith S Davis, R. J. Q., 2 B. R.. p 1^9, 2. La reconciliation des epoux met tin aux procedures intent^es par .Sfi Consolidated 8up2>lement No. I.— Arts. ^JS-iH^JS. I'uu (le COS ^poux conti-e I'autre aux fins de faire prononcer la separa- tion de corps, mais la prescription des honoraircs dcs avocats dont Ion services ont ete retenus dans une seinblable action, ne commence a (lourir que du moment ou I'avocat a eu connaissance do cette r(!'conci- liation.— Deloiumieh, J.—Lnfortane vs. But/c.r, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. •%0; 1 R. de.T., p. 155. 21H. 1. Quo la presomption creee par I'article 218 C. C, qui veut «iL„ial„ de ,„ pat: : !^M ™ "™ J 'Z,T'^"7}' P'™- •(. Q.. 3 C. S.. p. 257. ■"■"«'F-i'. J— CtoKfc ,«. TripanUr. R, ..■ !*^t' ^'■" ™'"" "*' ^"''*"» "»■ '■*"/ note,] in nrtlftle 228. tliLs Supplement at 3IO. Qu(! si, fii pi i'iiiui|M!, I'«'nf'(iiit imtiirt'l ii'a pus k\\- rtroiirH — »«■. %^iu; M, til pniiuipi!, I «'rU(iiit imtiircl ii a pus di^ rtroiirH pisrsoniiel pour /7/r, WW L. ('. ,1., p. 280: 15 R. L. p. 254 ; M. L. II., 5 S. C, p. WM^. 3-11. I. Dooisioi, nuinhor 5, iiotod ijraiu.st this article, came up ai, cot article mo distinguant pas .-i I'enfant naturel est lie d'un commerce adulteiin ou non. MATHl.ir, J.—MoKfircher vs MerriPT, 20 W. L.. p. I5,S. 3. L'actiontii doolaration do paternito ot poui- dos aliments est un droit exclusif do loiifant,(pii mo pout pas otreexerce par la more ni par le tutour norniiio ;i la mero minoure— les droits de la mere n'etant (pi'aux dommauvs (|uo lui a causes la soducticm. L'onfant naturel no piiut fairo condannier a lui fi.urnir des aliments I'autour reel ou sup- pose de la gro.s.sosso d(; sa miNre, (lu'on le fai.sant doelaror son pore.— C. R—MidUn rs. /i(,!/ip, R. J. Q,. '.\ (; s„ p. 34. 4. See also case of C/nadr /■«. Trdpaiiirr noted in this Supplement at article 232. 843. I. A fai her .sought i»y a writ oniabean a irpm to recover possession of his daughter, aged 8, and of his son, aged 1 1 years. The return to the writ shewed that the nmthor of the children had been dead about six years and that, from about nine months prior to her decease, the childn n had boon brought up by the grandfather (in wliose custody they still w.mv) and at his cost. That the father had Il 89 ConHolidated Suppler it No. l.—Artn. .'J-U-^y. dhl ,;! . . ■"" ?''*^ ""' ""•'"'• ^"^' '-^^^^-'t an u.n the custody of her by ..eans of a writ of nlas co.^^ I eg end t tlTf'T""' ■"*^"'^">' -'' '^^-i-t her will by the nl tnd ,.ta The Defenda.its replied that she was „„t deprived of her h^orty but was free to ,,uit their ostablish.nent whenever she 1 se HM, that an unen.at.c.pated minor cannot ch.,os,> for herself anv lhT:r It ". "^'^^".;;--^'^t'-. unless the father re.:!! ca e fit ^ r'"'^^'''''' "'• '^^•"^''^^ '^ '^"^' that, in the present case, there wa.s moral restraint and illegal physical detention (This case was carr,ed to appeal where it was /J, that the Sup rior cL Itt r:ofTl "' ^"^'"' ^''''' ''^^'"^' -™t .iuri.sdictio:t matters of h..'>eas corpus, ,.o appeal lay from one Court to the other .s there was no specal provision of law to authorise itKCHAHLlKo! P lit I.bTi 7 t ; "^r'" "-''''' '' Morri..eUe, 33 L. C. J P- lil , 1!) R L., p. «o : M. L. R., (i Q. B., p. 130. articie 2^0 f '" '"'' "^ f " ''^^ ''' ''"''■ ""'^^ "' *'"« Supplement at article 290, decision number 3. ft ^^ »t nafe,!!i*" ^"^ '"'"' '"'" '"''"'* "" ""*"^"t ""»«"^ ^ l'^i««e^- le domicile l^ternel. sans le consentement du pere. est responsable des dommZ ^ eprouv^s par ce dernier, par .suite de ce depart^-MATHrEU. T-Z t^neau vs. Ladoueeur, 2} R.h., p. 273. 345. In the exercise of the right of " rea.sonabIe and moderate 24., no punishment is justifiable which may result fn serious or per-' dragged a child of seven years by the ear, to compel him to kneel down, and the ear was so injured as to require me'dical at endanc for several weeks, the school authorities were condemned to p^S^^^ damages, with costs of an action of $200._Dav,dsox, J.~LefeZevs LaCor^r^gaHon des Petits Fr^res de Sfe. Maris, M. L. R., Ts C. p. fh ^wu'^''*^'' '^"^'"' '"^ *" ^"^^*" '"'"or should be appointed through the ministry of the Superintendent General of IndianS^ j&zimiP^. 40 Vonnolidnteit Sa/>plfmenf Nn. /.- Ai-f». .IJ/iJ-Jifi^. as indicated by tli(* R. S. C, cap. 4;{,8ec20, suh. ,scc. H, and such tutor- ship conforrod by tlie prothonotary, in the ordinary way, is of no oficct, the rigJits of Indians being regulated by tlie Indian Act and not by the conunon law, vvhioli does' not apply to them.— TascherkaI', J. Tluroliiato vs. Toriwairri, uliax Ihimen, M. L. R.., 7 S. C, p. 304., 851. iJeeisioii miinbei 2, noted against this article, {Call) rn. I'errauUl is ulso reported in the M. I.. R., 4 Q. I!„p. 451. a««. I. Article 2(i!) of the Civil Code provid(is for the only case where a tutor ad /too can be appointed to minors. — Sui'iiEflE CouilT. -Rattray ii- Lnrae, I.") S. C. R., p. 102. Q. W - «) L. N., p. 'And : 12 Q. L. R., p. 208; 14 R. L, p. (114. 2. IJn tuteur ad hoc n'ayant ni Pad ministration de la porsonne, ni I'admini.stration des l)iens d'un miueui-, ne pcut intenter des action.s appartenant k ce inineur, (juand nieine il serait \o, pere de ce dernier. Ce d^faut de qualite peut etre oppose en tout 6tat de cause, maia lors- qu'il ne I'a pas ^te par les plaidoyers. Taction du tuteur ad hoc seni renvoy^e sans frais.— Ta.scheueau, J.—Tfi/,riault vs. Globe Woollev mils Co.. R. J. Q.. 4 C. S., p. 179. 8ee also cases noted at C. C'. 290. 282. 1. Article 282 of the Civil CVxle does not apply to executors chosen by tlu^ testator.- -Q. B.—iMitrhell dc Mitchell, M. L R., 4 Q B. p. 191 ; 17 R. L„ p. 70:3.-C. R.— 15 R L. p. 167 ; 31 L. C. J., p. 178 ' M. L. R., 3 S. C, p. 31. (Confirmed in the Suprenu- Court, 12 L. N p. 180.) ' 2. Que la mere veuve a, en vertu de la jouissunce paternelle et des dispositions de la loi, droit a la garde, k la surveillance, k I'^dueation et k la tutelle de ses enfants mineurs, a moins qu'en connaissance de cause, elle nen ait ete jugee indigne et incapable de la gestion pur nn tribunal competent. -Wl-htei.e,. J.— . vs. Carhm,,, R. J. Q., 4 Q. S., p. 453. 5. That under article 282 C. C. tho appointment of an alien as tutor to the property of minors, In this country, will be cancelled upon petition of an interested party, an.l a new meetinjj of tho family will be ordered at the potition.-r's .lilifronce.-Lv.vcH, .].~Irmn^ v, Payne, 1 R. do J., p. 42. HHS. 1. In an actio.. i,,r tho removal of one executor, wh.^i then- are several executors, the existence of a lawsuit between such execu- tors and the estate ho represents and the evidence .)f irregnkiities in his administration, hut not .'xhibitin^r any incapacity or dishonesty are not a sufficient cause for his removaL-SuPUEMK (.'ocRT —Mitchell & Mitdidl, 12 L N., p. 180.-Q. B.-M. L. R., 4 Q, 15 p 191 17 R L, p. 703.-C. R. _M. L. R.. 3 S. C, p. 31 ; 15 R. L., 1, | (iT ; 31 L .1 p. 178. 2. Que la mere % euve qui, en vertu de la jouis-sanco paternelle a la ^rde de son enfant mineur et qui, en vertu du ti^stament de son mari est nomm^ executrice testamentaire, et a ainsi la go.tion des souls biens appartenant a ses enfants mineurs, doit otn- nomrr.6" tutrice Que celui qui veut emp^cher la mere d'etre nommee tutrice a ses en- fants mineurs, doit produire une contestation reguliero de .sa .lemando et faire une preuve, en la maniere ordinaire, pour mettre le protono- taire ou le juge en .^tat de juger des objections faites k h, nomination de la mere et que la production d'affi.Iavits, de part ot d'autre sans contestation, est illegale.-WuuTELE, .].^S^lastien v.. Durorher 20 R. L., p. 620. 42 <'omoii(laf.ed Supjjlemenf No. 1. — AHh. '2S6-'390. 3. Tlie insolvency of a tutor is not a sufficient ground for removing lum from office, where he is not guilty of maladministration or un- faithfulness in the performance of his duties. The fact that a tutor has left the revenues of the minor in the hands of testamentary ex- ecutors wlio were appointed by the father of the minor, and whose capacity and solvency are not disputed, is not a ground for removing the tutor, unless it appears that the interests of the minor are pre- ju.liced thereby.— Q. ^.—McFavlane. & Stimson, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 397. ' ^' 3»«. 1. Que la demande en destitution de tutelle doit se pour- suivreparaction, en laforme ordinaire, et commengant par un bref d'assignation, et que la forme de la requefce, sans bref, n'est adraise que pour la revision des ordonnances rendues hors de cour, au sujet des excuses ou des nominations de tuteurs.— Jett^, 3.— Raphael vs Gibb, 20 R. L., p. 8. " 2. Que la demande en destitution d'un couseil judiciaire ne peut se faire par une simple requite, mais que I'on doit proceder par action en la forme ordinaire.— Jett6. J.~Mung vs. Audair, R. J. Q., 1 C S., p. 241. a«0. Ikci^iun number 12, noted at this article, was reversed by the Supreme Court, where it wai held as folloivs : 1. In an action to account and for removal from trusteeship instituted by the party who had appointed the Defendant trustee and curator to a substitution created by marriage contract, a tutor ad hoc to the minor children and appeUs to the substitution has not suffi- cient quality to intervene in said suit to represent the minora— SnpiiEME Gov HT.— Rattray vs. Larue, 15 S. C. R., p. 102. 2. Qu'un pere a droit d'action en dommage, en son propre nom, pour assaut indecent sur la personne de ses enfants da ,. sa maison.— ' Champagne, D. M.~Lagarde vs. Payette, 12 L. N., p. i94. 3. The tutor appointed to a minor for the purpose of making an inventory, petitioned by writ of habeas corpus to obtain the custody ot the child, on the ground merely that the stepmother, by wliom the child had been brought up, was not properly fulfilling the aaree- .nent to take care of her. Held, that where there is no allecration that the child is restrained of its liberty, the Court has a discretionary Conmluiatfd Supplement No. l.~Arts. iJ91-!!i97. 43 power to refuse the petition if not considered to be m the interest of the minor. — Brooks, ,J.~ffod(fe vs. Scott, 12 L. N., p. 234. 4. A father whose minor daugliter has been slandered by wards imputing that siie was guilty of fornication, has an action of defama- tion on his own behalf against the slanderer.— Wurtele, J.—AntUle. O.S. Marcottti, 11 L N., p. 331). 5. The Defendant, in l>is quality of tutor ad hoc, had su.-d the Plaintiff for damages for seduction. His action being met by a dA(JNE, D. M —Voael ■?» Pelletier,!^ L. N.. p. 107. 7. Que le tuteur ne pout consentir a un bornage a I'amiable, et que, dans une action en bornage contre un tuteur les frais d'action et de bornage seront supportes egalement par les parties.— Q B — Parent & Parent, 21 R. L., p. 214. a»l. A person who has been appointed tutor can neither implead nor be impleaded in that capacity until he has taken his oath of office.— WiiRTELE, J.— C«mp6«« vs. Bell, 11 L. N., p. 346. 397. As to lands expropriated for the purpose of the Dominion see D. 52 Vict., cap. 13. I. Que c'est au tribunal du lieu oh la substitution a ete ouverte et la curutelle enregistree et ou rt^sident les grev^s et le curateur k la substitution qu'il appartient de connaitre du merite dune requete de- mandant une autorisation de vendre un imtneuble substitue. situe dans un autre district. (C. C. 249 et 951.)-C. R.-Ex parte Doutre, 33 L. C. J., p. 120. 2. A person lending money to a minor is bound, at his peril, to see that the authorization to borrow is regular on the face of it and where no proper .summary account was submitted by the tutor and the sub-tutor was moreover the agent and son of the lender and was i! i 44 Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Art. '297. bound to know that, in fact, the loan was not required by the minor but was being improperly obtained by the tutor for his own purposes' the obligation so given was held to be null and void. (The Supreme Court, while coinciding in this view, reversed the decision in the case holding that a person lending money to a tutor, which he proves to have been used to the advantage and benefit of the minor, has a per- sonal remedy against the minor, when of ago, for the money so loaned and used.)-Sui>UEME Qo^^^x^.-Dan.s I- Kerr, 13 L. N., p. 153 • 17 S C. R., p. 235.-Q. B. -17 R. L, p. 620 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 156.' .'i. A sale of substituted property, under judicial authorization is null where the property of a minor, not represented by a tutor a,/ A-o« IS sold io the tutrix through persons interposed who wen, merely Vr^te-now,H and made no ]«iy,„euts on account of the price -Pa GNUELO, J._/V/c(;rey<,r«v. CamuU Invent. Co., M. L. R, 6 S. C, p 196 Ihe above case went to the Court of Appeals and to the Suprem,^ Court, in both of which it was held that a substitution did not exist Consequently, the point noted here was not adjudicated upon.-Q. B. R. J. Q., J B. R, p. 197.— Sui'REME CouuT.— 21 S. C. R, p. 499.) 4. Where a father, acting generally in the interests of his minor child, but without having been appointed tutor, and being indebted to the estate of his deceased wife, of whom the minor was sole heir subscribed for certain shares in a joint stock company, on behalf of the minor, and caused the shares, to be entered in the books of the said company as held " in trmt;' this created a valid trust in favor of the minor, without any acceptance by, or on behalf of, the minor being neces.sary. Such shares could not be sold or disposed of with- out complying with the requirements of C. C. 297, 298 and 299 and a purchaser of the shares, having full knowledge of the trust upon which the shares were held, although paying valuable consideration was bound to account to the tutor subsequently appointed for the value ot such shares.-SLir.HEME ComvT.^ Raphael & Macfarlane, IK S. C. R, p. 183.— Q. B.— M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 273. 5. Que le tuteur ne pent consentir a un homage a Tamiable, et que dans une action en bornage contre un tuteur les frais daction et de' bornage seront supportes egalcment par les parties. -Q B -Parent * Parent, 21 P. L., p. 214. 6. By C. S. C c. 66 s. 11 (Railway Act), all corporations and per- sons whatever, tenants in tail or for life, graven de mhstitiUion. guar- Oonsoluialed Supplement No. /.—Arts. 298.,}0J. 45 (liau... etc., not only for and on b.half of tl.on.selves. their heirs and successors, but also for and on behalf of those whom thoy p " nt .se..ed. possessed of or inter<,sted in any lands, may contract fo sell and convey unto the cou.pany (raih'.y cou.pany)Tu o ,.n7pa m law. //6^rf, affirming the decision of the Court of Annr-il th.f any n tu but he company nmst pay to the remainden.an or i„t(, court the proporfor, of the purchase money renresentin. the remlin t^^::^"^''^T ?"^^" ^"" ^PP-^ f.-on;the Co . f S. C R.^lJo ^"^-^''^^'^^^^ ''"''""'^^ ''•^^''^"-^- -• young, 22 ceedi!!s400"whiof '" r'!^ '' '' ''''' "' P^P^^y «* - value not ex- 1 ceding i,iOO, which article is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 734. prunLf '^'T'"" consentie par un tuteur pour des deniers em- "tnule . '^«^^^-- /--nnelles, ^ la connaissance du preteur, 'Stnull., , ,. a memeelle aurait ^te ratifiee par le mineur anr^s sa 7ZTV7 7 "*.^'i"" -»Pte de tutelle luf ait etc fourni ' C C I214.)_Q. B.-Dav^ ^. Kerr, 17 R. L, p. 620 ; M. L. R.. 5 Q. B., p." i.e.dls fot;::"'" ^^' ^""^' '- ''- '"P^-^"'^- ^-^^- -'^-^ ^^ was 2. Where a loan is improperly obtained by a tutor f(,r his own purposes and the lender, through his agent, has knowledc^e that tie .Micial authorization to borrow has bee", obtained withcurt tt tutor a^d'tL; T^^^'l— •'-y-ount,as rc,uired by C. C 2 « and that such authorization is otherwise irregular on ils fao the obligation given by the tutor is null and void.XsuPUEME Cou ht navts ^ Kerr, 13 L. N.. p. 1 53 ; 1 7 S. C. R., p. 235. '-«^«T.- to aS ^Zm'' '-'-'''- '^ ''^ ^^"'^^ ^'M.oleon should be 1. The absence of authorization to a tutor to accept a legacy prior o action brought by the tutor claiming such legacy inay te covered iz::^^:;:^'!'^' tT '' '^"^'^ -nd^iubsequrt: nstitution of the action -Q. B.-Power. & Martindale, R. J. Q 1 R li., p. 144.— Supreme Couut.-23 S. C. R. p. 597. :! i 46 (Consolidated Supple.rn'-nt No. /.—Arts. MUiOJf. H' 2. Where the heir is a minor, the expiration of three months and forty days without renunciation, from the time when the succession devolved, d( i not create any presumption of acceptance. — DAVinsoN, J.—Larjcqiw. vs. Dair/naulf, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 206. 'i. A defaut d'acceptation ou de repudiation d'une succession par le tuteur de la maniere prevue ^ I'article ;J01 du Code Civil, le niineur est cense accepter sous ben4tice d'inventaire. II est alors dans le caa a... a^ AVr, 17 R L. p. 620 ; M. L. R. 5 Q. B., p. the rJt^l^r' nr "'"'^.'° ''" ^"P^'^'"" ^""^^' ^h'^»^ held that the ratification by the minor of an obligation is not binding, if made without knowledge of the causes of nullity or illegality of tch ob i! gatK)n given by the tutor.-SuPREME Oourt.-17 S. C R.. p 235 3 m 48 Oorinuliddled Supplevumt No. J. — Arts. ^JI5-ti'JiS. 2. Que lorsque les droits du inineuront etd clairement d^termin^a [lar rinventaire de la succession echue k ce mineur, et que le compte do tutelle ne serait qu'une repetition de cet inventaire, les revemia des biens du pupille etant plus qu'absorbes par les frais de garde et de I'education du mineur, la Cour ne mettra pas de crtt6 une vente de consent or k.iavvI.Mliro of his co-cumtor.-WuuTEL^ J_ tfemdp.if VH. Moiyan, M. L. R., 7 S. U., p. 273. 3. Que le curatour a Tiat^nlit n.3 peut. sans autorisation du lucre oppelor «le la s.MitoiiCL' 1. rd.vant do I'iuttM-.lietion.-DAVinsoN' jl froalx dit GUnatit ,n Pi-oidx dlt CUnvint, 85 L. C. J., p. 108. ' 4. See also case of Francis vs. Clement, noted in this Supnlemont at article 309. ' • ..^*7' '^i'''" ^'■^'*''^' **' '•'^placed by the R. S. Q., is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 734. Qu'nn d6fend(.ur pent, dans son plaidoyer declinatoirc, invo- ci»cr la nuUite d'uue nomination du ciratour aut.e succession v -cante et allecruer que telle nomination a ete faite en vue de distraire frau- duleusement le defen.leur de sea juges naturels, sans quo le defendour ne so.t tenu au prealablo ,le fairo casser la .sentence nommant tel curatour-Q. K-Robillard & lianqw. Jacques Cartier, 32 L C J p. 231. ■ ' " »5Irt. and 351&. These articles, relating to the sale of certain descriptions of property belonnrin-r to minors and other.., were added by the R. S. Q., and are noted in full in Vol. I, p, 734. 353. AVra^wm.— Strike out reference to C. C. 1053. See cases noted at C. C. 1889. 353. Quo les associations volontaires, non commerciales. qui ne sent pas legaloment constituees en corporations ne peuvent ester en justice sous le nom collectif qu'elles out assume.-Que, nayant pas de.xistenco legale, ellessont incap.iblcs de contractor et (lue le billet d'une telle association, sigae par lo Secetaire-Tresarier, sera declare nul. La Cjur, proprlo mota, doit s'assuror si I'Assoijiation qui poursuit ou est poursuivie, a une existence legale, et doit prononcor I'incapacite, le cas echeant.— BouiWKcns, J.—Ri.hard vs. La SocUU de Secours Matwel contre le feu de St. Grigoire et St. Cdestin 1 R de J., p. 291. . . ue 356. Decision number 2 noted at this article (Brown vs. GUy of Montreal), is also reported in the 4 R. L, p. 7.— For the final decision m this case, see decisions number 103 and 296 at Article 1053. V J 52 Conmlidateii HiippUmcnt No. /. — Arts. i}57-;J,58. SflT. I. Decision numlu-r I nniuil nt i\\\s articlo ( Wamn Manu- facturinj do. vs. Liv'iH A Kennrhcn fij/. Co.) ia also roportod in the 5 Q. L. R., p. 99, and is not d as decision number 2 at article 1190. 2. Qix'nn clunnin do fer psiit Atro sa'ai et vondu coinmo tout autre irnrnuublc, et que la dt'(si'.;n ition du clvsinin, telle quo donn^e dans li cliarfc(! do la couipajriiio, cHt suHisaiilc. — Q. H. — Uniov Bank of ianada t si!(!n'tairo di's coinniis.sniros d'ecole dune iuunicipalit6 scolaire n'ont pas Id droit de consontir un billet promissoire pour une dettu duD pa" les cDininissaires, sans une autori- sation speciali; a cet ofFet. — Q. IJ. -Ldi'lllcr & MwnicipaliU dii Town- fthip de Ouiatchouan, l(i II. L., p. 449. 2. Qa'uno corporation niunicipale pout s'oblifjer h payer les frais d'une roquote k t"'tre priV^i-nti'i! par un juiitribuablo, lors(iue I'objot de cette requebo intere^so tons Km contribuablijs do la municipality. — C. R. — Deiroches v.i. Vorporatloii, du Id P(iroinnn St-Baz'dc la Grand 17 R. L., p. 26G. 3. Qu'une association iuirorporuu pai lo Lioutenant-Couverneur, en Conseil, par lettres patontos, sous lo j^rand sceau de la P-ovince, pour etablir des aystemos do tolophono, no peut eriger des poteaux pour les tins de sa ligue, duns los limitos d'une cite, .sans I'autorit^ legislative, ou sans avoir obtonu I'autorisation de la corporation municipale, quoique los lottros patontos lui donnent I'autorisatiou gen^rale d'erigcr des poteaux dans les rues. — Q. B. — Sherbrooke Tehphone Association ii; CUij of Skerhrookc, 19 R. L., p. 538 ; M. L. R., (> Q. B., p. 100.— Brooks, J.— 12 L. N., p. 354. 4. A company incorporatisd as a Land and Loan Company cannot lawfully purchase the claim of a ivial estate agent for commission alleged to be due to him for selling real estate for a customer. — Davidson, J. — Land <& Loan Co. vs. Fraser, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 392. 5. A lengthy risumi of the law rospocting the power of corpora- tions to make promissory notes, is contained in this case. — C. R. — Banque Jac ]ues-C artier vs. Qaesnd, 17 Q. L. R., p. 8. G. A body corporate, empowered by its charter to acquire prop- erty for the use and objects of its incorporation, is not limited, in making a purchase of an immoveable, by the nature of the latter, or Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Arts. CSnO-SGO. 53 the use whid. has hitherto been „udo of it, and it is sufficient that such unmovea .l(. is suscDtihl.. nP ,.: .1 r sumcitnt that avant ,1 ,„,„, („,t le, trava... qVell„ o»t, aa pivalal.l-, t,m,.„ d„ Faim w. uoin ,L- hmiche Itij. do., 21 R. L, p. HJi. whe.^' Ihl-ir"-'"' "^ •7^^""'-'"T "»te.or the indorsing of one. such en i ': T'r'' '^ ""^ •^" -^ "^" -«- -I-inisfcrntion. and such let on the part ol a corporation n.„st be authorix.d either by the making or the indor^Mg ot a promissory not., where this has b.cn done w^hon proper authority on the part oF those wlu, ha.e pun^orted o on pain ot nulhty-tho engage.nent u.ay bo ratified by the coroora BalZr "t^""'"" ^^"' "'^^^"- *ho corporation liab .-qT- josepii ae LHotel-Diew d Arthaha.^ka, R. J. Q., i B. R., p. 215. 9. The power to levy an assessment upon the members of a cor porat.on must be deduced from the act of ' incorporation ^oXe orn rjelfit 7^^'-'^^'^" are declared by the charter to b!" to torm a beneht society and by means of the revenue derived from the property of the society, and of the monthly contributLnt to form a fund for providing aid and assi-tance ( .L members In case o acculent or illness, and in the event of death, to tlTe r wWow" and children, or fathers and mothers," a by-law pmvidin/thlt T, e decease of the wife of any member, 10 cits sho d ^^1 vtd o^ ^^^ANDREW.. J.-ffavard vs. L'Union St. Joseph, R. J. Q., 4 C. S.. p. 359. Where any porson usurps or unlawfully holds any office .n a corporation or public body, any other person who is interested s::t:ffi' "'^ "-^-r^-- ''- rn.^^ou.,t of ;r:r: : W s atute or' '""nT ^^^t""^"' '=°'"'"°" '^'^ ^ ^^ seated oy statute.— (^. B.—Heffernan ct Walsh, 33 L. C. J., p. 46. 3 SO. I. Qu-„„, corporatiori municipale est responsable des h'H I M ConHolidated Supplement No. 1. — AH. -iGO. i dotnmaj^es (jui .sont causes par le.s represuntatioiis orroiiees faites par son propose k uric prrsonne doinandiiiit ww licence, pmir fairo un couiinorce liconcie, dans lea liinites de la niiinicipalitt^, i\ retfot (juo la Jiceiice octroy^e dans le nuiiH do mars vaudra pour uno annee, tandis que, par Ics reglements en force, la liconco expire le ler mai suivant la date de son octroi, et (jue, )s i-atentes, sous le i,'rafid sceau ilu Canada, pent etn- oontraint, pir m'tndamm, a e.Kliil)er les livres de la compagnie a I'un dcs dir^!Ctcurs d'iceile, nonobstant I'ordre d'autrcs directeurs do ne pas Comniunii)uer ces livros. — DeLoiumikh, d. — RltcJile. vs. McKay, 18 R. L, p. 400. 'i. Que quoique les crdanciors d'unc conipagnie incorporee et lea tiers soient recevahles a so plain Ire que les directeurs aient pay^s des dividends Hctifs en an^inentant la valour reelle des biens de la compa;i;nio, les nctionnaires qui ont assiste aux assemblees annuelles et autorise ces dividendes, aprei avoir pris communication des dtats et inventaires sonmis par les directeurs, sont non recevables a pr^ten- dre que le paiement de ces dividendes les a tromp^s sur I'etat de la compagnie ; quo les actionnaires qui n'ont pas assiste a ces assemblies ne sont non plus recevables, parco qu'ils pouvaient y assister et se renseigner comme les autres et (|u'ils doivent s'iniputer leur negli- gence. Que Taction qu'ont les actionnaires d'une compagnie incorporee contro les directeurs pour mauvai.se administration des affaires de la corporation est une action commune rtisultant des rapports tie nian- dant a inandataire et que cetto action est aneantie par la sanction de radiuinistration des directeurs donnee par les actionnaires. — Pagnuelo, J. — GUj/ and District Saving.^ Bank vs. Geddes, M. L. R., G S. C, p. 243 ; 19 R. L.. p. C84. 4. Where the charter of a corporation does not provide for the exercise of its powers, otherwise than by giving it the right to make bydaws for the " government of the institution and of the officers and servants belonging thereto," and no such bydaws are made, the persons who are admitted to have, de facto, and by comraon consent, VonMoUifafed Suppli'uient No. I—Art. J61. 55 ACt.'S0 rter u , imn.euble appartenant 4 cette dernifere, mais que la compa,„io rruio pent le faire.-Q B — McNimjfiton
  • ue les banques ne peuvent charger sur les billets ,<,+ „ . issue its shares ut a disconnt.--Pr;v c" rvc-^^^ a con.pany cannot Gold Mining Co., 15 L. N., p. 128. ^'^^^'^'^"— Case of Oamyztm For c.ses relating to calls on shares, see C. C. 1«8(). real !slVb J'"' "''1"' "'""""^ '"^ *'^" acquisition and disposal of ;^luH t vc!f ;;;^f °"' ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^- ^^ «• q- -^ !: noted Vol. Tp^rs?'' "'"'" " "P'""' '^^ "'^' ^ «• Q- - -fc«d i" full in bu.intss'^b cLaTa7xTr"'"'f "' ""^^ '^^ '"P^^"-^' ^^^' ^ut doing pointed in Canada undo^ h. DoZbn W r T'""'''' ""^ '^P" the Canadian appointmen w r^ in . ' '"'^ ^''' °'-'"''^" '° by a shar.ho,de^^ut b, the S^M^ ^^r^-^T^'^rt Hanson, 10 Q. L. R., p. 79. ^i-uroni^.— ^j. K— Allen& Vol. fpMf "-"°'°' ■" "P'"-'' l-y "■» «■ S. Q., i, noted in f^l, i„ 60 Consolidated Sujyplement No. I. — Arts. S7Sa.-370. 373«. This article, relating to the appointiient of liquidators to- jo'nt stock companies, was aJJed by the R. S. Q., and is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 736. Que la Coui" pent revoquer les liquidateurs d'uoe bauque en liquidation ct les rernplacer, de I'avis dts parties interess^s, et qu'avant d'accorder les conclusions d'une demande en revocation d'un liquida- t(;ur, elle ord 'nnera la tenue d'une asseniblee des actionnaires ot des nreancicrs de la Bmi^ae pour donner !eur avis sur le contenu de la rcquete. Que la Cour pourra destituer un li(|uidateur sur I'avis de? creanciors et s'il lui est deinontre qu'j los liquid itours ne s'accordent pas et qu'il n'y a pas d'harmonie entr'eux dans la liquidation des af- faires de la Banque. Que dans une assembl^e de crt^anciers, ceux qui ne sont pas presents sont censes s'en rappjrter a la decision de ceux qui assistent a I'assembleo et que I'avis des creanciers presents doit etre considere coinnie I'avis de tous les creanciers. — Mathieu, J. Cloyes vs. Darlln(j, 1(5 R. L., p. 049. 375. Decision No. 2, noted against this article, {Boyd & Wilson} is also reported in the 18 R. L., p. 65. 376. hi droit accorde au preneur et a sos ayant cause, dans un bail a vie d'un terrain, d'enlever a la fin du bail, on peudunt sa duree, les bltisscs que le preneur y aura canstraiti.s, est un droit vflusive- ment mobilier; et, par consequent, un creaasier qui veut f.- r) saisir et ven Ire telle bltisses doit y proeeder coinine pour la sai^^e et vente du bail meine, par voie de saisie rnobiliere. — 0. R. — Dtiehesneau vs. Bleau, 17 Q. L. R., p. 349. 2. La vente d'une maison, d'un moulin ou n-utre construction, pent etre fa. to separeinent du sol, et ce, par vents ju Jiciaire aus^i bien que par vente ordinaire; la vente juliciaire "d'un moulin avec ses dependances et accessoires, construit sur un lot dont la designation est donnee," ne cotnpren 1 pas le fond s.jr lequel il est erigi^. La vente dans ce cas ne confere k I'adjudicatiire que les droits du saisi dans le moulin.— GAGNfi, J. — The Gliinio Hardivure Go. vs. Lav.rent, 1 R. de J., p. 278. 370. 1. Decision No. 6, noted against this article, ; .;"» i Wilfion) is also reported in the 18 R. L., p. 65. 2. Que I'acqu^reur d'ustensiles p'aces dans une usine dont le ven- deur est locataire, raais dont il devient propri^taire ensnit \ p3 pourra Conaolidated Supplement No. /.— 4 ,.L 379. q i L, p. 299. pi.icis.— y. B.~I/ubaiidea», S MaiW'.y, 17 R. - R.-B^»,fe,» „,. Skarpl... 14 Q. l R, p. 332 ; i„ r. l , ^'"j*- Wo par d=sti„" ri au " ,3 r r 'T' "" ""'""""'" "»' ""•"- *«(«, „. i,,,,„,,,, ,, K L, p. 642 ; M. L. R.; OS p -r,,; soeii's^pt:::";::.^'.?^::-;.;'""'' - *- ^-- 5 A mortgagor of an i.umoveablo, ou which wa. r 1 ...A . • machiDerv which hn,rl 1,po,^,v,o • , , placed certain taph said mach „e V bv - • ""^^'^^^^^^^ ^^-^':^a^^on, cannot at- the same in good faith -Br'^ ^f""'*"' "^^° ^^'^^ P"-^-^^^ p. 98. BROOKS. ^.—Flanmgan vs. Fee, ^3 L. N., £i™3u.e, erp:r:t;:rin::;rf:rn''f 1^- r- ml)er i9, noted a:.?ainst this articK', {Plan re In/.] was reversed by the Supreme Court, the jurlginent of which latter Court was maintained by the Privy Coirnil and is noted In this Suppl(>,ment at article 407. • 1. Que lorsqu'un chemin passant sur la terre d'un particnUer n'a pasete ouvert par I'autorite municipale et n'a servi an public que pendant neuf ans et n'est cloture d'aucun cAte, il ne doit pas etre con- sidere coinme chemin municipal, mais comme chemin dc tolerance, et. partant, le proprietaire du terrain sur lequel il passe pent le fermer a sou gre.— Q. B.—Fortin & Trwchon, 17 R. L., p. 59. 2 Qu'un conseil municipal local n'a pas le droit do conferer un privile-re perpetuel du droit d'etablir un pont de p^age sur una riviere situee dans les limites de la municipality locale, ni de defendre le pas- sa're a gue de telle riviere et d'imposer, a cettefin.une penalite.— Q.B. — CorHveau & Curporation de la Paroisse de St. Valier, 17 R. L., p. 440. 3 Qne le droit exclusif de chasse et .U; peche accorde dans la concession d'une seigtieurie faite en 1088 n'a pas ete aboli par l'opf" '""nicipaMtfe locale, est * LaprairU. M. L R fs C "S' " " °"''°"""" *' ''<""" 6. The control and use of the streets of the o\^^■ »f qi u 1 tlircct Icffis at vc onaetinonf« A * i u *^^ "^^ billots appartcunt a a„tr„i rt ,1„ rtcklTL ;,■,",, v^,,'™,'"' 1^'' 64 Comolulafed Snj>plement No. I.— Art. 400. Q. B.—TouroiUe cfe Ritchie, 21 R. L. p. HO ; 34 L. C. J., p. 243 et 312. 11. Qu'un chemin prive, existant depuis viugt ans, pour I'avan- tacre exclusif d uu fonds particulior.n'est pas uu chemin d'exploitation, dans le sens quo, sans une absolue necessite, ce chemin puisse fibre considerd comri.c chemin d'exploitafcion au proHt d(>s proprietaires voi- sins.— DiiLoRiMiER. J.—ArchatnbauU v.^^. L"Ml.c. 34 L. C. J., p. 320. 12. Que dans les cireonstances, il y avaifcsuflSsammcnt destination de la rue en (luestion de la part de B., qui avait, en 1840, propose a la cite (li Montreal, d'ouvrir une rue sur sa propriete, pour empechcr les representants de B. de pretend re que les terrains ainsl ou verts a la circulation generale, sont propriete pri vee. Que I'usage generate pour le public, comme rue, de terrain destine par le proprietaire a faire une rue, comporte acceptation du terrain pour les tins d'une rue publique. Qu'aucune acceptation formelle par la viUe de Montreal n etait neces- . :jaire, dans ces cireonstances, I'acceptation de la dite rue par le public, de la maniere indiquee etant suffisant pour faire du terrain une rue publique. Qu'un proprietaire ne peut, apres avoir ouverfc une rue k la circulation publique, revenir sur cette destination et fermer la dite rue apres quelle a ete ainsi accept6e par le public— Paonuelo, J.— Childs vs. CiUl de Montreal, M.. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 393. 13. Que les rivages des rivieres navigables appartiennent au pro- prietaire riverain, sufot a I'exercice de la servitude de passage crdee par la loi, en faveur du public, dans le chemin du h^lage. Que tel riverain peut se faire declarer proprietaire de telle etendue et obtenir la demolition dune raaisou d'habitation it dependances qui y auraient 6te erigees par un tiers et forcer ce dernier k deloger.— Routhier, J. —Kerr vx. Labergc, 14 L. N., p. 26. 14. Le droit de draver le bois sur les rivieres flottables k buches perduos dans leurs grosses eaux, est reconnu par la loi, et celui qui y met obstacle, par la construction d'une chausse^ , sans glissoire, est res- ponsable des dommages qui peuventen resulter.— C. U.— Atkinson vs. Couture, R. J. Q., 2 C. S. p. 46. 15. Les greves, le lit de la riviere Ottawa et les ilots et les ro- chers qui s'y trouvent en front du township de Hull, ne font pas par- tie du dit township, et une concession do lots de terre situes dans ce township et decrit comme s'etendant d'un point k I'autre " along the Consolidated Supplement No. I.-Art. 400. gg banks of the rivor Offnun •• ^ de terre! sur ll rt^e O ^l 7 Z '?r""^ ^" ''''''' ''^ '"^'^ ^^'^ gables ot Hofcablos laa. I nJ " . 'A '"' "''^^^^^ "''^^ '•'^''"^"'-^ "^vi- d^.ine p,..ne I, ar^^t^l^ i^^^^^ Quebee. et non . la uh './': '(^P^;'"'""""'"^ *^ ''^ I>'--'»«« de ■seuleen possession .1, < o ; e . T \ ^T'""'' ''^ P''°^''"«" ^^^ n^a/?,. it. J. Q.^ 4 c s., ,,. 2 If). ^"'^^"'^r. ns I'^tatde p%„tet c'ent, ^fx/ 1 Tr^^^ ^^'"^ ^"-'^ ^ rai..s uuxquels il a servi pea ant nh, 1. ' P^'^P'-'^^aires rive- munication avec le chern „ w/ T V , ?' """™° ^^'^ ^^ ->"- public, et iesp.op..ta-:rx^i;:^,t'::tr' ''^'^^"^" commun accord, Ic fenn«r co>n^lp^!, T . "" P'"^""^' ^"" vaque.; .nais nul "n Possessoire si ces con- leur droit de pa., ^e ^L .h J^ ^'^"'^'^'^ '- demanJour., savoir: soit declare ne^ y Ivok de Zr" V "T""' '' ^"^ '^ '^^^^^-r g P y avoii de propnete exclusive et tasse disparaitro 66 m ill itiii CoTiHolldated Saj/idnyninU No. L — AHh. 404.-4O6. RoUTHlEii, 6. — Racine vs. Roua- le trouble en irilovant sa ■l(Uuro «mtt, R. J. Q., fi C. S.. p. !^' 404. Quolesarl sii.>n i.ii' iqui nont plaiiteasurla voiepubli- que dans la Cit6 do iloutreal, Hont la propriote don pioprietaires des lotsde terrains faisai 11, front Hiir larms; ct que cos arbres doiveut etre consider^s conime un accessoiro do la propriety des dits terrains. Que cos proprietaires ont uno a(!ti()n on donitnajje contro la Cit6 de Montrdal pour avoir fait coupor ot onlc , is. — Lynch, J. — Beauchamx' vs. La CM de Monirial, M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 382. 406. A number of decisiorjs noted atC. C. 1053, under the head- ing of Damages to Real h'stalr, are also applicable here. 1. Wl'.ere a coi-porate body has lnjen e.xpnissly authorized by the legislahnto of the provincf to construct and maintain a hospital and for this purpose to acquire and own real estate, without any condition or restriction as to the locali^.y to bn cho-ten for such establishment, the Court will nut interfere to prohibit the work of construction, or order the suppre.ssion of the establishiiii'Mt, the only recourse of a party injured thereby bein^j an iif^tion of damages. — TettiS, J. — Crawford vs. ProtesLii-' FfoHpihd for the Innane, M. L. R, 5 S. C, p. 70.— Confirmed in Q. B.— 21 H. L., p. 23 ; M. L. R., 7 Q B., p. 57. 2. Le defendeur cxploitait uno /icurio de louage k cote des mai- sonsdu demandeur, situ^es sur la rue Hb-Denis, en la cite de Montreal. Le demandeur fit voir, qu'i'i raison a.r lui-niMne. Jagi: Que le demandeur etait bion ij.idi h roclaiiior du defendeur la diniinuuion du loyer et les dommages qu'il avait ('iprouves dans I'occupation de sa maison, et aussi la diminuM n ]o valeur des propriet^s, ^•; le defendeur persistait k exploiter son ^curie. — UlLL J. —JJtigas vs. Drysdale, R. J. Q.,5C. S.. p. 418. 3. The pipe from a condenser a'ti; hed to a steam engine, used in the manufacture of electricity, p, d ♦^brough the floe- of the premises and discharged the steam o a -ck below, some twenty teet from, an adjoining warehouso, irno which the steam enterf^d and (M'uaged the contents. Notice was given to the electric compuuy, but the injury continued and an action wan brought by the owners of the warehouse for damages. Held, aHirming the decision of the Court ConsolidaUd Supplement No. 1.--AH 407. gy .nti W to da,„a,ea tWefo. 1 ":;:*: P— ■"J'«J -ro after notw to the co,i,pa„v_SuP»T»rn "'"■''' """"»'■'='' the obstruction and i2Z'p^f''''''h f ""^ '^^ ^'^'^^ ^Vom hin.. L navigable waters of the ZllL " H " •'^ '" P-'^P^''^^' ^'^ t»- value thereby occas.oned to hi's nropertv Tr^-r' ''■"''""^'"" '" ^he present rase, not havin. counZlLju '''^ ^"'"P"">^- '" Q- 43-44 Vict., cap. 43, .sec.°7 s" 3 ^ Jf H ^'"'^"^"^ "^ *'"^ Act "!• The right ol access to a river hv iU^ ^ <" a, u: a form of enjoyment of tho l' ' . T'' ^* ^'^"^^ ^'''^''^ng • t'on with - ,an,I. the d stL W I v 1 "' ''" "^^^ ^" ^"""«°- damuges i, . „etion. or restm bo H '^ '"'^ '" ^'^"^'«^*^<^ ^n whether the r,ver be till d n!^^ /T" ' ""'' ^"^^ '^ '"'^^^^^ <^i turbanee is a " damage *: Id 1;^:^" r^-^-^"- «uch a nth and following sub soc inn . °°t " ««"templated by the Consolidated Act o^f 880 An r 7 ^ °' ''" Q"^"'- «-W proprietor will lie a.ainst a fail^.v" ' '""'^^^^ ''^ *'^ "P-"'-^ bance. without havin. n ev^us '^ T^'"^ ''"""° ^"'^'^ '^ ''•^'"- Act in rospoe. of thelnTZl ^ 1^;^ T, *'^ P^^^- -^ ^^- extend only to th. permanent do IV V .^"'"^---^^ '«» S"ch a case ^•. P- 395 ; 14 App. aJ'^Z.'' '^""' '' ^^ ^^ ^^■' P" ^28 ; 12 L -el^ll/^il^^n^l:;^^^^^^ -- une compagnie de «on d'ua terrain, sans avoir fait 1!° u '^'"""' P''^"'^ P°^«««- '■Hcte de chemin de fer et ,1 t^Ul P'^ J ^ -' ^^ ^^'^"'^ ^^^ f --e oi.conu par un proprie- tNhi ■ 68 C,'. 10, 2S. 2!) t^t ;J7 et art. lO;Wa C. P. O— Q. 15.— (;r>/a- yr?w; r«« CVir-Hfin dr. Fc.r de Junction de B",ntenc.'. Quj Ton ptmt faire mettre de cAt6 une sentence arbitrale, parce que le montant accorde serait excessif, ou le residtat d'une appreciation fausse, ou repo-iant sur une fausse base.— TAS(niE- BKAU, J.— Ontario JL- Quebec R;/. vs. Viirr ,t Manj. de Ste. Anne du Bout'de Vile, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 51. 8. In a case of an award in expropriation, proceedin) t 1 r l?" cost among those who are to hear I Wi ^ ^ ^'"'^ • ' '"" ^''® made mul ,1 „ ; 1 , ^'''*" "'^ i-'">"inissioners have TELE, J.— (?tt^rtrj. m Proc/or, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 16(J. 12. Where a Railway Company ohtained possession of land on at.fae ,on ot al darna.es resulting fron. the taking and us^Lof 13. Les arbitres nommes pour estimer la valeur d'lin fprraJ propr.e, sous lacte consolid6 dts chennns de fpr is.n f J " ^''" dans lavis donne au proprieta re n! a n. ' '^"'' '^^ ^^'^"^ certaine longueur su^ Ii::ZJZ';^T'Zr7^T'''''' / Ki..« tie tM.^c, ut:i.cudcnc pas 70 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 407. i leur juridiction en acconlant une somme dans leur sentence arbitrale pour le dit terrain de meme que pour troU pleds en dehors des eld- tures de chaque vdte de la dite liqne penlus pour la culture.— Q. B.— Mathieu & Cie du Chemin defer de Quebec. Movtmorency & Charle- voix, 15 Q. L. R, p. 300.— SuPKEME Couut.— 19 S. C. R., p. 426. 14. Que lo fait que I'arbitre nomnie par le proprietaire pour pro- C^der a constater Vinlemnite qui lui est due pour lo terrain expropri^ par une conipagnie de cluanin de fer, sous les dispositions de I'i^ cte dcs cheiiiins de i'er c'e Quebec, aurait declare h ce proprietaire, avant sa nomination, qu'il trouvnit I'ofire de la companrnie insuffisante, n'est pas une cause de nullite de la sentence arbitrale. Que les faits que les arbitrcs auraient couipris dans le niontant de I'indemnit^ des dum- niages impr^vus que le proprit^taire pourrait eprouver a I'avenir par suite de la construction de la voie ferree, n'est pas non plus une cause de nullity de cctte sentence. Qu'il n'est pas necessaire que la sentence arbitrale contienne les considerants des arbitres et fas.se voir d'une maniere precise quels sont les dommages pour lesquels une indemnity a ^t6 accordee au proprietaire.— Q B.—Cie de Chemin defer de Joac- tion de Beauhamois & Leduc, 19 R. L., p. 75. 15. Que dans une expropriation de chemin de fer, les arbitres nomnies pour ^tablir I'indcmnite due aux pi-opri6taires espropri^s n'ont pus le droit d'imposer a la conipagnie I'obliiration de dcnner au proprietaire exproprie un droit de passage sur le terrain expropri6 pour la partie du terrain qui reste aux proprietaires. — Q. B. — Bigaoiiette & Cie du chemin de fer du Nord, 19 11. L.. p. 488.— Con- firmed in Supreme Court, — 17 S. C. R., p. 303. 16. Que d'apres les dispositions de I'acte des chemins de fer do Quebec, roHTre (jue fait la partie expropriee d'accepter une certaine sonime pour son terrain, ne constitne pas une deniande qui fixe la li- mite de .son droit et au-dela de hupielle les arbitres ne peu\ent ensui- te adjuger, nu cas de refus de la Conipagnie de payer le niontant de- mande par le proprietaire ; mais, qu'au contraire, cette offre disparait devant ce n fus et que c'est la fixation nieme de I'indeinnite (jui est alors d^f ree aux arbitres, ^ans egard a TofiVe anterieure. — C. H. — Cardinal V8. Beauhamois Junction Ry., 20 R. L., p. 648. 17. Que sur un appcl d'une sentence arbitrale, port6 sous les dis- positions de !a .section 161, du chapitre 29 des Statuts du Canada do 1888, 51 Victoria " I'acte des chemins de fer, " la Cour, en fixant le I'jlt Consolidated Supplement No. J.~Art 407. 7] c. que cotte ,Z,,,, 3„J,lir, Ut ZZTSLrhZT- T '"• '"' pour adopter celle .I'un c„,„ptoUe ,t cZhtii^uT 7 ^! ""^ ca,, 4 des conclusions ininstesetlstT A ' ' " P'^P'"' *» bunal, en „pp,.oei,„,t l„ p ™«. alto itl 1^" IT '" f""" "" '"" consideration l'app.cciaL„ fa!:' , f™' ^t Zr t '"■™"" °" pour constatcr jo ,„onUnt d'indoM.ni, 1 n f "' "■f""- droit, ct si len,„„lanta,^c„r , pa arWt "''".': ".'•"'"■"""'■'= ' oit« sufflsante, p„„r la perte mf k ,o ,',^ , ''' '°"'"""""' """= ''"■''""■ re, par la constLtion ,l„ c ,e i tZTt7'""""" '"' P''°P-'='°'- lorsqu'il n'apparait pas ,,uo 1 cs Tb ircl , T r"" '" T""'"' > '1"' ■•inden,„ite ont co^Ls L„e .^ur .:;™i::"T'"""' l' '"""'*"' "' ^s etre annul«c.-Q. B.-^Z ^r/ "„;,:"y;:'r," ''"'' Jvdah, 20 KL., p. 527. ^'t<'^^oitf>. West Railways 18. Que le propri^taire expropri,^ par une compa..rie de chomin de fer na pas droit a des doriiniaaes resultant dp 1, f v.. 19. Qu'une sentence arbitrale d!inus IVte de, c,K.n,i„sde ier, doit ^ ^n^f ! '^f Z "*°' expropri^, ct une in.lemnite po,„- nwreellemrt I . i , '" pour „>,structi„„ au.K voies d'e co„„nr„t: II \ ; :rn^.;i:',:t lunncrc, par la construction du cl,c,„in sur la nartio d, T • des trains, ces doannagcs nc r6„dtant na, , T "'"""'.P'' '» ■""^S" la n,isc c„ operation-du cl.. n -^rr ^ f'T;' ,'• °'/'r '' IT/.^/ Tf.. n T r^ *-'"-"""■ -^tiAirilEU, J. — A Cant I C <£• Aorfh West Ry. Co. V. Les Syndics de VErjUse d. Calvaire, 21 R. L^p sTs 72 Consolidated Sujiplement No. 1. — Art. 4^7. counsel before the commissioners being a necessary proceedinjr by the expropriated party, the expenses of such witnesses and counsel form part of the just indemnity to which he is entitled under arfc. 407 C. C, and should be added by the commissioners to the price of the property taken. — Q. B. — Sentenne tfe Gity of Montreal, R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 297. 21. lo. Theexpiopriationof anoverhead passage by a railway com- pany gives the right to the enforcement of all thestatutory rights which would follow from expropriation of subterranean or surface rights. 2o. Where the railway company's expropriation notice covers a piece of land belonging to the party expropriated, even if the company did not intend that it should do so, the company has thereby sufficiently exercised expropriation powers over land belonging to the party, to bring the company within the terms of the Railway Act in respect to conjpensation for damages to the remainder of the property. 3o. TTnd(M- the Canadian Railway Act 1888, as well as under the English Railway Acts, a raihva}'^ company is responsible, where land or real rights are, or have been, actually expropriated, to compensate the pro- prietor, not only tin- the land actually taken, but for the direct dam- ao"e to his remaining land, resulting either from construction and severance, or fnjm the use of the railway line and the operation of the traffic service. 4o. Whei'e at the time the right of way, map and plans are deposited by the railway company, the property to be taken for the railway is held by another person for and in the interest of the real owner (the transfer to the latter not having been executed Ihrough .nadvertiince) the rial owner may be considered, for expro- priation purposes, the proprietor at the time. — Q. B. — Wood & Atlantic <& North West Ey. Co., R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 335. 22. Where the railway company takes possession of the land re- quired by it, after the institution of expropriation proceedings, but prior to the date of the award by the arbitrators, the latter are com- petent witnesses to prove that the matter of intenst between the d-xte of possession and the date of the award was not taken into consider- ation by them, and in that case the party expropriated is entitled to such interest in addition to the amount of the award. The party ex- propriated has a direct action for the recovery of .such interest. — Q. B. — Atlantic dt North. West Railway Co. & Leeminy, K. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 105. 23. Qu'une personne dont les biens sont expropries pour cauMe Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art 407 73 leur sentence.— Que flans 1 inrletnn te a ^tre aeconl^<. i „.. i . • doivenfc ptro p,»„v^..,o i u-cconiee a un locataire frnk n 2 ' payer jusqu'4 la fin de son bail Que les celle-ci n'en a pas nave le nriv M »'. r. ,• P^'^'^^^^'^'^. l^rsque meuble.decnt par tenants etaboufcissants s.^s .,„n, action en revendication, nonobstant rc^rsV" I' 1""?"' ' '^''^ quisition "Avec droit a IWquereur 1 se W nn ^'^'^ '"^^^^ ^'ac- avec la con^pagnie. pour la parti du te ra n 1^^^^^^^ ^ '" " «""--d- I'acquerenr au vendeur ouuit a ton ^^'" '^ P''"' ^^^-'t f^« snbstituer 25. The plaintiff, proprietor of a niece of lnn,I ;. *! Charlesl^urg. elai.ned to have him-elf'd ared m-lit " rr"" '' age purged from a servitude bein 3. Que le fid^i-commissaire, ^ qui on rompf I, ,.^ immouble affects k une cr^ar ce aonx L3 ^ '^'" '' "" rer., ^onfo ^' *■ . ^itanct appai tenant a un crcanc er nu'il lac ; deTl f T '" P""''^'"'^'^ •^'^ I'immeuble, mais depuis R..^ Q B p 91 3^^ c 7' ';r'7 ^^^- ^^ ^- ^- p- «-^«^ M. l: 18 S. C. R.; p 1 ' ' ^' ^2^^-Confinued in Supreme Court, lorsq, ,! eta.t e„c„r» en la p„««,i„n .1,, dibitour, „,ai, .lopu i, 'I t ae ndei-cominisi. — O R M»*.»v7; /' n/ ;/ • ; ^'t-jjuis j acte L R., 6 Q. B. p 77 35 L ^ n «. n ;^^'' '' ^^^ ^^^ ^'^ ^^^ ' ^■ 18 S. C. K., p. 1 ' • P- ^•^-^^"firmed in Supreme Court, 6. Although a promise of a gift of real property, without le^al !yjj.Lii 76 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 4.19. consideration, made verbally, is null, yet, when the promisee entered into possession t)f the land, in pursuance of tlie promise, it was suffi- cient to make him a possessor in ijooJ fi^'th anJ therefore to entitle him to the value of his improvements, if proceedings be t ikim to evict him.— C. R.—Monti que le coLit des autres ameliorations qui en ont augmente la valeur et les sommes qu'il a employees k I'acquittement d • charges reelles suscepti- bles d'etre poursuivies contre le proprietairo.— Mathieu, 3.—Monnet vs. Briinef, 17 R. L., p. (i81. 2. La creance du locataire pour le cout do reparations urgentes et necessaires a la chose loaee, faitos du consentemenfc du iocateur, n'esfc que porsonniiUe contre ce dernier ; elle ne confere aucun privilege et ne donne, partant, pas le droit de retenir la chose apres I'expiratioa du bail. Semble lors-memo ([u'il y eftfc un tel droit, le locataire pour- suivi en eviction ne pourrait pas, en rinvo(iuant, conclure au renvoi pur et simple de Taction.- Casault, J.—Le chemin defer Pao'ijlqw va. Andrews, 16 Q. L. R., p. 378. 3. Que le retenteur d'un immeuble jusqu'k liquidation et rem- bourseinent de ses depenses et ameliorations, a droit d'en percevoir les ConHolidated Supplemenf No. l.—Arh. l%.4,}jf, •j'j THIER, J.~Duf(>ur v,s. Dufour, 14 L. N., p. 54. 4. That article 419 C. C. does not give to a ple.l.reo of an im rnova^.10. who hasnot registered hi. cleecUn,ht of l^lZJZ the pledger s execution creditors for the pay.;ent of his disb^em^^^^n^^^^ on the property pledged, b„t the pledgees ren.-.ly is by an op: ion J^.......^..to bepaid ontof the pro.eed/lf tlL lldir 'l nav,v*f*' ""' -f ■''■' ""^ "''"•"''^'•^ "^^ ""t^'^ble nonobstant (,ne la nwgat,onenso,t .nternnnpue en pinsieurs ondroits par des chut s et des rapKies.-MAr.noT, S.-Tko^pson v. HarclJa, R. J Q ^ Vol T^.im^' '''^''''' "' ''^^''"^ ^'^ *^^'' ^ ^- ^■' '' "^^'^'J i'^' f»'i i" 4J«4. 1. Que !e propri.^tairo d'un immeuble sur leqnel un etran- ger coupe du bo.s et le convertit en billots, a droit de rl.ndi"ul! es bdlots en payant a oelui qui les a ainsi manufactures, le prix de k ma,n.d.,uvre et ce dernier a droit .le retenir les bill ,ts 'Z^ ^ S^a^K t L. Z^. "-^^''"'' ' '"-' '^ ^ ^- ^ 2 Que les defendeurs ,,ui ont coupe ill^.mlement du bois sur la terre du den.andeur et Tout enleve, ne peuvent, a la saisie-re Ind cl t.on que ceiui-cM en fait, lui opposer, en co.npensation, du boisn u'il aara.t coupe diegale.nent.quatre ans auparavant. sur la terr le u des defendeurs, .v;.o^.,,^^. ante omnmres>itmndm ; 2o. Que lesdefen deurs en coupant ce bois et le convertissant en bJis de cons ruetn ont ionn., ur.e chose d'une nouvelle esp^ee, dans le sens de Fart 4^4 luu du bois debout, le demandeur, maitre du bois debout, reste pro- pn^ta,re ,i,Ha chose devenue d'une nouvelle espece, tant qu'd W pas e e paye du pr.x du bois debout, et il a driit de saisil rev" i! queria chose; 4o Que, bien que les defendeurs naient pas en e cation leur"' ,"" 1^ '°"'' '^ ^'""•' ^'^ "'^^"*«"-^ '^ saisL-reve i! ation leur accordera I'opt.on de pouvoir, sous un delai dun n.ois en I.IMON, J.—Dubd VS. Gv^ret, R. J. Q,, 2 C. S., p. 314. 78 Vonsolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 4S6-Jf4L ^^^^■1 hh ^^^^H -!i ^■■1' ^■i n ^^H b ^^■pil,. 1 jlj -1 |i| 4«i5. Decision number 3, noted at tl>is article (Allard vs. Tour-, ville), was modified in appeal and the judgment ol: that Court is noted, in this Supplement, at C. C, 434, decision number 1. 440. Celui qui coupe du bois sur le terrain d'autrui ne peut se soustraire au paiement de la valour de ce bois, debout, en declarant I'abandunner avec son ouvrage au proprietaire.si celui-ci pretere avoir cette valeur, car ce bois est devenu, pour lo propri(5taire, une chose nouvelle qui peut ne lui etre d'aucune utilite. 2o. Le proprietaire du bois, bien que celui qui I'a coup6 ne I'ait pas enleve du terrain, a droit a une action pour la valeur de ce bois, debout ; et tant qu'il n'en a pas et6 payd, il peut, sans corapromettre son droit a catte action, em- pecher celui qui I'a coupe de I'enleverde soa terrain ; 3o. Dansce cas, «n condamnant le d^fendeur k payer cette valeur, la Cour lui reserve le droit, sur paiement du raontant du jugement, d'obtenir ce bois. — ClMON, J. — Canada Paper Co. Vfi. Beaulieu, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 253. 441. Qucere: Has a printer a lien on manuscript given him to be printed for the cost of the printing ? — Andrews, J. — Du'i.saiUt m Far- tier, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 304. 443. 1. Que la disposition dans un testament, par laquelle le tes- tateur ordonne a ses e.Keciiteurs testamentaires de prelever une som- rae determinee, pour en faire le paiement a interet, au profit de son neveu. qui aura droit de toucher ces int^rets, la somme devant rester placee jusqu'a son deces pour otre ensuite partagee epioy6 et aLi *r^r 'u'r„ : rr "'"'""""' " p-- «- peut en reccvoa- lo, reve"us „!"t, "\''^''''"" "■«''i'i»»abk. ct qu'il p. 455. ' P- »^''— J^ELLiEB, J._M. L B., 4 S. C. maim du tier, aLi „ ,o t '''' '""'"liiuer cet ol.jet c„t™ Ic, centre l'„s,,f™iticrp„„°ab„°''''''^''"' ^ '''°''«'"'"« ''"^'"'^'t fouJHec?:t;i,':,„!::t:;i"f;';:r '°"^'""'^"" '"°'°f-" ^^ mterpcer son autorit^ f^Zll lie 't"" '""' '""'"'*'"'' "" P™' voir q„„ I'^tat de fortnife dn dif U °.'"'"™"«""'"'. si rien ne fait -tables on ,n'il ait abn de so Sr O r" „^^'.'"-S— '» p»pS;ittr:srp,t:,::irdeT- ;t' ™ - =e dernier seu,e™ent.-7rr:5:r:rcritorr; ^^^ '..»*) is 'also :;:«:: «: «■ at ;'. r """'° '^« -^ .«.ieiprrx^:::tT::Ltrtt''™'-'°^^'™"""-^ portant la claui d'insaisi,,! t^ O 1 T "° '""J'"" ''■"" "'■•'' brement d» la pronriiS et „, ^. "'"''"" '"""" "° *'""»■ il -t ..tes.ire7 ttj ie oni'tn''e^"r'l ■■ '"•'™ '■"'" "'"" «'-■ -e et certaine, Ls leT „ l L\ 's ^t .T' "'"''■ """'"" P"-'" ot en indiqnant ce litre -O P T . ^ '"' °"' '"*■ '""f™"' 1; ■ ' ! F r 80 Consolidntcd Supjdcmi id No. I. — Artn. Jf7G-49'J. Hi! 3. Sen alstj case of IknoU m. IknoH, noU%\ in this Suppl.inoub at articK" 748. I7«. Que rusnfniiti.T (11111 iinin(!ul.leost tonii d'en prendre poin, en bon pere (!(; f.unilUs <'t do .li'iioncor an nu-propnetaire I'atteinte ^ fles droitH que coiriniet I'liutoritYf irMiiiicipalc on proci'dant k la ventn de cet iinmoublc pour taxes; <|u'il ost t.-nii d.- payr los tax.'s inunici- pales iniposws dnr.int sa jouis'sancu' nnr l'iiniMcul)le doiit il a I'lisurruit et (|U(', s'il le laisse vondrc pour C(fs taxcM, par I'autorite municipali', le nu-proprietaire pourra le retainer contie lui, a la tin do rusufrmt. Q. -R.—BourmHa & Larvrk, 21 H. L. p. 101.; 11 (J. L. K.. p. 242 4NO. Un usut'ruiticr (pii diHpoHodo ritnnieublodont il n'a quo I'u- sufruit et ([ui, an iiiepris .le la di'd'euHc ue, le proprietaire superieur ne pout nen a,re c,u. a.,rave laserWtude du fouds inferieur; qu peut b.en, d est vra. faire des chan.ements dans .son heritage, en'mod^fier exploitation, elever des constructions ,ui pourraient mSme au^mea ter la qu.nt.te des eaux qui coulent naturellement sur lo fondrrnfl neur pourvu qu'il n'envoie pas. sur les fonds iaferieurs, des eauVoui en suwant la pente naturelle du terrain, n'y seraient pas all es S peutauss. recue, 1 ir et conduire les eaux de ces fonds. par un I'al ou dnun. pourvu qu'd n'en resulte pas un prejudice s^rieux pour les fond" .ni^neurs.-PAONnE.o, J.^Hampsou vs. Vinebercj, 19 R. L p 620 -Confirmed in Q. B.-21 R. L., p- 59. ^' •lOS Asto ri^htof improving water courses by proprietors of 'idjoimnor lands— See Vol. II, p. 592. "pnetors or Courrnff '^ T'\"" '^\ ""'^'^ ^* ^^'' '^'•*^°'«' ^*« reversed in the Court of Appeal, where the following decision was rendered : ri«l I' ^^l \Pf I'^^fc .'^"d his predecessors had, from time immemo- nal earned on the business of tauain, leather in C^te des Ne Z- that bem. the prmcipU industry of the village. A small stream which ran through the land, of both parties, and which was trX The R ' 7' rrt '"^^•" '^^^^""^ ^"^^^--^ f-m the tan'ne y' The Respondant. who had. within a few years, acquired a lot ten or IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) h A <- ,5^^, 1.0 [Si^ IIIM I.I !^ '^ ill ai u 11.25 i 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN 'TREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ■O' V '^ r^\ !S 82 Oonsulidatfid Supflemevt No. 1. — Art. 60S. i l'i;il'l f'fteen arpeiits lower down — and witli knowledge of the industry long established in that place — coniplainetl of the pollution of the stream by the substances from the tannery and asked for an injunction. There were other proprietors between the parties, but the Respondent alone complained of thu nuisance. Tlie effect of the injunction, if granted, would be to d.istroy the principal industry of the locality. Held, that the Appellant was not entitled to the injunction. — Q. B. —Claude l- Weir, M. L R., 4 Q. B„ p. 197 ; 1(5 R. L, p. 41!) ; 32 L. C. J., p. 213. 'LVce ahone decision, ivdx eunfirmed , in- the Supreme Court, by the followiiif) judrjmeni : W. acijuired a lot adjoining a small stream, and finding the water polluted by certain no.KJuus substances thrown in the stream, brought an action in dama^e-i ai^ainst C, the owner of a tannery, situated fifteen arpjnts liighiT up the stream, and asked for an injunction. At the trial it was proved that C and his predecessors, from time immetnoriai, carried on the busino.ss of tanning leather there, using the waters of thii stream, and that it was the principal industry of the village ; that the strea'n was also used as a drain by the other proprietors of the land adjoining the stream and manure and filthy matter was thrown in, and that every precaution was taken by C. to prevent anj^ solid matter from falling into the creek and that W.'s property had not depreciated in value by the use C. made of the stream. Held, that, as between neighbors, there are other obliga- tions than those <'r.:attMl iiy servitudes, which must be determined according to the ([uality of the locality, the e.^tent of the inconveni- enaa and also accoi-iling to e.-cisting usagtis. Under the circumstances proved in this case, \V. was not entitled to an injunction to restrain C. from using the stream as he did. — Suprkmk Couht. — Weird- Claude, 12 L. N., p. ISO; I(i S. C. R., p. 575. 2. '^uc! Ii; proprietaire river.iin a le droit, sous les dispositions du cha[)itre 51 des S. 11 B. C, de barriM* une riviere pour y construire un moulin, et i)u'il ne pent etre I'oree a demolir une chaussee faite dans ce I );it, s'il ne cau.se aucun dommage. — Q. B. — Hardy tt Filia- traulf, 17 R. L., p. 27. (The judgment in the above case was reversed by the Snoreme Court, on the ground that a transaction had taken placf between the partie.-.— 13 L. N., p. 153 ; 17 S. C. R., p. 292.) f!;' 1 <'"v,olhfatei,.o,, ,„„. ,,„,,„„,,, „, f,„.,„.,.„^ °ef,X V.f , ,l'' •'"■""°' "":" •"■"■ Hen ,ui cdic, ,,„i „ . "^ l.t , , "^ "' 7" "'■'■'" ""'""''-■ ""»- »-'™" • 4- ..tfr':x •,:;;:; t^zti'^r^"- "-• sera condmnno 'a imvoi- lo« .1 pro prictes voisinos, paiemenfc dans les six moi« auK ^r,..,. J ^» •^'^""tfnt et, faute de droit, sBi„„e„ri„„,. „ J, '''";, ""P" Pl«.d«puis lab„|iti„„ ,],, le proprMtai,,, ,.iv,.,„m n™. 1 ' ' • '""" ™P'"'«°rs qae pou.- l'exploit,.t,„„ dCZi ": ' ,r """;"?": T'- "" "■""■» ''■-'"■^ side, Slatuts Kefonl,d,;B,r.T "''''■'''■"' "" «l'«Pit'v testation de cc, dom nag! :„! l::",'' ''" -'^"•' ''""•' '■' -- rieurs. par la construction J,. I'n ,. ,| , """"• '""= '""'"■"» --"P- dans m .lelai (isd „„,■ |,, t,il,.,n,l ! 7. , . "" *''""^"' P»s pay&. ant ,0 conrs do ..a,,';,',; ' ,' Tn'p'" t' 'T.""/ ""*"■ 21 a L, p. 20!) ; M. L. R, 7 Q. r., p 2S3, "-"'"""' "' «»''<""■!'. wwc:;^;:^!:™:;::;, » :; — - -m. „ „,. co„.„ lands, which is. in effect, an ^x^ „ t , f "'' *." """"S'- portions of tli« hi»l,or lan.l, «,. « i , V . ° "se'nlness of tlu- 'Ids right i, honnd o pi v t Z> f' "v' "" ''"'°°-- "'"' ''"' "-'> by snA flooding- W„^;U-T ''""""'^ L"'',,"'" *'■"«««- "'"s"! which%'pi:'ro:*;i:;::'it;;:'T,''^ "™' "■" » «-'-"■ their lands the constL t „ „" Id : « ir'T "'' ""•">'"'""" ■•" working of «,„ »„„,,•„ ,„.„„( „r I, ;ii trt TT^ /■"- "'" nioriaUunuro was alj„li,hod (h„ .'." '•.°'«"""'y ■ and. when the 8„ig- the mill and the da n W i„" ^ r;^',::;: "T"''' "',•' »'» ->"-• °f 'he wate,. of a »t,„a,„ adioi LlT/,.'i"'"""'"' '.'."» "'" "•'»"" lo use his land, on condition of roturni ng It 84 Consolidated Su.pj)lement No. J. — Art. 503. .11 ■ji ■ 1 1 1 ' R ii i 11 ^sl i ; 'Ii %4 i| k to the stiva-n afc its exit from the hind, lie is not entitled to draw off water from^a dam belon,'in^ to another, for irrigation or manufactur- ing purposes. The right of the owner of the saw mill, in the present case, was limited ^o the ns.> of the surplus water not required for the operation of tlie vvudiu humd, but, the Plaintiff having wholly denied his right tj use tiio water, the action wis dismissed, the Court reserving to Pliintiff the right ta establish the limitation.— Q.B.— Archambdidt & PoUras, M. L. R.. 5 Q. B., p. 167. (i. Que lor-i lu'un cuurs d'eau a son '.ib dm un chemin, le pro- priotaire voisin dii chemin paut re^lf nar hi droits de riverain, loi-sque lo cours d'eau a son lit dans la partie du chomin conbigue k son folds. Qie lorsqa'un fonds traverie pir un couf.s d'eau est mjrcelo, Ic5 portions du t'onis qui sorib diven is non-r vjrains conser- vcjib nemnoins le droit au.s; ea-.ix djub elles jouissaienb avant la division. Q le les inberesses peuvenb regler le cours des eaux et qu'un riverain q.ii a do nan le a un tiers sa somcripbion pour le posaga des tuyaux setvanb a I'ecoulemenb dos eaux, n'esb pas almis k plaider que CO tiers ii'a pas droit a la joiiissanao du c^urs d'eau. — Tait, J. — Godin rs. Lnrtlc. M. L. R., (5 S. C, p. 13 ; 20 R. L., p. 10. 7. When tlu- proprietor has, for the purpose of improving the value of a water power, bailt a dam over a wabsr course running through his property and has nob consbrucbed any mill or manufacbory in connocbion wibh the dam, he cannot, in an a; of dimiges l)rought by a riparian proprietor, wh )-ie land his bj^.i overflow )d by reasoii of bhe consfcriicbiou of tli > dun, justify uad.^r the provisions of chapter 51, C. S. L. C— Supheuk Onmr. -Jones <& Fiffhrr, 13 L. N., p. 217;17S. C. R, p. r)15. 8. Que le lit d'une riviere, (jui n'e.stni navigable, ni tlottable,appar- tientauxproprietaires riverains d'un heritage s'etendanbjusqu'au tilde I'ertu et que I'aete 19-20 Vict., chap. 104, n'autorise pas un proprietaire riverain k construire des moulins, raanuEicbures ou travaux neces- saires pour les faire foactionner sur des propriet^s qui ne lui appar- tiennent point, ni a exproprier les proprietaires riverains qui ont des proprietes adjacentes de la sienne.— Q. B.— Bureau (fc Vaclwn, 19 R. L, p. 675. 9. The law recognizes and protects the creation of motive powers bv the artificial stoppage ami temporary accumulation of the water of a' flowing stream, and the power thus generated is a commercial com- 85 Consolidated Supplement No. J.^Art 508 Ttt tit'" ;;:r:z,r.r,:r ""--^t^ -' ^^-^^ - ^^ troubles „„,, hi„a„„„^,, „° °; "; LT"-.T "''™-"J"'J!«in»'.'ll the da,„ by which «,o a„K.,tr; ;:•;::' "'?;''"""'" ^ "■--'••••" can ouly bo relieved fr„,„ tl,e f, fl ""W ''""W be made effective. «•>'«. The fact that i , r^l ^ '"""' ".' '" °^liK'"o„ by>,.„ supply of p„„„,. „p,„ ,vhW I e h d ; "'","'1 ■" «'i»?'"«be< » for „„„.perf,„,„ Je, „( «„. J^^ ,'„°^r" '° ""M- P-ty, i, „„ excuse t-o„ de la chaus*. faute de ^liemen '° ' °°"°''" * '" ='^"«'H- "e la «ompctcu=e exclusive dfrcrl"- """"'' f """ *"« "- « «|.x Ws d'une action e„ cour l^M^^T^ "' P»*"'. « / J~i' R- J- Q.. 5 C. 8. p. 89. R—ffowle vs. PoUrm. supposanfcque du fait que e o' 7'^ "''^•';^^^ "'^-^ «^^^^«^0-V. En la terre aurait efce ino^d^rifctrr'' T^''''^ '^""^ "^^^^'^^ dont garantie intenfc^e par I'ac h^taur po' '"'^^ P'*^'' ^^'^^'^^^^ '''^""o" en vaat ses allegation', unf "3" " " " T"'^"^' P""^"^' *^-*- -- tion du demandeurprinJpannr "'''"'" ^ "PP"^^'"- ^ '* -^'''^^a- garantia-c. R.-.fLrrk-;r.:;^^^^^ r atM^r^'" ^" of dams, without payment of indpmnU P ^ ^' ^"^ ^''" "^^struction C. applies to floaLb'l e r^™ as te, 7 f ntn «" f ^f " '^ ^'^ '''''■ ^"^ medy given by ch. 51 C S L P f n"a-«oatable nvers. 3. The re- conatruction of a dam on a w.^ '" '^ P^'''^^"' ^^o is damaged by the not deprive him of th" or^iinarrrTT " "^^ •^'^^'"^•^«' -^ « demolition of damages, as awarld ^d' b dtrult f "'"^'^^^ '""^ P^^™-^ . and. in default of payment within the delay 8(5 Ooimdi dated Supplement No. /.—Art. 60^. tixoJ, ordevs tlio diMuolition of tho dam, is not ultra pet Ita.—Q. B.— Bazinet vs. Oadmir;,. M. L. R., 7 Q. R, 233 21 R. L. p. 2!)9.-C. R. — 17 R. L, p. 141. ^ 13. Tho parties an- owners of mil's situated upon the same stream (neitlier navii^'.iUIe nor Hoitable) wliicli is the outlet of a pond. They derived titU^ fr.)iR the sa-n ; awtear. Respond jnt owned the dam and the land at thi^ outlet, an 1 also a sawmill and a saw and grist- mill, some distance down the stream, au'l bslow Appellant's mill. Res- pondent's title was anti-rior to that of AppjUaiit, ami gave right ' of taking and using the water from the pon I, down to low water " level on the da'n on the sold Ian 1, without hindraace or obstruction " on the part of the siid vendor, his heirs or assigns." Appellant who had a sawmill bel )W R>sp:)ndent's dam at the outlet of the pond, took his titlt! subjeet to this privilege. /Tg^^Z : That Respondent was entitled, under the clause above cited, to control the How of the water from the pond, and to the use of the surplus water, down to low water level cm the. dam at the outlet.— Q. B.— Merrill <£• Rider, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 42(i 5»l. I. Decision number 27, noted at this article (MoArthur « ;" -',- P— ■->.. Ie««l« du„e tion will not lie to prcv™rfl,r„1l > '^ " "'°«"'' "° '"J"""" b.en recorded in'I^l XS 'c^a rtL'nTtr'" "*" """^ to ran a straight lino betw.,- ", , "P""'"™'. *« proper course is «55.,-sop„«„ o;„„,'!n/fi:«"'T;''';° p;*'""- <"■ «• * Art. 23 S. C. R, p. 225 ''*"'" '^"- * •'<■'' •"»•» *.. des v:^in*d7rli:e's:":s dl"7"t? " '"r """' "'^™'- * '■- division constat^e par" rlt^'l^J™ ^j^' ^/ '■>; «« Renaud, 1 R. de J., p. 422. AAhCHEREAU, J.—Savard ?;,s. cMtu'ttrts^n^triXtrdrsi:™ •'•"'' ' --^ '■™" - ■"" ^» du co«t de cette Cotnre, de ",t contreT;" " ■""■ '"'" '" """« mi" du voisin-MATHIEU ;~' """''■' l« ""S ac,u«reur du tcr. 329. "THIEU, J.-jW,,-(;„m,„ „,, Am;/oUe, 17 R. L, p. par L ti;;";': tt^tnlr '" "r,."™^ "=^* '' ^"' -' '"'"^ terrain oi, passe ce chcraTo ne^t „T, '"""° " 1"" '° P"Pri«'aire du cMture ,e L, de ^ trafn^-Q 's'Tirnt' '"'^ ^' <»" "« p. 334. ^' ^— -^«*t <& Noonan, 19 R. L., ; ■ !)(> donsolJildtrd. Sii.i>plr,ihiit Nn. /.—ArU 't07-/}JiO. ;{. Quo li! proprit'-tairo (|ui, tlopuis un tornps immi^inoriiil, s'ost soumis a rol)li<,'ati()n jiui, the owner of the adjoining property has the right to convert it into a laitoi/en. wall only by complying with the rtHiuirementsof Arts. ,518 and 51!), C. C. Even where the wall iniiues- tion is not straight nor adapteil for a comm )n wall, tin neighbour is not entitleti, without the eoiiseiit of the owner, oi- process of law, to take possession thereof and deni:)lish it, with a view to rebuilding it as a common wall.— Dohkuty, J.— /i/-tu;//.c.si vs. Dcsjanllns, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., 4;U). ."530. 1. See ca.se of McGowan vs. ylm^(;«e, noted in this Supple- ment at article 505, decisicm number 1. 2. A penson who is building a common wall on the line separat- intr his land from that of his neighbour is not entitled to take for that purpose more than nine inche.'? of his neighbours property, eitiier above or below the surface; and where the footing stones for the wall, plaeed beneath the surface of the ground, encroach beyond the nine inches, he will be ordered to remove the same so far as they encroach. -'rAiT, .l.—Koii(jh vs. Nulin, K. J. Q.. 5 C. S., p. 213. ;}. La limite d'^paisseur d'un mur mitoyenest de dix-huitpouces, et le proprietaire d'un mur d'une plus grande epai.sseur ne pent forcer son voisin, cjui veut batir contre ce nnir, de payer plus que la moiti6 du coiit d'un mur de dixdiuit pouces, plus la moitie du sol occupy par tel mur. Toutefois, le voisin poursuivi pour la valour d'un mur d'une plus grande epaisseur, doit plaider specialement qu'il n'a pas besoin d'un mur de plus de dix-huit pouces. et en I'absence d'une .semblable all6- -t e„ possession .1.. t.n-i; ! ^ l";;;^;';'!""^ «^ 'I- '^' -'^'-..ieur «'« pout cleci.le,. s'il y a ou .....ni;. 1 "" ' '"' "^ '•""•' ''^ ^^""r ""toyen est. , ,.,„:, ,. ,.„:^^; .J^"" (>-i;.-tuin.,,„i ,,oitetre ren.lu - -it prouv. .rn,.. .:;;ii:;; -^ ; - "-;; --;- .ue le eon Jaire P'"' '<' '■'«'• «l'"n., ,'.^r|i,,. ,11 ,f ,;-'^;' 7"""<"-co. co,n,..e. par exe.a- R- 7 S. G, p. 2.5r,. '• '^''V'/"'^'" Clmrch v,. h'rans, M. L. -"rs Ll, f- and .sh..ubs"in on „ ITr ^'"^t tJ.e <]itch could hav l" . el" / j -V"""''' ''" ""'^'^'"'^^ ■^'"'-^ in.u.SnI!;'i';:s:rd''"';^T/'"r':'''^^ «colles, et il „e suffifc pas"nueV... el' '•' . '■""' ^''"'''' '^" 'chassis *5»«. (^ue bien qu'un voisin n'«,f r. i , • vues dans son mur. dl c6t^de " •^'' ' ^^'"'^'t ^'^^^ Pmtiquer des «ans se plaindre. ni proteste,: dumntnl " *° "''^ ^ette servitude -suite a reehuner des donn;.;er f :rn vlV" '"' '^^ "" ^'^^ ^^^" pour violation du ch-oit oue dnn, 1- ' , ""^ ^'''"""' "ominale. 317. ^acro%x vs. Bourhonnals. M. L. R, « g. C, p ana it must be provided with I I 1^ I M CoriHolvlatfd. SuppLment No. /. — Art. Hlfi. fjutttTs and snow j,'uar ploitation du terrain enclave et que le pas- sage acquis n'estplus suffisant pourcetto nouvelle exploitation. — C. R. —Larue vs. BeUevilk, 14 L. N., p. 225. 5. Le proprietaire d'un enclave ne peut prendre le terrain pour un passage, ou pour I'elargisscment d'un passage existant, sur un immeuble voisin, que lorsqu'il ne pt^ut le prendre chez lui, ou lorsque le coAt dcs travaux a faire pour le preiidre ainsi chez lui, excMc de beaucoup I'indenniite qu'il aurait a payer au voisin sur le terrain duquel il le prendrait. Le proprietaire du fonds servant sur lequel le terrain ndcessaire pour un passage, ou pour I'elargissement d'un pa.ssage existant, est pris, peut exiger que I'indemnit^ soit d'une sonnne d'argenfc une fois payee et ne peut etre forc6 d'accepter une annuity pouk en tenir lieu.— C. R.— larue vs. Bellerive, 17 Q. L. R.. p. 154. ' V .i p';«"^. Ifir;:;,;::;;:;;:;:;™'!::;;';;;;";;; f '- * '-- -» p™- tauc ,l„ ertt,, t,.,.„, ,|„i >,,„j ,„ ' 'rt^ ' ''" »•■■'•■ '■' V"' k ,m,i,ni. • 'I" '■«■•. «»t t..„„ ,'„ f„„„, , ;, '"" """;"™ '■" ■l«l."« .1.1 cl,„. " "-''"• «-"■"»" ". /*..,::;«: ;r,r;::,,' S" '" '" ""'■"'■ . ^'^'i Que lActe 44-4.') Viet r-l, <• • oonsorvation vis.Vvi.s d.s tiers n" Z nl "" ?P'"--"t-. P<>..r lour 'Wurent-CASAULT. J ,yj, ,^, ' WpLquo j.asa un droit ,1. passage t'usH;,,;pio,;;.i;;";';^j^,f 2;^;^'" '"• '''"^^"^^^ ^^^^ i^ap/«n.«. noted in ou:ii^:r/;;ji;;r;:i::;;i^^^ -^ ........serosa ..tio,. rest of the l.u.d to .k!,, pur L , 7 " '''"^"'' ^^''" '•^'t"!"^ tl'o f-ee on tho part acul^T h In li::^. 7 ''' "^'^"T'^' ^'^ '-^ '^ ^'f'e>r respeoiive portions, dofs ' " \ ' "''''" ^^'''^''' «'^P^'-'^tes purchaser's prop.;,yj,ut ,,;;;' fj--^'t"'' *^ --'it"''^ on the obligation to const.Lt a wiZ^r/'^^;;^'''^- ^ I— a. R J- Q.. 3 C S. p. 107. «^""*-HTy, .).~McCimi(j vs. OUnier, ^*7. i- Quo cetto stipulation ••. - '• f-cago d'une vache sur li Ut t i^, T T '' ''"''""' '" •^•'-t <1« it reel de servitude, ja. W n. T' '^"^"''^ "-constitue un 'action en donunages-int.hvts contr.? ' v ''\'^?'^ '^'''^''' "^"> P'^'' 'Hction r^elle-eonfLoire co t"l l/ :""^^'^^''^'''"^^«"'•• '"'^'•^ ^'ien ^-lle servifcude.-OarMEr J -^l^ltf./T '' ' ''""""^'« ^^^^^ "^^ -t una servitude'r^elle q^ -rtttrri" "^ 'n '^ "^"^ '^^ ^-^-'•. fiiiVY Coc;Ncir.-i),,i,ri- iT •™"»*''»''1« '«« laequereur.- ••^^•2 ; 16 Q. L. R.. p. 2;;r2 Q rrr^oa ^"'''^^'" ^ ^^p- ^-- p- See also eases noted at C. C. 562. passage est rendu apparent par I'exis- m 94 (Joim)Lulated SuppleTuent No. I.— Art. .546'. tencc d'une porte dans la cloture qui s^pare lesdeux fonds dominant et servant-CASAULT, J.-Deroche vs. Gaf an open road having been used by F. and his predecessors in title as owners of lot No. 870 to maintain his a.:tion confessoirr. Held also, that although it woul.l appear by the procedure in the cas.' that McD. and C. had been irregularly condemned jointly to pay th.- am.,u.it of the ju.lgment, yet as MeD. ha.l pleaded to the merits ot the pction and ha.l taken up/'-ci^ et cause for C, with his knowledge an. both Courts ha.l held them jointly liable, this Court would not interfere in such a matter of practice an.l procedure.— Supreml Ownr —McDonald vs. Ferdais, 22 S. C. R., p. 260. 1 \T .. ... 95 were to allege that -u- I J ^bi i; "''^ f" ^'^'''.^''^t tl-at. if aparty by ^»«a.lversary^soatI/a^J Javi T '' ''^ '""'^' t-t'-nony. ; ' 116. ^- '^- «'"/>-^7^^.' vx /^„,, I . ^^ j^ j^ ^^ i.eS:st:;r'' "•"-"■■■"■•^'<'"-- ...,.„, ,, _ Qu'un proprietairo (mi av<.,. 1.. „ passer sur le ten-ain doLT ^;;7"*--'t ^I--' .on voi.in. ^it duno nviero a sa propricHe. a uro t V,h? " P'""' conduiro I'eau tude,quand mcW iJ ny au rait nT. ' "" ^'^''' ^ ^^'^te servi- ^« R- L., p. 391 ; 15 Q. L. /p ^^^^•^''^■•" •-Q. f5. -/i., a:- Rodn,ue, watef bri^ri!::i;;;s;!7l dZ^ ^'^r '-'^'^"^ ^'- '-«' ^^ ti. f !^i;-'>--on..er,sJ.ecan ;' "ir;:^ ovorHow the land of a rght or t.tIo to the nuuntenanc "^ t, ; J '""'^'"°" "^^^ P^^-'iption, --^^ ^o^::;: :;^'^xrr^^ r--^- '"1 <. th. ;-d in co,nn.on fron. tin,e C^J:;' P'^"'''' ^'"^^ ^'^ -ad is on '->-. of whom he is one. to "eh a ' T'?'"' ^"^^'"^"-'^ "-'gh- ■naccessibleand in proof ;f sJe t ,,1 T!"^ '"-"■•• f-''''^. other.^se 4. See also case of /?„„ a ir ,. at article .52.5. " '' *"*«««». noted i„ tl,i, Sup,,l,.„„,„t pvmg acces, to the rear of «, ' ? ' T f '™ '""'"■» ™ width °t3.. The defendant, in r bnult ll"" ' ," "^ '"•-'■"=""- « l^^e™„sy„,,„h„|, upon hi, „°;„ * /» V'. I'" house, .hiel, proteste,!, and renounced the ri,rl,t „f , ''" P'"'"""^ tl,ereupo„ P-„t action „*i„, for t,,e\Silr X'' :f,r """S"' '^" wan, on the ground 96 Comolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 558. that the adjacent lot was subject to a servitude in favor of plaintiffs lot in respect of the roadway. The two lots m question forn.ed pat t originally of « larger plot of ground belonging to one md.vtdual. wbose heirs pan tioned ft into Hve lots, which were equahzed by means of Inltl The passage in question was indicated on the plan s.gned by r petition! a.:i referred to i" the deed of part.t.on^s annexed thereto, but the plan was not registered with the deed. Held 1 The roadway as it existed at the date of the partition, being wholly on ;; n iffs land, and established for its exclusive use, no servitude was Leated in favor of this lot on the adjoining ot, in respect of the roadway. 2. The indication of a roadway on the plan referred to in he deed of partition could not avail as the writing required by ! ide 551 o the Civil Code, for the creation of a servitude by des- Un tn of the owner. 3. Even if a servitude had been thereby tlished, it couhl have no etiect against the V^r.^^ ^ adioininc. lot, unless the plan had been registered with the dted^ aojoiiuii^ . , I r,„..«Hnn of warranty between 4. Under the circumstances, the question ot ^arnu.y co-partitionersdid notarise.-Q. K-Starr I- Leprohon^KA. Q.,3 B.R., p. 1._Tait, J.-R .1. Q., IC. S.,p, 1. 554. Que louvrage requis par une servitude,-contenue dans la stipulation d'entretenir toute la largeur du chemin avec fosses e dotures par I'acquerour d'une terre, vis-k-vis celle du veiideu -e n srr;itude reeile qui s'attache a Vimmeuble de lacqu^reur et peut 'Z Ma charge du fonds assiye.ti, si le Utre le s^pu^ --"f ^ CouNCiL.-Dorion & S^mlnaire de St. S^dp^ce, 16 Q. L. R., p. 24b . .5 App. Cas. p. 3(i2 ; 2 Q. L, D., p. 703. 55T 1 Que I'usufruitierdu fonds dominant, qui est trouble dans .a iouissance d'une servitude, peut, par action, se borner k demander tJcelui qui le trouble soitcondanine a reconnaitre son dr^^^^^^^^^^^ Janceet h lui payer le montantdes domniages soufTe rts-CASAULT. J. -Deroche vs. Gaom>, 21 R. L., p. 67 ; 17 Q. L. R., p. 1- 2 Le proprietaire du fonds servant, sur lequel est 6tablie une servitude de passage, a !« ^roit, e.cl6turant ce fonds, de mettle au passage une barriere qui ouvre et ferine facilement.-C. K-Royer vs. Lachance, 16 Q. L. R.,p. 1 '9- 3 Que le proprietaire d'un terrain, sur lequel il y a une servitude -le passage, peut faire k son terrain tons les changements qu il juge it propos, sans obstruer, en aucune maniere. le pa3sage.-C. B- Martineau vs. Martineau, 21 R. L. p- 367. Consolidated Supplement No. l.^Arts. 558-56^,. 97 4. Que le proprietaire cl'un drnif fl„ .. do passage de mettro'des ouv^^ rs^r^'"''" ^""^'- n'a(fl.c(ant, en aucune n.anier « . . P'"''''"'' '^'^ ^'"vertures «"^-^. H. J. Q.. 1 B «.;;;«;:' "^ '^"*- - Q- ^-I^e^ardAns & •'>''5>*. I. On the 2(?th March IS'^'? P r u , , P,C. '■ a right OF passage thro" it; ^-la;^"^;^.?' ^'.r'^^'^-^^^d to " ing the pubh-c road Ts well on fooM. fV ^' '^'^ ^•^""^°'- t'^-^^t- to th.. said purchaser ■• ^F k^p " U ' '": T'" '"'' ^^ "^ ^'^-^'e In 1882, m!m., h.vin. an i- fh 'f °?" "^'^ P^^^"- «'-fc-" refinery and warehouses tL e^n n tT'T "l''. '"'^ '^ ^°'^' °'' several heavy carts making thr^ or four", ^T '''''^'' '^^ ^ad sage, leavir.g the gates optn Ind n vT '' *'''-' ''^''""^^^^ ^^is pas- or the coal od dealers OF thrCitv on onf'", '? '"'-^ """ ^•^'•^«- '-^^ supplied there with their on"^ La^h''^'"''' "'' "^'^"- ^^^ land was used as agricultural land '^.f/ m '"' "^" ''^' ^'•^'^<^- ^^e the Court OF Queen's Bench (Si-y t di 7'"" I'^^J-^^— ^of could not be used For th nurml d'ssentmg) that the passage ^'-eby a..n.avated th! servL^ ^r^ ^ J:^.' '^' ^^^^ ^ ^^^ servient land than it was when Jhe " • f '' °"''""^ *^ *^he SUPKEME COURT.-J/,,!/,^;^, f ^ ; ^^erv.tude was established.- MLMMan ii Hedge, 14 S. C. R., p. 730. 2. Que le vendeur, avec jrarantie P«f K- r , , contre le proprietaire d'un terraTn ' ;' . p- ""'^^ ^ '' P""^^^^''. le contraindre 4 laisser e" ercer "r -"^ ""'' ''"^"' P''"'" droit de servitude e.istant en rveurr? "' ^''' ^'•^«'l'^^'-«"r, un 5onm vs. Lapolnte, 33 L. C J^p 215 ^•^"^^-Ouimet. J._ la prfs^rt 'ont^Lt l':!^ p^Zo ''"' -e servitude discontinue, courir ,ue du jour ok Ion ce'sfe ,' n i ui""° n''"'^' "^ ^^'"^"^^ ^ £^i>oi«s due n.ay l^-e ceased To evei-cise it it n.ay be revived at any tune, untd extinguished by ::::r ;hntg thir^ years ; .u... until such -tincUo. a;, a^on ^ the proprietor of the land which owes it, pra>nng that it be ckcUu.c hat' s i.ude exists, will be dismissed. So, where it was declared and s pu ated. in a deed of partition, that a right would exist, in Lvor one property, to eoniniunicate thereto, by a passage suftic.ent for tha purpose to be taken on the adjoining property, and tru.n he date o tl pard^ until the expropriation and deniohtion of the house on the properties, a passage existed and was --1; through a g:^.y about nine feet wide and eight feet high it wns ..hi U^^a servitude was validly and sufficiently estabhshed, and <^""1' /-*^ ^c decLed extinct, although, after the expropriation, the owner ot the t^;X io whiih it was .lue er.cted his buildhigs in -^; ; ™- Lt he could no longer exerc.se the .servitude.- WuRl ELK. J. Brimet as. Radoal, M. L. R.. 7 S. C, p. 170. r.«7. Qu'un bail or.linaire pent etre fait pour plus de neuf a,^ sansconstituer un bail e.nphyteoti4U.-M.vr„njU. J-'^'-^^^^f. Wctern Tdeorapk Co., rs. Montreal Tele.,m>k ^'.- ^^J^ ^- P' ''^ ; M. L. R., (! S. C. p. 68.-SUPKEME COU11T.-20 S. C. H., p. 17U. 2 Que le bail d'un in.meublo, fait pour dix ans, moyennant une rente annuelle et k la charge pour le preneur d'y hure d---'--- lions, est un bail eniphyteotique.-Q B-Fra.rr .. Brunett.J^) U. L., p. 306. 3 Un bail par lec,uel il est onvenu que le preneur no peut pas sous-buer sans le consenre.nent du baiUeur, qu'il ne durera que tant nuele preneur occupera I'in.nieuble lui-uien.e, et qu'il ne pourm cons- ?rui e d batisses c,ue sur une partie indiquee de 1 immeuble n est pas un bli eniphyteotiqae, niais un simple bail a loyer, qui ne donne pas au loc tairc qualite ou titre pour porter une action confesso.re. L en. ^hyt o e ne pent demander relargissement d'un passage stipule dans !on baVl que Lsquil a change, depuis la passation dece dernier, 1 ex- p tation du fondsbaill6 et q-Janouvelle exploration e.ige cet •largissenient.-C. U.-Larue vs. Bellerue, 17 Q. L. R, p. 154. 58». That the ownership conveyed by an .nnphyteutic lease «ay W nvstriote I. the lessor having the ri.hfc tc. r ., «t '"■■"•',1,' o„ the pi-oportv l...,t. I u7, '"''''"' *'"^' Pnvilego e-npl.y-utio leas,, c,^nm s watt'' H "" " '"■^'^'^"- ""'J-' - ^-ninishes its value. J:t:TS.^:.r7'''^' '''''-'' ^'-'' --Lafon OF the h.ase, ti.e l..sor irentk e iV^^ '^ ''"^'''^ '^" enjouie,] to cease f.-o... furth.,. It t ' " ^'"''^ *^'''^ '"^^- '>-' «7S. See th.- case „F (;<>/// ,/, r.v at arti(;Ie 5(J<). V-u.H, note,) i„ this supple,„enfc conc:!:^ ?::Jr ::-;: -f - - -- ^^ ..^ p... aceo.. ... , •operation ,)e I'acte seicn..„ria , ,? f-f' '^.^ ^'^^ ''''^'^ '^^^'''i P'"" nverains ont I. droit cxci;;;^ pe^, f'*' Q^: '- P-prietaL fiottal.le a buche.s penlae.s. vis-Li turt" "'': ""'"■ *'"' "'-^ 'P>'' d'icelle rivi6re, la ied.e c.sti .2 '^7''"'^'^ ^"^ '"•^'I'^''^" '"ill ou nait au proprietaire riverah; (C 'c 400 ^ T7''' ^'"' '^PP-'- la marine et des peeheries dn r^' 7 ^^ ^"^^ '"^ ^♦^P^'-fc^-'nent de Peche sur unc tdle ri^^re eMe tr ^^"^ '^--'^ ^'^ ^-its de Quebecnepeut.nonpIus.oe;;erde^l "'""''" ^'^ ^^^"-""-^ d*^' 5S». Le propridtaire dn vaisseau 2. Amendment. — Article 592 should read as follows : — " 5!>3. 'riiinjrH found in or upon the river St. Lawrence, or the navigable portions of its tributaries, or upon the banks thereof, must be advertised ami disposed of in the manner provided by special laws."— C. C. 592 ; 80 V., C. c. 55, s. 38 ; R. S. Q., art. 6232. 5!>4. As to sale of goods in the possession of wharfingers— See Vol. II, p. 595, 5!l«. The obligation to furnish aliment being founded on relationship, and the nature of the obligation not being changed by the fact tliiit a judgment has been rendered against the debtor to enforce its t'ullilment, the obligation i.s not transmitted to the heirs, or legal represent itives, of the person subject to it ; nor does such obligation, even when established by judgment against hiui before his death, constitute a charg(« on his estate.— Q. B. — Twrner & Mulligan, R. J. Q, 3 r.. R.. p. 523.— David.son, J.— R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 117. *». I. Decision number 3, noted at this article, (Muir jdement No. l.-Avt. 689. 103 un. »,cuH°..,,ln," rj;:' " P"'l'.'-"«^ ■■??«»'-.,, „„ e„n',ti,„„ p.,' •ic r,m ,J'.ux et 1 '■•:,"?; 'r P"'*" «"■" ''i-™'" P "■ la vol„„M Pr-.«l*, il no pou,,,'. j;.,,' ' , ™» l""P"'^'«"-« al«m,l„„„„ ,„ p„. p. 337 " '' *'""''""• "■> "• L. p. 504 ; M. L. R. ,i Q,' r. ''^- That art. G89 C r «.i,; i justifies th,. t-7f>/>. mtih qu'ollM ue cousrituc (pi'iin privil^-o aniilosno h colui conaacr* par r C. IH!)!) vi\ favour U'm rm^ve.— MxTlluw, J.— Archer. :hault vs. Vvj,')-, ]H H. L.. p. ;H9 and 359. 7 in La vifitu par uu co-propri6taire par indiviH, h aon co- prnprit'tairc, .U: sa p irt indivisH, n'a pas les cM'nts dii partaj,'*.' ot partant, rhypothequo consMiitio par lo voiidour contiiiuo do grfever la port vondut!, inalfjrt' cutto veuto.— C li.— Varin vm. GuArln, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. im. TI7. Confonnemeiit aux articK-s 74(5 ct 747 ,u'es le partage provisoiro. Ja? deed ot gift of all the donor's property, to determine vrh; t!i iv is a univt :• d gift, or an onerous transfer, equivalent to a sui<^ accA i.it must bo taken of the yearly revenues of the property given. — 0. R.—Goupil vs. LeteUier, 15 Q. L. R., p. 120. «,„t: - 1"-'""" "'""I I...I-,- wo,, ,-,.vi.r».,l, it l„.i„K l,„M mtior«cLrb;Ti,;: !;;r;Ti "'■';■ " ;'";■'" ""'""" ""^ ~'--*- n!Mu,.: „r ti,„ ,„„if "'ajority " children, or any of therlail sth f "' ^" ''''''' *'- -'"d " that case the revenues of t e "a^ ^'^ ■ ""'"■''^'' *''"'"" '"'^' ^» ■' proportion thereof of sultan sl^' ■^^ ^^ '^^O^OOO or the " -^i--ity. shall be payable toZl2l^L "^t;^^"-' the age of " aut) until they shall have so attain ds',^ V ""'''' ^'''' ^'"'^PP"'- " in ease the said party of thc^ec^ ull r '"• "' 1 '"^■''^'■''^^- ^-^ " the first part, it s aoreed tl alt ^ ""'""'''' ^^'' ''''"^ V'^'^y of " cease, and that the s^ da ;,":,!"' '""^'"^"^ ^' -'^^ ^-^t s'.all "claim the sum stipulatrd n, T ''''■' ''''^'' "^"^ ^""^'^^^^^^ , 1 \mH MMi'i 112 Consolidated Supplement No. 1.—Art8. 788-806. question ne constitue ni une donation ni une substitution en faveur des enfants, I'appelant nc s'^tant pas dc-saisi de la dite somme du jour de la passatiou de I'acte en (luestion et les intnn^s nVn etant pas devenus proprietaires k la charge de la rendre, nuus etat.t seul.-ment char.ves de radininistror. - Qu'aucune des parties a I'acte nayant accepte cette disposition au nom des enfants, elle pouva.t etre vala- blement revoquee par Tappelant-Q. B.-Smith '"-"0. In aside the ^o^^l^ ,^'^:^''X7T7'''' "^ ^"^ ''-'>'• ^'^ ^ judgment of the Court hZt^t^'nl^T" ''^';'' ^^'-"""^ *'- resnitin. from neglect to re-ns't • , TT ""'"■ ""''■ ^'' ^- ^■• and, as the deed i„ this cas^ wl^' •" 7 7'^ ""*"''"'" ^'""'^t'"-' payment 0/alln,> en nairnmif) u'lH ' ^""'" ^'^' '^ t'"""^' i" i« e,,„ivaient to sale tl ' . ''"''■''"'^'' ^''"■^'' "»J<-"«' art. h;92 Hl^hts of action a^ in t rrtr" rT'' ''' ^''^ ^^""^ ^^-' " of the original de;i of ,t t 1^:' ° V ^''^^"^^ «^ -^^^-tion 'f- ^F^•fen, 20 S. C. R, p 2]8 ^^^'^'''^•-^^''"eme Court.-/.,,,,,, ^pou., doit ot..e p..e,,„,„fe .•,,:„. „1 :'' ™"l f 1™'- P" l« ft.t.r et posterieurs de ce dernier ,i 10!...',^ '. ? ''» "'-'"nciers actuels a^tre, deto, a eu pour efft, if f' ".'°"'* *''""«»«= '!« »«' , une donation d'iiunieutjles qu'ils lui avaient eonsentie pen aupa-avant. II fut prouve (|ue le dt'-tVndeur avait assailli son pere en Tetreifrnant au collet, le ronversant violeminent par terre, et le niena(;ant, lui et sa mere, de leur casser, ou tordre le cou. II fut, en outre, etabli que le delendeur, entr'ivutrcs injures craves, avait dit a ses pere et mere, en presence de plusieurs membres de leur famille : " Vous mangez k ma " table coinme deux cochons, " ajoutant de plus k son pere : " Regar- " dcz le visage i\\\"\\ a, il a le visage comme un cochon, " et traitant sa mere di; " viedle truie. " — luge -.—Que les actes d'ingratitude prouves etaient sutHsants en loi pour motiver la revocation de la donation, que les demandeurs avaient faite au defendeur. Que Taction en revoca- tion pour cause d'ingratit)ide a pour objet principal la vengeance dune injure et que I'interet pecuniaire n'y est qu'accessoire.— Oui.MET, J.— CournoycT us. (Imtrndi/cr, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 312. Saa. I. Qu'ime donation faite par contrat de mariage par un mari a son ei)ouse, marieo sous le regime de la separation de biens, " d'une soinme de deux mille piastres quelle prendra sur les biens les " plus clairs du mari, .soit au deces de ce dernier, ou qu'il en soit " ordonne par la ('our, " n'est pas seulement un gain de survie, mais un avantage matrinumial qui, par les termes memes du contrat, pent etre reclim6 du vivant meme du mari, .si les circonstances tinancieres de ce dernier justitient le tribunal de faire droit k la reclamation do la fcmme.— Tasciikueau, J.— Viijer vs. Kent, 16 R. L., p. 505. 2. La stipulation dans un contrat de mariage par laquclle " le " futur epoux fait donation entrevifs a la future Spouse d'une somme " de S4,0()0, " ne donne pas seulement droit k un gain de survie, mais k un avantage matrimonial qui pent etre reclame du vivant meme du mari. — Lahuk, J. — Mitrin vs. Bidard, 17 Q. L. R., p. 30. '''""""*"<■'' ^rplement No. /.-Art. S.U , ,5 n;.t .... .•.,M.o..ib,. „,„:;;' „ ::; .r?- ''■;"^"'>-' ■■ "-t* tl.0 iiimninK or C. C. 700 m,i iZpT i^ """"' """»'■'• "i"'!" M,, M^ I. K, r S, C p. 25 ""'""'-'^'''""»">', J.-W'.fcto ,.. with .nemorancla writ'c^^ w Uht ' ^P'^T " "'" "^ '^^^-'J-'^^ under exa,ninatio„ for "em -u T r^' "'^ '^^'^^ ^^o dr.ffc The wi„ contained so:::;;£, ^^Ti^^;;;^- ""'^^f ^'^^'•^^'^"^• to lu-s sister and her scm.s, defendan s H ""^ "' '^''^ ^^''^^^^ hi.s iih.ess, the testator lived 21 nontt ^tZT'^ P^'"'''^"^' ^''^'^ will, and durincj the .n-eater nJ- '' ^.^'^V'^^^'^^ ^^^' execution of the was co,npetentl.r t.;; ^L^^^ ^^^2^::'^ f "''^^' ^^^ as "sua! to his private affairs. His sis ru''^, f , '''" '"""'^^^ with him for some time I.efn.-,. o I , ^^f^ndant, had lived did not appear thot si had W^^^^^^ T""' " '''' °'' "'« ^'^'' ^'^^ it upon hi„, or that he ^.^^^Z^l^T ""' ^''''''' '^ ^^^ if he so desired, md ■ Th„V H dispositions of the will, was that the will w. heTxp sb^ S^ "/ ? "" ^■'•'^•" ^'^^ ^^^^ -^d should be maintained.-SlZov J t^^^^^^^ ^''""''"'^ ^^'■^''--' Q-> 1 C. S.. p. 515. ^A^io^ON, J.SckUler vs. Schiller, R. J. 4. In 1889 an action was broijtrht bv G R TT • i,- ••'"•ator to Mrs. B., an interdict ac.dnsf A f" '" " "^P^^'*^^ ^^ deed of transfer made to hin b;i ^''- ^Ts T iV" '"^^ '^ ''^'•*^- canc.lled. Mrs. B. havin.. died before fL ""' ''^ ""'''^^ '^"^ trial, the Respondent, M. B: p tentll a n ti " "T ""' '''^"»^''* °" *° suit on her behalf, a one o/tl e le f fe ^ T ^"''^""^^"»-«ee of the d-^ted the 17th November m 'tTs t^ """^^^ ""^^^ ^ -" A^ B., who based his contestation on f wiirl^ tri^h^?^' '' 188a, (the san.e date as that of the transfer attacker K .^ "''''■^' action; whereby the late Mrs. B.. bequeathed f] f ' "'■'^''°^' t>., occjucatlied tlie residue of all her I 116 Consolidated Siipplement No. l.—Art. SS8. property, &c. , to her two sons. Upon the merits of the contestiition as to the vnl.dity of the will of the 17th January, 1885.— //(;W, affirming the judi^incnt of the court helow, that art. 8;U, C. C. wliieli enacts that the testator must be of sound mind, does not declare null only the will of an insane person, but also the will of all those whoso weakn.iss of min"" "^' ^''-mtarios ^V'tnesses, up in ,he tin.e of M ^ " ^"^'"'-^ '" ^''" '"'"^^■""^ of the -sidore. ai authen^:: '^ ;:::°,;;;" '•"!- ''^ this Act. sha„ .: 7nt,on. in the same u.annor ' i s ■^'"" '"" '"" """■--" ^^ --h ' the said ,!eo,l;p,.o.ide,lalwavhi^^^^^ '"^'' '"-" >'">''^' in «l'oul,i ha.e been n.a.Ie, have h. , ? , *' ^^"''''/^ 't'-. of which n.ention "^ this Act shai, not a.n.et ^ ': ^r '"; "^' ^v'' ^'^^ P'""^'^'-^^ ~-oAct44..viet..ea,.,.^— ^x:r:,;:t.::.^^^^ ^"tso,njusc,uasanu,rt,an-iveeen 87S ^ '"''' ""'' ^"« ^t en M.t.Ier avait fait u„ testa.nent IT^ '.tat"" f'' "^ ''''' ^^'-• Je.ss,e Reeves et ,le deux autres .le " ^'v^ "1 ^'"'^'^'- ^« '^'t John Keeves produisit au oreffe et fi> n ' ^P''' ''^ '""rt, J J f;M,„e. Met.er,un^^^:.::, ::::--- testament o-o.rap^ a men neveu John J. Reeves to.t 1 "'" '' •" " J'-' donne eu soin de moi. (8,.„,) m. E V R U m'" .•-"^ ?.""''^" P^^'' — q-nl Ht, aux fins de k v M-iHc. ion * I ! ''• ^'^"^ '^ deposition affinna ,ue tout cet eerit iS ^ l^::^:^'^' '"'" '^^^'^^^^ c^'pondant proav^ que les ,nots " Jo] rj R ' *'''"'''-''='^- I' f^* pa.- nae .nain etrang^.e, ,nai. nue tZl."7Z """''"' ''^ ^•'«"te53 ecr.tare de M ne. Met.ler.-JuH . i 'f ,'^' '"'^^'^'"'^"^ ^t dt de d'^ premiere instance, Baby et Bosse j? 7"" 'N""''"'"^ ^^'^ '^ «our ment olographe on question n etan ' a '^'■''':"'^'^'-^^ Que Je testa- t-tatriceJesn.ots.^ohn J Rtvl-'Ivlt "'"•'" ''^'''^"^^ ^'« ''^ et^'angere, le dit testament etait nul et ou^ 1 .' ''^"''''' P"'' ""^' "^^'n de 8GS. seal etait en vigueurlo PZ'l ''^'^r;"' '^"^"^ -'--. B- H., p. 232.-TASCHEREAU, J.-19 rTl 71it "'• ^- '■ ^•' 2 118 Covsuliduted Supplfment No. J.— Arts. 851-868. Hlii Tho will .soU},'lit to be sot aside purported to be executed by the testator in the Kn-lish form, in the presence of two subscnb- inlulaM Supplement No. L~An. 87^. f;-o.n the u.su»nu.t. as Ion. us any o 1. l"" ^''^: ''•''■'• ^^- -^elu,l..,J error in fact or in law i„ r..n,.et T T ,?"^ '""'' ^'""•^' ''^'"fT no ' ">torprotation d une clause d'u . t.s^„ ^ r"^'" ^^' ^^it ici de ;i-r^,sp^:;:j:r,:-P^- ^ le testament n.ta.Ii.ait , et aussi lon,ten.p3 ,uo la d tto h e { "'V'"'"'^ •'^''*^''^ ^--o ,. ^--^ '-"^tion de Montreal no em J ^'''''' Per.nanente de 'i- ^'^ dite dette «era V^vl^ZZuT'' T'^ '^" '""'-»<^ ,_ "-ees. ou decedera, alors ij di usul" """'"'"'" ^" ^^^^^"'"'-^ _ aux enfant, snrvivants i.ssus d. nu ^ , '""'"'^ ''^ "PPartiendra ,, four le dit usul-rnit a,,partenir a . '"^" '""^ "^ *''te ^pou.e ,. ^-"ve, et ,ne la dite dc'te ne era :;'"""■ ?"'^ ''"'^-"^ '-tera ■susd.t aux enfants survivants issu do 7 '' '•^^^^^"'•n-ra, comme „ ;:'--- "--cloit ,tre interpretee , le .InL «" "'"'"''' ""'''' "^ ^''^e ;"•"-• «-- par le paien'ent d aettr;' " " ''"^' '"^"^"'•"'^ ^^« '^ •^•ors enco. veuve.-C. n.-^.a.l t;^^;::; ^'^ 'f ;^'-aH ™y brother Fn.nk who t I Ic on. h df "I' T"''^ ^*" '"^ '^'"'' *' ,.^;t«nt charities in Quebecand Ca^L s ^ , 'r*/''" ^"^'''^ ^^- --^'.^.-.neh Canadian Mission,andt-:;;::--- lii 1 ' II 120 ConHolUlnfed Supplement No. I. —Art. 87'J. " iiifty jud^o best," est vali.lo et no Haumit *Hro .ittaqu.'0 coin.ue va^uo et incertaino, comiiio !io iltwiKiui.it pas siimHa.miicnt l.ss iK'.n.'Hciairos. ni comin.' laiss.'..- a la voloiit.- du K--atain', Frank Ross.— g. \S.-Roh>* ,1' /ioss, R. .1. g., 2 11. \ !>. 4i:i.— Andukw.s. J.— R. J. Q.,2 C S.,p. 8.— RoUTHiEU, .J.-R. .1. Q., 2 C. S., p. 115. 4. QuV-M niatioiv .1' ti.l.-i-c(.i.mus, i-'.>st la volont6 du U'statoiir qu'il fautavai.t tout n'clierclua- et fairo e.xecut.-r. (11 s'agit ici do rintiTpivtatiou du toataiuont do feu I'l.onoral.l.' Jos«pl< Masson.)- LoiiANdKU, .J.— 7W.sPIi.|...> a «- „•„ p., ,,t sou» ,,ei„g.„ri,e fait na ■ ,"'tr. "'^ .'=<'"'™« '' '"> "W do» l.ie,„ tion ,lo IV,&nte„ m, "^ "'■" """" P™'' 'l«""""l«r la ,l,,.»tita- agai„.t t,,i a . but o:,;rt,"*',"T '" ''»°'-'"" ™»"'" 2 — Ramviiii, I V, , "'"" i(l|U,lic,,to,l on „tl,or nointsi KAMviLLE, J.~Howa,d ». l'„fe. M. L. R, 4 S, C, p. 454. ' ^ ce dormer, s'il a ncMi.re de f-,;^,. ), r "., °'." P^^ut ^-tre onlonne «. cetto .,i,...ib„ti„.r.,„t*':„t; : :r: ri"":^ '?■ "^ fairo, ,|ml«di5t,ibution ait li,.u sous l^„,^„;L,,i '^ ''° ™ J.-Co»ta„,( „. Jiw,,, 20 R Ip 382 C„ar.-MATmE„, 314,-„„t at p^e 214 '""* "" -"'°''"' '" ""^ ^« I- ^ J-. at page account, b'i.oughtXom 01 Ihel't" T'"""," P™^'"" '»'■ "» anJ without «kin» that t „ ? , ° '•"""' '" 'I" 'l'»l>«t?o. of the succcsiou, even f„,. the u4 7h T" ''° ""■"P°'''J' *<.«^ Jfcft«.W, M. L. R..4 Q B p. 3W.'""""''-**' "-*"»»«. 4. Que I'expcuteur testuinentairp n'n ,, i le.ir ^„'ard.-TAscHEREAU T 7i ''";"'■ ^'^^'^'-'^'^t^^' d^^« alettes a The above case was confirmed bv the Pnnrf ,.«■• p • a, . ing of which Court is noted in thf L . ''''' ^'^^ ''"'^■ decision number 1. ►Supplement at article i)4f>, 1 W WV* '■^ ' " 124 Coni^olidaied Supj>lement No. I— Art. 919. 5. A testamentary executor, who has fulfilled the requirements of the will and has left the moveables of a substitution created thereby in the possession of the tutor to the institute (a minor) has no action against the tutor, upon the deatli of the institute within a year and a day from the death of the testator, to rovendicate these effects for distribution anionj; the substitutes, the tutor being bound to (iccDunt only to the substitutes or to the curator, to the substitution. — Q. B.—MarcheHmxdt cfc Durand, M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 364— C. R.— 1() R. L.,p. 193; 34 L. C. J., p. 205. 6. Que I'executeur testamentaire, charge du paiement des dettes du defunt, pent s'opposer a un partage pendant la duree de sa saisine, quand il y a des dettes et quo Ton demande le partage des biens- meubles.— CiMON, J.—McVey vs. MeVey, 19 R. L, p. 136. 7. Que r executour testamentaire d'un testateur, qui I'a charged de distribuer ses biens a .se« parents les plus pauvres et les plus en bcsoin, sen rapportant en loi pour cette distribution, est tenu de rendre conipte de I'administration de cette succession aux parents qu'il a ainsi choisis pour recevoir les biens.— Jette, i.—Gontanl vs. Mercier, 20 R. L., p. 379. 8. Universal legatees may be sued for a debt of the succession, though executors are appointed by the will of the deceased and have accepted office and entered into possessicm of the estate. The univer- sal legatees have a right to call upon the testamentary executors to pay the debt on their behalf, but they are not entitled to a suspen- sion of the pi'oceedings against them to permit th(Mn to exercise their recourse against the testamentary executors.— VVUHTELE, J.—Bou- nissa vs. Bourassa, M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 1. 9. That, since the Statute, 22 Vict., chap. 6, C. S. L. C, chap. 91, the courts of this Province have jurisdiction to compel executors and administrators of foreign wills to render an account here.— LYNCH, J. —Hugle vs. Hogle, 1 R. de J., p. 188. «1«. 1. By his will, the testator had provided that the profits of his business should be applied to the maintenance of his widow and the children of his second and thiid marriages and that the children should live with the Plaintiff. By reason of incompatibility of temper, the children of the second marriage were unable to live with the Plaintiff, and a tutor was appointed to them and the execu- Consolidated Sicpplement No. l.^Avt 'W, fro.„ tho ^^.J^^^^^^, !"/— • t'-^ amounts .so p, d S. G, p. 219.~Q. B.-M. L. R., OQ B., p 305 ''''""^' ^^- ^- ^^- '^ -tide ^ :::L:: ^r /^ ^^^^^^ -*^^ -• ^^^^ supplement at tour 1 u^:;;rX S^"::t:Lr'^r^^ b.„s..eu.,es.u to.a- tion de I'inventaire. Par cons oue ' ' "f ^"^'^'^'"'"•^"t de la confee- •le la succession, est tenuedet c" ^n. '""''"f'/'^^--*--- de fonds avant. comme apres, laccomp strrr"'"''''^''"^''^'''^^-^«-^*^^''t-'-. C. C. present los ^.^tl^ f' f^ '"■""''^^'- ^'^t- ^^^ ■hdritierou io legatairo unite^ei neut 1 ""T^''""'"^"^ ^-l-'''« 'executeur testa„rentaire. J/b -S ; r";^"' '' ''^'■^"'"'''"^ ^'^ testaLritt:r;:;;:t^:i::^^^^^^"^^ -itsaisi de ,a succession c.^r.t'ir: '^r ,"^'^"^^^"'- - -d l^thi::;;!',i:::^^t;::s;;;^r'?^ than the assun.ed amount. Any intt, 1 '' ^'-"'^'^ ^""'^''^^d '-- estate was to be divided amot/the e. '"^'^^ttk.nent of the and payable, as it might be recdv d ! '" """^ °*" '^'''' ^'^''''^^^' decease, but the interest 0^;^^'""""-^ ""^ ^^^'- '^^^^ J- the death of the testatrix Ther! w ^ '''''• P'^'^'^''' ^'^ ^^^^ f'"-^'" "State of testatrix, her deceased h^sJ, ^ '""^'"^^^^t debt upon the with her) having h^coJIZt^^^T' "'° T ''"^'^'''^ ^^ ^-- realised Jess than had been assl d and h"" '""-'^'""- ^he estate reduced, had not been ascertaineT north T""' "' ^'^ ^''»'^^'>'' - when L.'s representative institute j'then. T !"'''' ''"''" ^«'^'^^^d. on the unmount of her legacy -S r^'? f""'' ^'"'"'■"^ ''^^--t and adjustment of thc^stte a d bTf '".^ ""' *^""' ''^l"''^-tion - ascertained. L. was entit^edt ^I^l^r:^:^:^- "^^^^ -lie n venues received H:) .■>..< 126 ('ovHoiidated Supplewcnt No. J.—ArU 921-928. by the executors, unless tlie latter were in a position to show that the estate was insufficient to pay her anythinjj on her legacy irrespective of the contingentdebt.— Pagnuelo, J.— DrtntZitrawt/ vs. Moore. R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 234 »21. ^mi^itm.— The second word in line four of this article should be " an "—not " and." »2;$. Que I'executeur-testanientaire, qui est autorise par le testa- ment a se nonnner un snbstitnt, peut renoncer a I'execution du testa- ment sans I'autorisation de la Cour et se nonnner tel substitut.— Tait, i.-Kenntdy vs. Sfebblns, 34 L. C. J., p. 28(5 ; M. L. R, 6 S. C, p. 456. »24 Les articles 478 et 4.79 du code de procedure, qui declarent que la partie qui succombe doit supporter les depens et que ces depcns sont taxes par le protonotaire,sauf la revision du jugc, ne sappliquent pas a des procedures non contentieuses adoptees pour la noinuiation par le tribunal, ou le juge.d'un executeur testamentaire, pour reinplacer un executeur decede. P. r consequent, il n'y a pas lieu de taxer le memoire de frais dans une semblable atiaire, et si telle taxation a eu lieu elle a ete faite sans juridiction et il n'y a pas lieu a la reviser. Les'frais de convocation du conseil de fainille, y compris les trais de denlactment des parents qui y ont ete convocjues sont a la charge de la succession et .sont defrayes par les representants de cette succession comme depenses d'adniinistration. Touteibis, la taxation du mdnioire de frais ne donne a ce memoire, ou a ces frais. aucun caraetere execu- toire et le montant de ces frais ne peut etre recouvr^ de la succession que par voie d'action ordinaire. Les frais qu'un parent, ou executeur testamentaire, a pu encourir dans une demande pour convocation du conseil de famille, a 1 .quelle il na pas donne suite, ou qu'il a faits pour opposer ou pour promouvoir la nomination d'une personne a la charge d'executeur testamentaire. alors que le dissentiment neportait pas sur le remplacement de IVxecuteur testamentaire decede, mais uniquement sur le choix de la personne qui serait appelee a la remplacer. ne sont pas a la charge de la succession.— Jette. J.— Ex parte Gugnon, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p, 288. »2S 1. Que la disposition par laquelle un testateur legue ses biens a ses enfants et declare que, dans le cas ou I'un d'eux d^cederait sans enfant, sa part retournera a ses autres enfants survivants cree une substitution en favor de ses petits-enfants.-Q. B.—Ste. Mane & Boarassa, 13 R. L.. p. 135 ; 33 L. C. J., p. 327. ConmiiduM Supplement N„. i.^AtL OIS ,2, p. 124. •'"'^' '^—Htng.ton vs. FvanUm, 19 R. j,., L., p. 39. x.c)UAN0tR, i.~S,ymoMv vs. Seymour, 21 R. 5. Where the testator has "''' P'"'^^""^^- ^^ t'-- fo. their own and respect ":^^^^^^^^ '""• -•, ^''-- ^'-th. to bo created, but the daughters were ovvtr ^f^l'^'^^^^^^.tntion was not - Worth vs. Worth, 12 L. xN , p' GG ""' '>ali' -BnooK., J. oonsJt^:n ist^r rtbs::r^ '-- - — -. " legue k Pierre Dansereau ,non fi f ,„'"'"' '•''^^'^' ■ " Je donne et " - vie durante, de tous lei n"neu il """r ' '' ""'"''^' P"-^-^ - trouveront - appartenir ^^1^:7 h'^r' n-;[eon,ues ,ui bon p^re de faniille et dVntro ?' '^""=^ '^ '^'^ J"""' en " -ufruitier, , our .Ure ,e1 i L n '''^ '^'^''^^^^^ - ^on " efceinte. partag^s suivant a L ? "'' "^'"^^ '" ^^^^' J-'-ance Q.B.-,;.,«,,|,,,,^,^:;;;3^^-^^^^^^^^^^^ hentiers de droit. "- suivlt^!^" jf 1:::;°:;-;^-*^'- - -^^^-- ^-^ les ter.es " pa; el,e. en jouir, 0^^;^:::^::^^- \r.on .pouse. pour ' v.duite, sans etre tenu de donner 1 ^ ' " ^"''""'^ '^ S«»-dant ■dont je la dispense ;listrcha:""' "'n*^ *-- inventaire. ce •' i'n.neubles et leurs dCda^^^^^^^ ^ l*^. d'entretenirles dits " u.sufruiti^res qui v seron " "^'' reparations annuelles et ::f-urerett:ir^:Zlrr:S3in^> ''' ^^^^^^'^ l-^s dits immeubles. contre Jes accidpr.!^ v ''" ^"nstruites sur " die. les deniers provenant de Z " *'"' P""'' '^^ ^^« d'incen- " rebatir les batisirdTrn tes o "T"" ''" ""P'"^^''^ " '•^*"'^'- ou I ; I 'Vvv '4 m < H.ti 1; 128 Vovsolidated Siipflcment No. /.—Art. 928. " do Chantal, ii.a tillc, semit encore mineure, alors, je veux et cntends " que I'nsufruit n le testateur k son neveu et lecruanf ! .^ ' "' '^"' '"^'^'''^'^^ ^"'"^ P'^r - vio durante, creent T^^d " .^I T ' '"^ '''''' '^" ^« --"' 'a more du le^ataire et contienn" '", ^ "■^"^'■"'^ ^" *''^^-"' de taveur du neveu, le ,^rov u 1 \ Z' ''^^ ^'^ ''^ ■'^~' -^Pitale. en ^*«.^6.r^e.. 17 R. I ^ fj" ^«t.st,tut,on.-MATmEc;, J.-^,^^ ,,. visions !!!;:;;i:,;^'J;tJ^^.^j;;C. contained the ^,Win, pro- : o^the said paHi;omont:t: : ; 2:^::;^ ;r"" t^^- ^'^'■-^ enjoyment, during all he- natund ife n e o l TT' "^'^ '^"^ "'y property, moveable or im.nove b ! ,' •"' *'"^^ residue of '• right, interest or share at he hn " " •.'" ^^''''^'J' ^ ""^y have any tion or reserve. To hwe and to 1^? ,' "'"^ '?'''' "'^'''^'^^ ^^'^^^ ^^^P • use and enjoyment of tl e s d , ' ' T '"' '"^"^ *'" ^^^'"^ "«"*-«'. '■ H.len Mahers, as and for hel';;;!:"^' ""'? '"^ "^'^''^ ^'^'^' ^^e said : '^'''f'' ^-' ''"-'g all her natural lifeCf SivH '." t"' '^''^" '"^ and bequeath, in full nropertv unfn x ''-''' ^ -'^^' Revise oJ''..y .uarria,e .ith theZ t " 11^^^, ^^^«-»"^. ^-e • ot whatever nature or kind n. V. i, '. ' ''''''^'•^ ""^ ^'^^ property ^ "-fruct, use and e.^^^ ! ^ Xi: ' f ' "^' r T'''''' «*' ^ 'h''^' ^^e ■' before left to n,y sai'l fvi hf S? "! "'"' "'^''"'^ ^^'^ ^-^-■"- • said usufruct, use and el'l ^^ ^t" '^'''^'^'•^' ^-^^ «»^ :Mahers, during all her nl 1 Llf;":^^'-'' . ^^ -id Helen any account to be rend.red of the ame " f ''' ""'' ^"'^''^^^^ ■•any person or persons whomsoever sh'uh 1 '"^ P"' ^'"""^■' *« ' the sa.d James McGregor, die beW h, ,T'' "^^ '""^'^ «"°. ■ the said Helen Maher^, the . and " ?" ''"''''''' '"^^ ^^^ w,fe, '• i-queath the said property so herebv . T/ ^•"^' ^^'^■- '"'d • Helen Mahers. in full prop'^^rtv to t^ ^pne.y to him, to the said : testament, or otherwil, ^ 'i^^^ry t^l «t '", '''' '''' '^^ a<=count to be rendered of the same or ' '"'^ '^'*'^«''*^ ^"y 180 GonHolidfded Supptement No. l.—Ad. 9^^. " bequeatlied and siven property to the said James McGregor, his " heirs and assigns,' should he survive his said mother, as and for his " and their own property for ever, and in the event of his pre- " deceasing his said mother, unto the said Helen Mahers, her heirs and " assifms, as and for lier and their own property for ever." Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side), that the will of J. Mc. G. did not create a sub- stitution but a simp e bequest of usufruct to his wife and of owner- ship to his son.-SL'PKEME GoVKV.^McOregor & The Canadian In- vestrrumf cfe Af/ency Co., 21 S. C. R., p. 499. -Q. B.-R. J. Q., 1 B. R.. p. 197.— Pagnuklo, J.— M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 190. 10. Que la prohibition d'ali(5ncr contenue dans un legs concju en ces termes : " Je donne et legue la jouissance de mes biens immeubles " k mon fils, sa vie durant, pour enjouir,atitrode constitut et p ecaire, ■' sans pouvoir les vendre, ni aliener,ni hypothequer, d'aucune mamfere " que ce soit ; ces fruits et revenus devant etre, k toute fin, consideres "comme lui tenant lieu d'aliments, pour, apresson d6c5s, la ploine pro- " priet6 des dits immeubles, appartenir k ses enfants, que j'institue mes " legataires universels en propri6te "— n'a deffet que quant k I'lnteret des enfants du legataire, la jouissance de ce dernier 6tant prot^g^e par la quality d'aliments qui lui est donnee : que cette prohibition d'aliener a pour effet de constituer une substitution en faveur de ceux pour qui la prohibition est port6e, et qu'elle ne rend pas les biens autrement inali^nables, et que le legataire peut vendre ces immeubles.— C. R.— Cie. de Prd & 'Credit Foncier vs. Bouthillier. R J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 346. »3». 1. Que les parties k un acte de donation comportant subs- titution peuvent, par un acte subsequent, changer la nature de cette donation et en faire un acte de dation en paieraent en faveur du donataire.-Q. B.- Wilson <& Lacoste, 20 R. L., p. 284.- Supremk CoUKT.— 20 S. C. R., p. 218. 2. Une donation a titre onereux, dont les charges excedent la valeur des biens donnes, ne peut donner existence a une substitution. — Taschereau, 3.— Wood vs. Blondln, 1 R. de J., p. 73, 3. Une substitution ne peut etre creee par un acte k titre onereux, dont les charges excedent la valeur des biens donnes.— Taschebeau, J.—Bertrand vs. Filion, 14 L. N., p. 337. 4. Une substitution ne peut etre crdee qu'aotant qu'elle rattache k une Iib6ralit6, la substitution ne pouvant exister que lorsque la 'ilil I'crsonno qui en « Afx „i > *"' «."■•-■ Ai„a w" Trow'' ''™""^" P"' '■-'« -^-' .. »b, d" donatairo, rovo,,,„,r u„„ sub ti^.r !'"■ P™™iUvec loLooui' 2 , fflo»rfm. 1 R. Je j^ p 73 rtgle^ du ,|r„it remain i cet ^„a,. f , t I ' ," '"""" ''»"» "" Pays le, '"/ /-"*'»'-' '■--ocabiiir;dCV;:r°7"r" "" >''" "h?*" «K e„reg,,,tr&s d„„, ,e Has Canada nV ™''»"'"«"". nayant pa this province befoio fh. ,^ ^*"^^ '» *he law as it pvL . • Code a.„ valid Q. B.-_,;.C^;^»J yon,i„g i„,„ ,„^, „/- • -i^'., p. lo4. 2. Under the Jaw in f Oxle, the substitution of „„° ™i,l" '°"'"' °"«'''' «»■•„ the Civil "f the Civil Code. thou, h^rf T"? °°' P"™'*"!- Arltle gV ;"'™C,,oed a change In^theTalt':';! f "'° ="''«'" ^ "- ' " t'on of moveable,. Prior .„ ,1, 7 »=P'^=s»'y permitting the substitr P^h^bited the substitVti „ oftt ™: '"« °"'-anc ^, ,e2™tS «nJ th„ pr„|,iyj,„„ ' »ov™bles, was m f„r„e i„ thi,, pr^^;';™ WOI. which gave testators absofi fr I ""! *""-" »f n?* Ld ■ ■^- "■, one of ' 1 " vwv* ^ 132 Covsolidated SupplemeTit No. l.—Art. tm. the oreve. and ..anager of the e.tate bul rlcdged to R-P-;'-^ for advances made to hi.n personally. J. H P.. et al.. Appt Uan^ representin.^ tl.o substitution, by their action denmrdcd to be IX the u.oney which they aUeged H. J P one ot the.n had naid bv error as curator, to redeem slmres b.-long,n« to the sub paid by ^'•f" • '^ ^^.^^^^ ^,re not u.entioned m the will :^^ m ^ L; ::M;ere was no inventory to show they forn^ par! The estate, and no act. ^Ten.ploi or re^^ ^o jho. " • 1 ».,; li till, qssets of the estate. — tteia, ptr been paul by uu. t-uuii. n v_ For Strong and ■ i^h to forn. part of substituted property on the ground that ,,i„„. wUl,out an act "'/""'f "'■"'''' ^,^^i.^C, C.) Patcrs.,n J., Q^e6.e, 19 S. C. R. p. V 1 'l-LxnvE, J.-IG Q. L. R, p. 193. 4 L'artiele 125 de lordonnance de Loui.s XIII, de Janvier 1629. prohLnt la uhstitution de biens meuues 6tait en yigueur en cet e o ov r ius.,u'a I'adoption du Code Civil, et consequenunent uae Tb ti^de biens nieubles ante^rieure au code est nul e. Un esta- ^^^<^en. substitutions, peut 16guer des biens k deux de ses nf n s g eves substitution dans Tune de ces subst.tufons, et appele dans -autre a la condition que ces derniers renoncen a tout droit fuAlns dlendant de ees substitutions en faveur d un autre des f ,n si t?stateur et une renonciation faite. en consideration de ce L;: conditiorlie^^^^^^ valide.-M.THlKa, J.-^.... .. Mass.e, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 526. The judgment in the above case was confirmed in the Court of Appeal, but the condd^rant above cited was struck out.-See-R. J- Q., 4 B. R., p. 57 foot note. 93^ 1 C bequeathed certain real estate to R and, after RV death, to he. (R's) daughters, M. R^and A. R ^l;;^^^-^,- natural lite, anu ai ^j^^^^ persons full property, share and share alike, ii t^wo u • H :, ! I shonM die without c\uU\ven fl. *"tl.o child. .... .-hild :;'et jr.^--^'^ T '^ ^•^'''^"^' •''-••'telv M; R. without children, the s,. : , \ T'"'' '"' ^" ^'"' ''«"*t'' of -l<>y th. whole. A. 11, also d \ ' ^ '' '""' ^'' ''•• -"tinu.d to "f/"s .nothe... an.l o„ the oC 17 th '"'''■'''•''"•''• '^•- - '-'•• ^^'^^-Where the shares of o ,...'" ""'7''-' ^^^-^^^ of A. K. P--S to the other,s by his d. ^ 1 ;rr'""''^'- "'"' ^ak., conjointiv, a^' '774 p-petuai substitutions.^;:: ,': tt^z r ''"'''' '^---^^ 6 C. S., p. 101. '" "• •' -''>-' ff:rtel v.,. Hoe, R. J. q._ 2. A testamontarv suh^Ufnf; *-degrec.exclusive':t^t ;;;;::r'';"^^^^^' -- 'i-ited to prev.ously existed h win. been ^f^r '" ^'^ ''^vv a,s it statute of 1774, 14 (Jeo. hi 2 Hit,! f ^"""^' ""' '^''' ''-^'-^' • Geo. in. eh. 4. Where se^e a! " f ''"''""'^' ^^^ "^' ^«01- 41 ^ho condition that at the . l t:Tr 'l'^^ ^-— ^'X- with ■^"rvnors. such tran.s.ni.ssion fr ra o 1 h' ^'"'7 '^'"^" '^'^^^ t" "-' <%;ee of the substitution as to IhUV" "''"" ''^ ''^'^•'^--^ '^ -Purveys. McLennun, R J Q 7 ' i'"' i'''^"^^'"'^t.d.-DAViD«o.v..I Ju d.,nateire. ,.evo,|„er um ,,ubsut ,t ' , ! ' '"'"r"' "^ '» ™»«™i-» ,jy , p ' '"• ■*'■"'''«■ " K- *. J: p. 73. »-fant-,. (T„i, ease i, „„:,',,,";'„' ,;:;- -"-"i, sM lai,„„ 134 Consolvlated Supplevient No. l.—Artti. 9.18-9U- pas lien h la reprc^scntation des enfatits alors iUc&Un par lours enfante. Q, B.—Ste-Marie .fe Bourassa, 18 R. L., p. 454. 3 Quo lors.,u'ur. tcstateur donne ses bicriH ft dos ex<5cutear8 testamentairos, pour I.h parta<;er k sos onfants. et 6tal,lit uno substi- tution en favour do ses petits-enfants, qu'il appollo, k la cond.tion toutefois quo. si coadernierM mouront avant d'avoir atto.nt Uge de ,naiorit6 et sans descendants, sos bions rotournoront aux parents de 80S onf.ints. Ifs potits-onfants nont pas le droit .IVHrc ,ms en posses- sion do SOS biens avant lour age de umjorite, nmis cos b.ens doivent etre a.lministreeH par les executours testarnontairos, contorm(^.nont k rit.tontion du tostan.ent.-Q B.-Low& Gendey 21 R L., p. 44. »a» In the year 1834, when the Ordinance de MouUvh was in force in this province, publication in open court of a will containing a substitution, an.l r..f,nstrution thereof at full length, in the registers of the then Court of Kings liench. was suffieient.-insinuation in the special book of insinuations, kept in the » noted in full i„ Z^ecmon wwrnicr 7, noted nt thh, n^l.i '-'-^-^^OouH,ukereitr.as,Ja:iC: ' ''"' ""^"^^ ""^ '^ Art.d. m) C. C. provides for the o l . '"^""""' "'^' •"'"""• a K., p. IO->. ^UPKEML Couu'r.-7i>«/^,.«^ ,(• Larue, 15 S. prop'J':rs;u,::;t:ir;;;;"t;.r '^^-^ --'-' -^^^ ^^« •W'sition to tlu. .seizuro tl,c'r ! f" I )' ^ "'" '"^^''•"■^fc t" "'"ke an • 'li-. . o. , p. ,J!Ji_ "■ •'. <^.. ^ B^ a, „, , , _ o„„„,™?:„ t-raron xs^r/r "«7. Qu'un cremcier frrev*^ icaur vc. .liivierge, noted in thi,>- Supplement at article »53, decision number 4. »52 Where the will creating a sul)stitution expressly authoriz.'tl the executors, if they saw tit. in making the division of the estate, to sell any portion of the substituted property and divule the proceeds thereof the bank. Respondent, on whose register certain shares beloiig- incr to 'the substitution were transferred by the executors, was not bound either under the terms of its charter, 18 Vict., ch. 202, s. 36, Consolidated SuppUment No. l.-Art. 953. 137 or under the terms of the Bank Act to spp fo i\. .mposed upon the executors by fhe wil I^ '1-'"*"^" '^ '^' ''''' tection of the bank in such case t^at th '' '"*"""' *""'' '^^ P''"" appareut qualifications n cesCfor "^%^^«^"^-« P— s all the Stewart & Molsons BankuTVl OP ^^--^ion-Q. B._ PiiiVY Council, 18 L. N., p. i64 ^^ ' P" 11-Contirmed in when the aul.ori.tion t::::^^^:^:^ ^^:^Zf'' ^''T conceahncr the will pr mrr fi 1 . / "-^^ ^"« ^"t"» r''*»'"tlu]ent y a'sowithholdin; fori "fa V" r "'"" <-t yet open) and by the debts oai^e^uccellio Z^Th Vt:r^^^^^^^^ "-'^^-^"^ by the higher courts and is nit 1 iS ," ," S T "" """■"^' 928, decision nun.ber 9.)-PAGNaEio T l r ^^'^f^P'^'"'^"^, at article Oo., M. L R., 6 S. C, ^\^l^'''''''^'^^"f~^ycGr.gurv.. Can ,dalnvest, indicated by C C 953 and ' , '*^"*'"" ^'^^^'^^ ^"^^^'Pt in the manner authorization, on the adWce of 1 f ^ '^ '' "^' P'-^P^""^^' ^'^^ i-^-al of the curator to the :^>^::i::z^::::^::^^^ -r i.p^ ti^Js r r ;r!^:: t^r "■^"^ -- -^^^^^-^^ ^^ de fonds.que.e dernl;:;:: ^ r^^r^^^^P^P- ^^ ^ ' b^'^'-^" i'nn.neuble substitue et cette vente r >fff^r *""''^ ^^'^ ^* ^endre Taschkuk..;, J._Z«^..,. ::.r;;'R":,^ J, 2'S'i;; 5^f '^"^^""• tion en favour des enfant?; t^I::^;^^^:' ' ^'T '' ''^''^'^- ble furent l^gu^s au grev^ I tit r r ''":"""' '''^ ''' '"""^'»- ^diHces const" uits su.S, 'uble n T'^ . ^" •'"'"'''^ ^''^^' '- incendie qui rava.ea unrnartt 7 T IT """' '^''''''^'^ P^'' "" Cette derii^re ayint obt nu ,1 " -t: . '^^ '^ """ ^« Montreal. le but de les rebfttir, Louis ChZl v \r ''""'' >ncondiees. dans jnoyens de relever I'es Z^!!:^ I^d^ fi'/ T T^'^" ^^^ '- ia c,t^ de Montreal et lautorisation dc'' '' '^^"^''''"'^'^ '^^ M \ : gusticc, un eniprunt de $9 600, *'ii 138 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arta. 966-960. grace auquel il fit batir sur le lot substitu^. Ne rencontrant pas I'em- prunt, il fut poursuivi par le preteur. U propriety tut vendue par d^cret et la cite de Montreal s'en rendic adjudicataire pour prot6ger son caa- tionnement. Lc curateur ^ la substitution ne fut pas mis en cause dans cette poursuite. JafJ^ ;-Q^^ len.prunt ayant 6t6 fait pour un cas de necessite et dans Tinteret des app.l^s k la substitution, liaitces derniers et, malgr6 le fait que le curateur k la substitution n eut pas 6t6 mis en cause, lors de la poursuite intentee contre le grev6, 1 hypo- theque. qui donna lieu a la poursuite et k la ventc de I'lmmeuble substituo, ayant et6 consentie pour des causes valables avec I'autonsa- tion de justice, et dans I'interet des appeles, ces derniers ne pouvaient attaquer cette vente pour le defaut de mettre en cause le curateur k la substitution. Que I'enr^oristiement des substitutions, 6tant Icnre- gistremont d'un titre de propriete, n'a pas besoin d'etre renouvele aux tennes de I'article 2172, C. C.-LoRX^GEll. J. -Che/ dit Vadehoncceur VH. Thiviertie, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 486. »5S 1 Decision numbar 2, noted at this article, {Larwe & Rattray) was reversed in the Supreme Court, the holding of which is noted in this Supplement at articles 945 and 269. 2 Qu'en vertu des articles 953, par 3, et 956 du Cole Civil. I'appele pent, avant I'ouverture de la substitution, hypothequer I'nu- meuble substitue, snjet a I'ouverture de la substitution en sa faveur.- CiMON, i.—Hingdon vs. Franklin, 19 11. L., p. 124. 3 Qu'un curateur a une substitution ne pent ester en j"' p. 346. ^''''^'" "^- ^«^*^^^'^^^«'-. K. J. Q.. 1 C. S.. oiw!,!strib?:t"ir",!'^''''T"^^'"^ eonsaor^e paries d.- Lationone:: Lest'n 0^^^^ ^^ t^« ^-"^^ P- »- p. 409. nuiic.-C. R.~Gemer vs. Kerr. R. J. Q,. 3 q S., no constituent pas des droit rTI '^'•'^'^'1 "^'^^o et d'hal.itation nient d'enr^^istrlont n '"' ^ ^'^P"^^'^ ^''"^' '« '"•^"o.n'elle- la defense d'alLrcontV'7d" /"'"'' '^' ^^ ^- ^"'" '''^ '1- encrcontc.uedaas unaete purernent onereux est nulla, 1 140 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arts. 980-981k. ne s'applique (ju'^ la vente, ou un k titre Equivalent k vente, et non a un legs.— Q. K—WelU & Gllmour, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 250. » »0. That as the legacy was universal and per stirpes, grand- children born after the testator's death were clearly included in the terms of the be(iueat, and an action for partition brought, when all thr grandchildren born in the testator's lifetime were of age, but befon- the majority of some of the after-born grandchildren, was premature, Taschereau, 3.—Mair vs. Micir, M. L. R, 7 S. C, p. 229. 9Hia to IKHlr. These articles, constituting chapter fourth (, A) of title second, of book third of the Civil Code, were added by the R. S. Q._They relate to trusts and trustees, and are noted in full in Vol. I, >p. 737 et seq. 9Hlb. The Appellant, who was trustee for certain creditors of a certain commercial firm of Rob.-rt Mitchell & Sons, sued the Respon- dent and alleged a transfer to him, by notarial deed, dated 1 December 1877, by John Ross Mitchell, of a sum due by the Respondent as and for the price of certain innnoveable property in the City of Montreal, sold to him by the said John Ross Mitchell, by notarial deed, dated the 5th January, 1877, and registered and also a transfer to Appellant of certain promiss, -y notes, signed by the Respondent, for the same amount and representing the said price of sale and which were to be in payment thereof only if paid at maturity. The Respondent was a party and intervened in the deed and declared himself subject to the conditions therein contained. To this action the Respondent pleaded that Appellant had no action as trnstee, under C. C P. 19.— Held that C. C. P. 19 is not applicable to trustees in whom property has been vested by a registered deed and to which deed the Defendant was a party.— SuPREMECoURT.—J/iic'Ae/i X- Holland, 12 L. N„ p. 348 : IG S. C. R., p. 687. 9Hlj. See case of Raphael & Macfarlanc, noted in this Supple- ment at article 297 and 1727. 9Hlk. A lease for nine years, with a stipulation that the lessee should have a renewal, on certain conditions, for nine years longer, is. in etiect, a lease for eighteen years an 1 an alienation, which is ultra vires of trustees and administrators of public property, unless specially authorize.l by their Act of incorporation— C. U.—Prdsident et Syn- dics de la Commvune de Laprairie vs. Blssonnette, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 414. ill UmmUalcd tlupptement No. l.-Art. 086-987 m pas «lre ,„is 4 la charge d„ Ht 1,^7 T'°" r,?"""™' LcessaJ/arprlrallTe t.r.nM.r T" """ "''"^' ^""^ "" ■' ""'' own tt ' "itt^Lrir "°: ".° "«"' " "'- ™^-«- ■•" i-- •JO T r^ T curator lepresents him.— Q B— r?,wr.. «• r •1.3 L. C. J., p. 150. iriee7,f' d- I urner, pou/pSUj,r::rfn :;::rn;r"':' '-'-"'^ vention du curateur nnn- l' • T '^'^P''^""^'^ ' '"stance, et un inter- ?'8. Za6e^^, 12 L. N., p. 399. ^>"»*-u!,, j. ^5. i^^^Major ti. Quun mineur peut etre poursuivi pour le coiif d'h.\.\U qm lu. ont et^ vendus et livres, sauf ,son d'roit 3 proul o Hf V exception . ,a forme, de.lllt:^^ ^^X^^.;- P^f-.r capacite du demandeur et cela meme o uandTrf T '''''''" ' '"^ i ■ ''i^H 1 m^^B to I'll ^^^B 142 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 988-989. dtre renvoy^o sur une reponse en droit, raais doit etre consid^ree comtne unc inise en (lerneure de la deni'inderesse de ae faire asaister d'un curateur. — Uouthier, J. — Mercier vs. Mercier, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 479. 9HH. 1. An agent sold a piano, subject to a certain condition, which did not happen. His principal knew nothing of the condition and had not authorized him to make it. They souglit to recover the price of the piano from the person to whom it was so sold, but it was held that the sale should be considered as null, there being no consent on the part of the purchaser to pay, unless the condition happened. — Q. B.—bhaw d' I'crrmidt, 33 L. C. J., p. 92 ; 17 R. L, p. 659. 2. The assimt of a creditor, at a meeting of creditors, to a compo- sition, even if proved, would not bind him to accept the terms of a deed of composition and discharge by which the original claims of the creditors were novated and replaced by composition notes — Davidson. J.— Vineberg vs. lieaulieu, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 328. OSU. 1. A cheque, which does not show consideration on its face, is not conclusive evidence of a debt due from the drawer to the payee, but the Plaintiff must make proof of the consideration for which it was given. In the present case, such proof was found in the allegations of the plea and the proitises of the Defendant to pay.— Johnson, J. — Dufremv, vs. St. Louis, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 310. 2. Where a bon, made to represent the value of a share in a business purchased by the Plaintiff, was endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff, by the vendor, the Plaintiff could not sue the vendor, on the bon, while at the same time he retained the share acquired by him in the business which was represented by the bo7i. — Q. B. — Gridiford & Buhner, M. L. R. 4 Q. B., p. 293. 3. Qu'une obligation, sans consideration, par une personne faiblf de corps et d'esprit et sous I'infliience de menaces, sera declaree nulle.— - Q. K—Kerr & Davis, 18 R. L., p. 194; M L. K, 5 Q. B., p. 156. The above case was reversed as to facts by Supreme Court- S. C. R., p. 235 ; 13 L. N., p. 153. 17 4. Que la remise par concordat de partie d'une creance, tout en affranchissant lo debiteur de I'obligation civile, laisse, neanmoins, subsister I'obligation naturelle pour la partie aiudi remise et que cette I '< Consolidated Supplement No. l.^Art. 989 y^, dette naturelle peufc ensuite etre la cause et .nn "u • dunenouvelleobli^ration civile oonJnr f ?°"^'<^^'-'^tion valable Lockerhy vs. O'Hara, M. L R 7 sT ^.T ^' ^^biteur-JErr,., J._. 5. A draft made bv B P -«r r tu , , to a bank, in payment of another drafTT !^ 'T^' "" ^"^' ^•-•" avor of D. (subse.uontiy dishonored by sTaI^ 7' °° "^ ^ ''' '" bai^ktapaya promissory, note dno I ^^I-) discounted by the which B. P. & B never ovoZl ,' / ''"''^" ""^ ^ transaction by without considerat^or:: t :cl^ .:''-^h f ^ -- i.noran, i^ •^ ^«^«rt« m /?r?/ari^, 17 Q. L. R p 9'? The above eaae .,a, i„,„,.bed i„ „pp,„, ,„ „„, „,,^^^^^ -.>t-„ti:trhfrL7:„:;: '°;s" 'r - "''- ^ "™« the Pl.i„tirt: as margin o"ZL7, "' ''°P°'"»'' "'">' !>"" by "took,, „hieh were beln, «„ Jl'^"™"'' '»« - 'r„,.acti„„,, i^ and which were adu-Ute lly „1 2^,*° '"•°''- '<"• ">» Pl»i»tifr, voJ-utsr::„t;rj,rrrr;'d'"'™; --™- - "> plus effiaaceg pour 1 avortir d.7 , "^ P"'"*^''^ les moyens les -rche de ,a locomorive si 7r^^ '' ^" '^^°-' ^« -L^r L tanees. la responsabiliti de a col/ ^°°'^'°' '^'^"^ ««« ^^^-co^s- lorsquelapersonnebless^e e rouvIfuTir-^T-^^ '' «"^^-* ses fonctions et n'avait commis aac'l ' ""S' ''""' ^'^"^''^''^^ ^^ d'une soci^te d'assuranee etablTe pour 1. '"^P''"^;^"^- ^e r^glement . du Grand Tronc. par lequel c 1^ ^yloy6s, par la compa^nie tion de sa contnlticl' ai ^^ rcT" T'^' ^"'^" «"-^^^- oute responsabiliti vi.-^-vis dluoun ''''r^?'^' '"'^ ^''^''^ ''^^''^^ de d'acdents. est ill,,ale eV^.t:":^ "1 "ne ""%"°''^^ ^ ^^'-'^ coinpagn.e i la responsabiliti de ses d^li. "'"'*"^ soustraire la ^W. ... Grand Trunk RyC^lTq.:: ^s';^^'^'' '■ -arriedanadopteddaurttofj I "'' ^^'""^^ ^'^^^^ I'- -ho had embezzled the bank funis 11^7 '^"' "' *'^ ''^"'^' ^"^ having agreem.nt not to prosecu e iTJ; J'"'" ^" ^°"^'^^^-«on of an -t below, that th! cont^^Ltfon trt:r b' T ^""t"^"^ "^ *^^ ion lor said bond was illegal and J. 1 .' I Tli 144 ConHolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 990. was not liable thereon.— Supreme Court.— (On appeal from tfu S-eme Go art of Nova Scotia).— The People h Bank of Halifax d: Johnson, 20 S. C." R., p. 541. Note.— Sea decision number 8, at article 990 and decision number 2, at article 994, in this Supplement. 9. Some cases relating to debtors giving piomissory notes to creditors, in excess oV the amount of the composition effected with other creditors, are noted at C. C. 993. 1>«0. I. Decision number 23, noted at this article (Verge vs. Verge), was confirmed in Appeal. — 19 R. L, p. 4ns. 2. La liberte de conscience est nn principe ibndamcntal de notre legislature coloi.iak; et de notre droit civil, et est, par eonsecjuent, d'ordre public— Mathieu, J.—Kiiupt-ii vk (Juvadiov Pacific. Ry, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 338 ; 16 R. L., p. 361. 3. Qu'une cession de certains biens, t'aite par le mari a un tiers et par ce tiers a la femme, pendant Ic mariage, ayant pour ofiFet de faire passer k la fenune les biens du mari, est contraire a I'ordre public. (This ca-e is more fully reported in this Supplement at article 1039).— Q. B.—Fonderie de Pic.-<.si8viUe A Dubord, 17 R. L., p. 499. 4. Que le creancior qui, pour signer un concordat avcc son debi- teur, s'est fait r.unettre un biilet, en sus du montant que le debiteur pnyait k ses crean^iers par le concordat, ne pourra exigcr le paiement de ce billet, dont la consideration est illc^gale.— PAONUEm, J.— Lefebvre vs. B rthiaumc, 18 R. L., p. 325. 5. Que le billet en cetti^ cause, ayant ete consent! comme sous- cription a ua fond electoral, est sans valear, i. loi (Art. 425, S. R. P. Q.) defendant tel paiement on promesses de paiement.— Q. K—St. Louin ^■ • Sendra', 33 L. C, J., p. 325 : 18 R. L., p. 160 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 332. 6. The consideration of a contract, between two persons, appointed jointly to a pul)lic office, that one of them shall receive all the fees and emoluments attached to it and pay a salary to the other, is con- trary to public policy and illegal and the contract itself is, therefore, void.— Andrews, J.—Rcmillard vs. 'Irudelle, 15 Q. L. K, p. 328. 7. A promissory note given by an insolvent to a creditor, to induce the latter to sign an agreement of composition, is null and void, Comolidated Supplement No. I.-.Arf. 900. ,45 M- L. R, G s. C, p. 91 ; 20 R L.. p! gjj '^''" '^ -^''^'^«^« ^^«. />uW. niol.iiiers, et ii fVon-s ..n . :'/"'"""•-''. '1 lour remit certains offefq .-e no ,.„,■;. ,,i;,:';;.;:j,:; ,r: r ;:"i;:;r, ^'-"r'™'' ^'™^-«^-™^ une ordonnance do iCgl?,^ "^'^ ""^ •'""'^<^' ^» contravention 4 cette .„is, est eontre^S e pX'^"' ''''"'' '' ^^^^^r..tC\t tion expresse de la loi et quune" .tion no-rr' "'T' '' '^ P-^ibi- sa part d'une .,lise constr'uite dans "e" oZn^' "" '"""^ ' P'^^^- within the .nelTng ofVc TooTnl'! 'J);^ """^'^'^ *^ ^"^"^ '"^''als. punishable under "the cnmin!l ^ " n ^^^ ^^^^^^^ i^-noral as to be been placed in the^.rf..^Z;i: ' /Iv""' t'' *'"^ '^ ^""'^ ^'^^ of the Index, will not afi J th" falfd t^ o7" "^ ''" ''^^^^^^^^^ bookseller wi,h an agent for nroe ' ^ I a contract made by a -i"rst:d^::s:ns:-;- -^^^ .th h. hun a promissory note, cannot, on an action^. JT '' ^''^'"'^-'^^ to recover the amount of the note plead tT. irf ^^ '""'^ '''^^'^' s d'un depot*'*, ou ses nniis, pour I'ubtontion d un eniploi sous lo gouvcrccmont, est nulle.— ClMON, .] .—Rn ymond va. Fraticr, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 103. 14. The plaintiff, alleging that a judgment rendered against her husband had been registered nuninstan ininioveabie belonging to her, a.sked that the hypothec be railiated. The defence was tliat the property really belonged to the husband, who had always remained in possession, the transfer from iln' husband to R. and from R. to the wife, being simulated and fraudulent, and constituting a sale from husband to wife by a person interposed. Held : — That, it b'>ing proved that the wife had no right to the property, her action for radiation of hypothec might be dismissed, without her husband or R. being in the cause.— Q. B.— Curler t& McCaffrey, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 97. 15. That a promissory note, given by an insolvent debtor to one of his creditors, in excess of the composition payable under an agree- ment of compo^ition, to induce ^he creditor to sign such agreement, is absolutely null, and no action upon such note can be maintained by the creditor against the debtor.— Dohebty, 3.— Greene 6: Sons Co. vs. Tobiyi, R. J. Q^, 1 C. S., p. 377. 16. In an action on a promissory nota, by the payee against the maker, the latter pleaded that he owed the Plaintiff' S180 on a note, but that, whilst that note was at the bank, he, Defendant, made a composition with liis creditors, including the Piamtitf, for 15 cents on the dollar, and got a full discharge ; that a fnw days afterwards, the Plaintiff asked him to renew the note for his accommodation, which he did, without receiving any consideration, the renewal note being that now sued upon. It was proved that the composition between Plaintiff and Defendant was simulated, the Plaintiff never having discharged Defendant, and having received the note sued upon as a renewal of the original obligation. Held :— (Johnson, J., di^s.) Even admitting that the composition was simulated, the Defendant was liable lor the amount of the note, he having received consideration for the original note, now represented by the note sued upon, and having specially agreed that he should not be discharged from the debt.— C. K— Collins vs. Baril, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 192. Comcluhted Supj,te„,ent No. t.-Arl. 900 ,47 iriontanfc.lo la composition i„. n ^'"^'t, pruir.Hsoires, en sua du Ju-licie ,uau.K autres e ^ 1^^^^^^^ ["J '^ ^ «f ^"/-'^e ,,ai n. pr^. 35 L. C. J., p. 33. '»°'«'«— LOHANGEU. J.-r,,« y,_ McArtkur. ^or^^"^^^^:^;":^^^^^^^ >es UUets ,ui ,eur Que Ja prohibition "f '^'^"••«' ^^e lender borrower in such election Ts not tTn "'"""^"^ ^'' ^'^ ^'^ ^he provisions oF ar. 425 rs a ''"''"'' •" ^'"'•^ "^ ^^e out of an elect.on.^C. ^■^^^el:::^;^^:'!:;'^^ Q s'Vr^ not support a contestation of 1 o " J- t ^"^ P"''''° P"''''^'' ^"^ Q . 5 C. ti., p. 135. "^^^^^-^'^^ ^«- ^« ^"njz.^ c^z. Peuple.~R. J. 21. Le billet a ordro >i\crr,Li ^ i p pour l„ K„d«c« do son m J °° i ^:'„"' 'r'""',"™ ™^M^»«<>n et Ifalionule, R. J. Q„ 3 b. R., p. lei * B.~R,chanl Ji La Ban^^ ua« question, do peur d. ,'i„c " „i " ° ' T "' ''° ''^P™''™ " i la causo „'„„t auin dr F: ^ yl ^l^" ■/' " ^'^°°'' '"' """" uujtcier a la preuve comm.o illpffale •■TaixT£sitam. 148 CoriHoUdated Snpplfmrnt No. J.— Art. UOO. C. R— /yt Bm'jiw JacjiuiH-Cadui,- rw. Gnonov, II. J. Q, C S., p. 88.— CiMON, J.— K. J. Q.. f) C. S.. p. 4!)}). 23 S.,(Appcllai,t'slinHl..in.l)l.roti<,'ht, an action against Rt, L. Bros, on a promissory nuto I'ur *4,()()(), a renewal ol a note for same anunmb made by S.. en.lorse.l ».y him an.i Iwinde.! to St. L. Bros., alleging that the ori.^inal note had been niade and discounted for the a.conm.odation of St L. Bros Th^ evidence showed thit the proceeds of the note were pai.l over to one D., as agen ■ for S.. to be used as a portion of a provincial election fund controlled by H.-Hdd, affirming the judgment of the court bel.nv, that the plaintitf could not recover, even as- suming a promise to pay on the part of St. L. Bros., the transaction bein.r illeg.vl under .'W Victoria., c. 7, sec. 20(5 (P. Q.). now K. S. Q. art 425, which makes void any contract, promise or undertaking, -n any way relating to an electio i under the sud Act.-Su.'KEME Court. -Damcrcau & St. Loms, 18 S. C. R.. p. 587.-Q. B.-M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 332. 24. La disposition du chapitre 122 des Statuts Revises du Canada, qui prescrit les conditions dans les(iuelles les banqu 'S d'ep vrgne sont tenues de fairo le placement de leurs fonds, est d'ordre public. Le pret fait par une deccs bm^iucs h un particulier, qui lui delivre, p)ur seule garantie de rembo.ir3ement,une lettre sig.i^e par un membredu gouvernement local de Qu^bic a retfjt que ce g,uvernem .nb pa.era a ce particulier. ou k son ordre, une somine d'argent, a une dato future, est une violation de la disposition et, pxrtant, absolument nul. En matiere de repetition de linlu (condlGtio sine ccima, co,vUctio ob tur,^em causam), il f.mt distinguer entre les contrats nuls d'une nullite absolue, ceux qii sont contraires aux bonnes m eurs,ou iramo- raux, et ceux qui n'ont pas ce ciraotere. Lis som.ues dont on se dessxisit en vertu des premiers ne p^uveat pas etre rep6tees ; celles dont on se dessaisit en vertu des seconds sont sajettes k repetition, par application de la regie (lue nul ne pent s'enrichir au depens d'autrui. _Q. B.-Rolland S La CaUse dEcononiie.K J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 315. 25 That no suit or action can be maintained on quantiimmeruit for the value of services alleged to have bee.i rendered to or for a candidate at an election of a member to the Provincial Ligislature.- Anduews, J.—Turcotte vs. Martinean, R. J. t^-> 1 C. fe., p. rfO-J. 20 L'intime. poursuivi par I'appelant sur billet promissoire, a oftert en compensation un coinpte pour eftets et raarchandises allegaes ConsoliduteU Supplement No. 1-.AHs. 99, 149 Election, faito on v-rt,. .le " 1 ' T'^''' "" '"'^PP^'-tHit a u.>u navaifc pa.s ^to encouru pour iCrfn I f ^"' ''"'^ '*' '"'^ «'""Pt« naissait I-.,b|et pour 1.: :r^ t n a^I T"" ^V"'" ' "'^'"'^ «- Statuts Revises -l/ Qu^ e" ^ ,fc tn ' '^';"'""^ '^' ''•"•^'^'" ^^-les cette cause, et or, Tabson. e ,lobiecL n ."' '"•''°"«t'^'»c>.-s de vorbalo <,.t ,sc.condai.v ,|o i J i 'f' ' ^'".P'^''^ «^ -^ '^-t--". un. p,,M.vo 27. An action lioa for tlio valuo of work- I p connc.ct.oa with an elo.t,on contos f^Ir H u ' " '""•''■'''^^^- '° provid..d tho account for tho w. 1. ' ^T" "^' ^^^nnn.n.. election agent w.tlun tbe . '''"'^''' ^" ^« «°^ered by n^akes improvements on a b^i! "' '''"''' ""''^^ «" ''^"^^ a„J part of his h-mits. but Is srbtn " "^ ^'"^^ he beHeved formed form part of adjoinin! limUs h" .7 ?''' -Pertained, by survey, t losses sustained'by acli g n an tndTrlt-T" f '^''^ '""^ ^--^- furnished by th^ Crown prio" to the / t^^ ^'^""^^' *'''"^" ^ Plan Per Patterson. / The licens L's . " ^ "'°''''' ^'^ ^issentinc.) the h-cense. under art. 992 Cc ^^' ^ '' '^ "'^''" *^ ^^"^^^ moneys expended.-SuPitEME CofKT V "? /""X ^^"'Pensation for »93. 1. Decision number TO r,,^f„ 1 ^ ... *«.««e; is also reported intLM.!* "4 or "If ^*'~™ ■* was -::;::?;;r i^.f ^^ ;ioest^s:-:i:-^-^;;rthe.u. ly where the purchaser did no who v '"''''' ^"'^^ P^^'-t'^^lar- 'nents but took ad.ice from dil^e el ^,;!'f,"P«" '^ -"-'-tate- as to the value and did not seek to rtu il'Tf '"f ""''^ -sequently ratified the contract.— Q. B.—MonljMlsir di La Banquc Ville-Murie, 38 L. C. J., p. 317 ; 18 R. L., p. 153. 8. Que la fraude pent rdsulter de reticences, lorsqu'il est constat6 que, par ces reticences, on obtient une chose que Ton n'aurait pas obtenu autrement, en faisant connaitre, a celui avec qui on contracto, le fait qu'on lui cache, sachant qu'il n'aurait pas contracte s'll TeiU connu.— Mathieu, J.—lIalde vs. Richer, 19 R. L., p. 2G0. 9. A sale of substituted property, by authority of justice, is null as regards the substitute, who was not rji^resented therein, where the authorization to sell- was obtained by the tutrix fraudulently con- cealing the will creating the substitution (nut yet open) and by also RIMIEH, J._ Consolidated Supplement No. l.~Avt 993 153 qui est son coanrt,- „„ ' T" *"'" '''"" ^'""'' "='l"«eur Oureau, 20 E L rs ''' ' "'™"''' '°"'"-'^' J^-ff"™'" -^ ^ubiLivj"^:"'™ ir ''t"-'," '" 'r '»^"'' ^ "« -'■'« J ■"•■ vendu, s.l est p„u':f;" '„:• r""''""'''" ■•"■•'"""=' '■"""*■'*'« vondu cet i„„.,eul,k e Z dans "T,™ "" " ™""" ^' "'">"""» tie prut Wnofici,.,- ;,.,ir,i; ,. ° """"'"'""' '''"""''■■M»'rtii>.'. CO ,'ui aumit Ik si ,'a Lf ' '"'""'""''■■' »" l"'':i'"lioe d. l'„„t,, il pouiray avoir li.-u a la ,^! ii • '"«'"""« ™ \ir lequel ilcst vi'ndu.etqu'on ne peut aller au-dela de ce decrefc. — Q. B.—Canad94. 1. Qu'une obligation signee, sans consideration, par uno perse .:ae faible de corps et d'esprit et sous I'influence de menaces, sera declaree nuUe.— Q B.—Kerr & Davis, 18 R. L., p. 194 ; M. L R., 5 Q. B., p. 156.— (R-iversed as to facts by the Supreme Court.— 17 S, C. R.,p. 235;13L. N.,p. 153.) 2. Le demandeur avait achet^ d'un tiers, de ^onne foi, du fer appartenant a la d^fenderesse, et I'avait ensuite br; pour lo vendre conime du vieu.K fer. Menace de poursuitcs crimir.iles, il a'oblige a payer a la defenderesse, $1,400, ce qui depassait considerablement le montant des dommaijcs sautferts par cett^ derniere. Ji-g4: — Qae, q'loique le demaidjur n'eut assumi, pir son a?hit, aucune respansa- bilite civile ou criminelle, cependant I'arrangijrajnt en question consti- tuaiit une transaction, il ne ponvait etre mis de c3be h. cause de I'erreur de droit sous I'empire duquel le demandeur s'dtait engage k payer cette somme pour eviter des poursuites et ce nonobstant la lesi «■ that wMch L hS a r'hZ ^'V'^ "■" """■ ""' " P-''^ ''-f' B. J. Q., 4 C & p 494 = ''"-DAvmsow. J._^.,i„j, „,. h,^^^ aan.Satrjrr/r,'™'"""™"' ''™^"°^ ~""- »PP-"«. droit rnais uene^rUnuL",:,'.? T'™' "■",^' "'" "'" •^» P'^" ..»v^oue.— y. B._K',(,„„^^^^^(^ 20B. L p 285 -Q. K-Lmr}e,nn & Morri,sette, 19 R L, p. 476 the intention 'of the ^:.^:;^rZ^'t^'' ''V^'' ''"' to a condition imposed by a lud'ment wh , """" ''"'« "P'''' '« contract and in this latter ci;Sr„;io„^^^^^^^^ '?'' ''■ ^''''''''' such condition ,nust be consiired -rv^t J ^"^ ti^r. R. J. Q., 1 C. S. p. 191. ^^DHEW.-,, J.-SunarJ. v<. For- 3. Que I'acheteur a, contre son vendeur, Taction on dinnnwtion i ' ! ■ ■ 1 1 ■' 1 ■ loG Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1015. du prix tfc en dominag;cs, k cause d'une servitude ii.O!\ r s'.r rtt to make bhe sami, the :.;'.id lessee binds and '■ u\)\ifC-\ liwusull' to i>!i,y 10 per ceiittom,ver annuiM upon the total cost " fcliui-oof, quirterly with said rental."— J (i,f7fi',-—Qa.; sous cett" clause, il 6tait a \.i discretion du locatetir de faire, ou i.ic ne point faire, les chaiigeitients aus. lieiix loues deinand'^s pir son losu-tiire et que, dans i'e-speee c; dernier no pouv>iit le foreer d etablir utic commuiiicatiun entro plusiem-s inaga^ins contigus que lo lociteur lui avait loues par ce bail— Q. li.—Scrogjie & Watson, R. J. Q., 2 B. R , p. 104. 5. Where a clause, in a deed, is ambiguous and uncertain, the Court will give it such interpretation as appears to be most consistent with the intentio'i of the parties and the equities of the case. So, where, by tin; terms of a don matitel, by marriage contract, a farm, alleged to be then in theo-cupincy of J. M.. (one of the pons v,i tlie husbind) was exclu led from the dm viiitdd. an I it ap^.^■^red tliat this farm was then in the possession of the son under a deed of dona- tion from his father, which v/as subse-juently rcsiliated, and the faun then becair.e again the absolute property of the father, it was held that, the reason for excluding the farm having ceased and disappeared by the interversion of title, it shou'd not be excluded from the don miUueL—C^. B.— Powers & iMartit.d'de, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 145.— Supreme Co rt.— 23 S. C. R., p. 597. lOlff. The cashier of a batik removed bundh lotes from the bank premises i', his residence, for the pur "se . -igning them, but it appeared thar, hi bro\ight thein all back, Uid, s'l^sequently, in his office in the bank, he put a number of . notes in the bundles, ammUd,.,ed Su„,lemenl No. /._4W,. l,„S.,oro m in:: :l: r„r r:,;':tt: t r- ^rr "- - negrh^nce on the part „f ti.e CnTi. \ '^-"'^'' ^^'''' ^^^« "« of the co„t..ac,an eriu.e of en,- on the pan of ih^t^^ '^T'^ ---ting to en.be.zle..enf. policy. These words" he poll vt? TT' ','" ^""'^^"^"^ ^^ *'- or vulgar sense, as otherwl e't^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ '" "--■ -"inary bo without etfect.-Q B -LorlZ r ''^-^''^bonesty " would Hochela,a Bank, R. J. Q., 3 B R, p.^r'""'" ^"^^'^ ""^ ^^ ^''^« c^...rwaJr^::::;sri;zf rih ^^ ''^r^^'^- ^^«^'- - ^- evidence had been ad^i^ed^^TsQli^^^^^^^ ""'"''"" '"^°^' pay.'^: l^r:::;^:;:.^^^-!" ^r f- nepeutexiger d.tre confor...entason contrL. etqTe^ntd ItT"' T '^'"■^"^^'•«"^' tions dans le temps fixe par son conta " f P ''°"*'^' '^^ "'^'^-^^- entreprendre le cheu.in par un ^mf Compagnie peut faire biiit. vis-..vis aupr::nre;:en r rr^rr'^^^T"^ ^^^P""- quune compagnie de ohemin de f!rdmett?a d ''r. ^^^ ^^-'^nu deposera entre les mains d'un dLosU debentures, et les pour lagarantie de ce dernier TnT ;:::;:'"'"' P'"' '^^-P-neur. clepo.sitaire.-Q. B.-.Wo. ^ L" f"; ' .^ "'";"; '"-"'"'^ ^« Canadien, 21 R. L, p. 168. ^''^''^^^^^^/cr^i/anii^^e RespoZts'to!i^trth:tx^V" ^^^^^™^"^- -'--^^ ^^^ y her. they were resronTble fo. tT " ."'' """""'^ ^'^ '''^bts privileged, or mortgage cE a '!';?"" "?'"''"'' ''""^'^ ^^ a Ross, 16 Q. L. R, p 271 ^ ' vesseJ._Q. B.-Samson & Where he has th'e 0,^::^'-^:^ ^xi t: ii: r ,r'"' r ii-u^eu 10 mm, ui selhng the 158 Gonsolidated Siipplement No. l.—Art. 10^3. same (in default of fulfilment of conditions of contract) either en bine or in several lots, the Court will not interfere with the exeioiae of his discretion, unless it be clearly shown that the creditor would not be prejudiced and that the debtor woald be benefited by such inter- ference.— I'AGNUELO, J.^Little ct Dundee Mortgage and Loan Co., K J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 2m 3 Dans un contrat de jrarantie donn6 a I'appelant par I'intimee, se lisait la clause suivante : ' The bank, as a.lditional security tor the " payment of the interest, hereby guarantees that the same will be " promptly paid to you as the instalments of interest fall due, provided " always that the bank may, after the payment of any instaln.ent, " terminate this guarantee, by notice to you in writing, three months " previous to any foUowin- instalment." Ces paiements devaient ^cheoir les 8 fevrier, inai, avril et novcmhro.-Jugp, intirnmnt le juc^ement de la Cour de premiere instance, Bosse, J.. dts.sevtiente :— Que pour mettre fin a cette garantie, la banque devait donner un avis de trois mois avant le -commencement d'un " instalment" et nonavant I'echeance de cet " instalment." Ainsi, un avis donne le ler octobre ne .surfisait pas pour exe.npter la banque de son obligation de garantir le versement echu le 8 fevrier suivant.-Q. B.-CVo«8 & Ontario Bank. R. J. Q., 2 B. U.. p. 3G3. 4 Dans la lettre de garantie en question dans I'espece se trouvait la stipulation suiv mte : " It is understood that you may grant any « exlensicms of time for payment of said goods, or balance of account, " or renew any promissory notes, or bills of exchange riven therefor, " without pre/udice to this guarantee, which is to be construed as a " conlinuincr guarantee and to remain in full force until detirmined by " notice in writing given to you by us ; and upon giving such notice " we agree to pay whatever may tben be due or accruing due to you " by the said Max Goldberg to the extent aforesaid of $1,500.— Jo it n-exi^C ttr ^7^ '^ T '^"""■'-"- -'-^-r; -^cm/e ...71/.7««f.«., m. L 1^7 S C p 2?5 '"''■~^^'"'"'^"' •^• the Grvernment^orcfnarLVrirn T *" '"'^ '''"'''*^ "^" ^^5,000 to Defendants, wl„-ehsecuri;r:,^:i7^^^ by the •nent until the contract sl.ouTd be fXl ' " "^ V^*^"''^ "*" ^^^^ «--°- to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $2 000 " ^'^'"'"''^"^^ ^™ «hoUd bo released. Bv arr n^lf .^T "^""""^ ""^'^ tJ^^^'^curity ;leposit receipt for SlS^olThftrnk?'' "'^ ^^^'^'^"^^ ^-"^. a General, which sum was nlaep, 7? "'''f'*''''^ ^'^^ ^^^^ 1^^^^^ and remained under hrcont ' H^^ ^f !^ ''^ ^^^-n^- Bank noted in this Supplement at C.C. 1805 ihluJJ ^f'"" '^^ ^'^^-^' the tadure of the Bank, vvas a loss fi V ''"^"^'*^^^00, by and not by the Plaintiff and tlLt htpi.nVft""' '^' '''' Governn.ent the $2,000 per annum fron tl l l^f ? ! "" '"'^"^"^ *« ^«««v«r tonder back to him of the d.n > ^"*'' "^^^^'thstandin.. the ^heBank;thatthete LontSt^^^^^^^^ "'^ insolvency at the Exchange Bank wTre lit '^^ ^.'-ntiff obtained the c,x.lit ''a^ in, furnished what was accepted tlirP ''' ■""^' ^'^^ ^'-"^^ff to cash at the time it was giten thaftl ^^^'^""-'"^ - ^q-valent '- books of the Bank t! the 'c d t of th'T' '""^^ ^"^^^^ ^ ;pos.t thereby became a debt Sue L the B T""' ^""^^'^^' *'^« (general and was at the ri.k of thl n "^ '° the Receiver- ''^^^mt. m Giii,^^, M. L. K, 4S C. p 22r'"'"'"*"~^^^''''*'"^' •^- - -I«lt Zr I^r ^° ^^^-' '^ ^'- «"P-e Court was refus- 7^-!''^t'p;:t::7^-x':h°'^ -----o buy from .ppei;^:--:—^^^^^^ #«% •mm ! . 1 160 Consolidated Sitpi>lement No. I— Art. 1026. for his factory, i 'i'^ cords p<-r month nt %\ per cor.l advance on co-i price. V, * -ought the baik in his own r.ame, and it was piled on h.s lai.d, where a certain .|U..ntity in (piostion in this suit, was n.c.sired and specially identiHed by Appellants, M., having afterwards beci>ine insolvent, Appellants claimed that they were entitle.l to have the bark so measured and identified, and seized it in the pos' ession of M.'s cuntor. Hdd : That although M., acinar us agent for Appellants, purchase ' ^uebark .a his own name, and it remained in his possession, yet the whole tnunaction being in good faith and there being no suspicion of Ms insolvency at the time of the transaction in question. Appellants' right nf property in the bark so measured and identiHed was perfect without delivery, and Appel- lants were entitled to revendicate the same from the curator. .Lppellants also purchased at one time a particular lot of bark from il. paying full value therefor. This bark remained in M.'s possession at the tCne of his assignment. Held: That M.'s curator was not entitled to retain, in behalf of the estate, property acquired by Ap- pellants from M. before, but not dolivere I to them at the time of, the assignment. Appellants en» -red into a further agreement with M., that* he should manufacture extract from their bark pileu on M's premises. M proceeded to do so, buL used indiscriminately bark belonging to Appellants and other parties. Hdd : That it being impossible to identify the extract manufactured from Appe' hints' bark, they were not entitled to revendicate any portion of the extract from the curator.— Q. B.— Church & Bernier, R. J. Q., 1 B. R.,p. 257. 1026. Bf^liveau vondit au d fendeur, Michaud, 50,000 briques a prendre sur un ,>!us g. .nde qu, ,;it6, pres de la gare du chomin de fer ; H fut convenu, d'apres le defendeur, qu'il irait prendre la briiiuo k son besoin, et en tiendrait coinpte. Beliveau fait ensuite cession de ses biens. Juge. i. Que cette '.nvention I'l point pour effet de rendre le defendeur proprietaire do la brique vendue .^an^ comptage ; que la vente n'est parl'aite, quant av^ 'i ■rs et no-nmement q'lant aux creanciers du vendeur, representee par le curateur k la cession de b ens, que lorsque les chose it d, venues certaines et determinees par le comptage (art. 1 474, ( .) ; le le defendeur a yant pris pusses- Fion de la brique, apres la c^ ion de l.ien.s, est tenu de la remettie, ou d'en payer la valeur au curateur ; 2. Que la compensation etant inad- missible, la valeur de la brique doit etre distribute au nirc la livre entre tons les creanciers.— C. li.—Archambault vs. Michaud, 1 R. de J., p. 323. Cm,mlUl,ilM Si>n,lemnl Wo. I.^A,-,. 10S7. |e, .rat r';,i*;:;,:'"::f *:•'■:' '»' ;"'H.-nto,,..„ti,„„„ „„„. et -lout la vente „a .^^^^ : :" :^'':n;; T"^' 'T"'^"'''^ -"'^^ la «.usi.., est sans erti-PAcssx-Kl j ' / . ' ^""•^^'''^tre.nent. apr^» et de l,onn. r,.i doTi Lo '.fl '"'' ''" "' "' P'™"'"" -t'>^"« p..st.H.„. , eeiui d:^w!^:'^ j:r .: z T'' ''^""'^'^'•'" ^^^ am-ait on tradition^Rornir ) ;"" ''"" '^ •'*^'-"'^«' 2 C. S., p. ] 28. ~ """ " "■'• ^''Mngois. R. J. Q., ■HMt les ,|„alit,-.s ,1,. V,., ,t, , V , . ^ ' ''' ■""■'•"' " P' ctive. .enuit,.,J.eo„d to t wL 1 '™ J'™%"1''''' '«''""' '" P™ - gees »ur le,, chars ,„x station, de .« ,l.u. ™ l! f ' °''"'- 18S.;,. Parent aj.a„t fait p,,eed,„. .„„"a„ej ;;»'■;'' '""""'•• '""' -esun^e do Parent, et In p^yT 7 2 ^ XT ? i"'" """'"""• coreo,n^ ..ouvant etro regaei la f„i I, ?T<1- 1""""" '^e- i Q«" lexpMi,i„„T„ f n ":»„"' *"t'"-"""" ''e fappelant bes„i„„„ la lalieation :t a trXe-T'ro IT °"' f'™"' '»' q>nl y avait ct.mpris les 359 o„nI.« 1' ^ ^ ' ^reanner.. et r-fc et n.cla,n^,-ent la dite eeorce dans^ e ^T '^'T' creanc,ers.-J.r;«.. Q„, ,, ^,„,^ ^^^ plre't^ ■■ "''' " une vente parfaite entre los parties • nueles inh" '^^ '"'' ''^'^ pHs ni obti.nu, a. ou avant la'date "; ' I ut t d"."""""' '"""'^ cation faite en cette ca.i^P l„ ^ • ''•^'''''*"" ^^ ''i sa sie revendi- p.- le droit d'obtenir Ir^s oonclusill I I ^. '' °' '""'' '^^""'^'t 168 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arta. 1028-1031. la dito intervention, lt!H intim^s Re trouvaient sans droit— Q. B.— RocheUr <& Ml Her, 17 Q. L R., p. 164. 103M. Q If la ( onvontioii, dans un acte de vente, par laquelle I'acqu^reur s'obligy a payer toutes lea hypoth^ues aH'(<'tant le terrain vendu, no donne pas aux cr<5anciers hypoth6cairos urjt- action directo contre racqut^reur.— Brookh, 3.~Parkcr vs. Lamournix, 17 R. L., p. 705. 103!>. Persons named as beneficiaries in policies issued wliile the Act, 29 Vict. Q., cli. V7, was in force, have no accrued or vested right, within the meaning of 41-42 Vict., ch. 13. and the revocation and tho re-appropriation ina'le in 18S0 were vaHd. In any event, under Art. 102!) C. C, the husband had power to revoke tho .stipula- tion for the benefit of the wiff, so long as she had not signified her iussent thereto.— Q. B.—Rees 23. "rrantoi- c. R- (?„„(j„ „, Srune™, 16 Q. La 5. The privilege grant>>d b- Art S'T'i n n d Art 507'} R % n 4-^ , / • «''^. <^- C. P., as amended bv .l-Herron vs. Brunei, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 318. i^OHEiiTY, 164 Consolidated Supplevient No. l.—Art. 1032. 6. The privilege grHnted to the lessee, by Art. 873 C. C. P., as amended by Art. 5973 R. S. Q., of subtractini; from the sale under a mixie-gtigerie. the etteets mentioned in Art. 556 C. C. P., may be exer- cised by a third person, who is the owner of effects on the premises leased, which cfficts, had they belonged to the tenant, could have been withdrawn by him.— C. II.— Brophy vs. Fitch, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 175. 1032. 1. Decision number 4, noted at this article, {Porteoua & Reynar) is also reported in the 16 Q. L. R., p. 37. 2. Decision number 18, noted at this article, (Black & Wcdker) was affirmed in the Supreme Court.— M. L. R., 4 Q. B.. p. X. 3. Que la veate d'un immeul>le, situe dans les cantons, faite sous seing prive, ne sera pas annulee, comme faite en fraude des droits dcs creanciers du vemleur, si le venJeur t^tait soK-able au temps de cette vente, et ce quand meiiie I'acte de vente ne gerait enregistre qu'apres que le vendeur fut devenu en deconfiture (C. C. 2090.)— Q. B.— Eastern Township Bank & Bishop, 17 R. L, p. 161 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B. p. 216. 4. Que I'adjudicataire de biens cedes par un debitour insolvable, qui aura contribue a eloigner des encherisseurs serieux, dans le but d'ac^uerir les biens pour I'insolvable, sera rcsponsable aux creanciers de I'insolvable du montant de la perte qu'il leur aura fait eprouver — Q. B.— Jacobs & Ransom, 17 R L., p. 323 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 260. 5. Where a person, who is notoriously insolvent, transfers a policy of life insurance to a creditor, as collateral security for a pre- existing debt an«l the amount of the pol cy is received by such creditor after the death of the assignor, any other creditor may brinir an action, in his own name, against such assignee, to set aside the assignment and to compel him to pay the money into Court for distribution among the creditors generally.— Davidson, J. — Prevticc vs. Steele, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p 319.-C. R.— M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 294. 6. Qu'un creancier chirographaire d'un donataire peut invoquor le defaut d'enregistreinent d'une donation entrevifs consentie pur le donateur, son debiteur, en fraude de ses droits. — DeLouimieu, J.— Leolaire vs. Landry, 19 R. L., p. 343. 7. Qu'un acte de vente ou cession d'un immeuble, consent! par Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Avt. 1032. les tin insolvable, en exi^pnf inn J'««« ten.ps ou il nCit past",vaZ nT"' " '"''"""^- '"^'^ ^— eunciers.-y. "^.-PHfordaxne & Barvie, 19 R L p 501 OAGNL, J. -DtiBerger vs. Roy, 13 L. N.. p. 402. uioiis— vnl..ii- nne les dn.iu „„, I.. ,.,'.,■ I'".''''"^""!"™', ■! ■>' pout faire Si „„ Ltedo V trk *:!;'■'■ '''"fr p™--"".- v«i.,ir. p^uv™. .„ <,.„„,;;;:„„ r; ;:;:"; ™r::'''T "'""••■'■'^ r.-ceived the proeee.ls of it Tin , '' '^' "*^ ."* ^''« ^''J*^' and hi.i.M.lf of .he creditL^ not , dcM : "h <""""'"''""'''^'^'- -"-'v rath r to .Iisintere;:h- ^;f^ r; J'^ .t'l^'l^ <^^ 'l^ -»%, ^.ut bad. into the debtors ostaL-!!; ; :'r''i';";,^''-'''f ^----i^ 2 C. S, p. 7■,"■ "»l. ""Hw Stli January, 1834, D Pt fll tv, p ,' . transaction was not made known to i>. et al., the Respondents, who, on the Uth January 1 ^S1 i , sum of $S nan +,^ T *^ ui 1. ^^" "^""**^y. I08+- advanced a faded to pay the second instalm-nt of his notes D eta who ^ 01 tneiigntsot the debtors creditors Hell vc^xr>^r-<^.r..^Z • j , c cTtr """>;'•'"«"'«'<' "y one y.„ ta„, a.t j.J '^2 ;* C. C.,_S„P„„E CoaKT.-i!,»w * /)»^,„, ,0 g. c. R p. 53, RailJlr'"' ""'P™''?''' <>b'«i"«i. "gainst th, Montreal and Sorol Ka.Iway Curapany. a . ndgment tor tile sum „f <«(17^ , 1 \ "s — ' " writ of ;„,,,:„„, »„rt:.r, ,:.,:*:;:", way property of the Montreal and Sorel R .il„ay. the A™ ,11 1" were in possession and working the railwav n|.,l, , 1 "PPf """"■"'"> .t-..oen,ent in writing, to be entUlelt " Z pt^ 'J'^^^^^^^^^^ p™,.erty pledged to ti.en, fo, the dishurseme^t eT , IT ^^ d "f *;: S'^Thf' k* '■"r "^ '*- ■'"■" °' «=■«»»'"«''■ oi tnt Ciiiei 1ft. 1 he Respondent conteste.l tlie oDnom'hnn Tk Company ™ hnnhened witirdih^a^^L" ne U e:lt;'' "l";i^ 16S Consolidated S^ippkment No. l.—Art. 1032. U> place the road in rnnninf? order, etc. The amount cla,imed for dishursments, etc., was over S35.000. The Superior Curt, whose judg- ment was affirn.e(i by the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, dismissed the opposition ajin de charge. < >n appeal to the Supreme Court, the Respondents moved to quash the appeal, on thegrovmd that the amount of the original ju-lgment was the only matter in contro- versy and was insufficient in amount to give.jurisdiction to the Court. The Court, without deci'ling the question of jurisdiction, heard the appeal on the merits, and it was held : 1st. That such an a'greement must be deemed in law to have b-en made with intent to defraud and w IS void as to the anterior creditors of the Montreal and Sorel Rail- way Compatiy. 2. id. Tliat, as tiie a.tedness. T lu " , e. I ir l^^'""' T""^^' ^^ ^ P-* <^"e party. In an action rXs^^ tran^f ...e, I the receipt to another »-ve her condemned tol i^ un^u " '"'!"', '' ^'" ''""^^^"-' ^° of the ,oods represented tr^^^;I;P^:;^r:V^^'^^ *^-'^'- warehouse r. ceint f., .0.,,. . , ^""^ ^'^"^ transfer of a ».. ..,„awf„, .c;:';:."::^ ::r . ::;:,tT'"r' '» "°' ■■■■ ■■'-« «,^c..ti»..«, ...V.,. „,„.,. .„„, ,.if ;-;•: -t;:,,2-^ ^he of the ,„ds „„„ had dispZ; ,.';;:■:: r "'tT: "■"--- the value of lIlB o-„„d, ,„,„ ,,„, I , , r "P ""■ '■'■=''l|'t, nr pay ..>Jtriv.!r.if;**''.i'"r """ """'"""='"»"'•'"- ■« ...•i» .want I„ te.np, ou l„ .U-Zt I vZ w «>.'.™neme„t, 2. Que la donation de menbles de mir.. , e -^ iMt de ,„aria;,e par le f„t„r ep™ 4 atrT ' ''''"' "" '""" i titre gratui et ..ue »i aa temnH I i'"■'^''P'"'«■ ™t .m coatrat civaiioiHHdecedeniic,- ,„,K„„M . """"'"• » '" deman ,e de. f..t..re ep„„.„.„„a;ir ; , :; rrir ,''■" ■'"'"'"r'^ "■■" '» 170 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art 1035. 3. Une 'ionation partielle.suivie d'une s^rie d'autres,qui ontpour effet (ie rendn' Ic donatour insolvable, au preuilici de ses crc^anciers, est annula 'Ij k la demandp de ces derniers, aux termes des articles 1032 et 10;{4 C. C— C. R.—lIT 1. VVtuin' a debtor enters into a contract, twenty-three days liei'on! he makes a judicial abandonment, by which he transfers to one oi' his creditors practically the whole of his available moveable property, being at the time indebted to other creditors in a large sum, which he has no m^ans of payintr, it ra ly be presumed that the debtor knew he was insolvent. Knowledge of the insolvency, by the person with whom he contracted, may be presumed from the fact that this person had been doing business with him for several years and had an intimate knowledge of his affairs ; that he knew that the insolvent was indebted to him in a large amount ; that he held over- due paper of the insolvent and that the insolvent was indebted to him in a large amount and that the insolvent was indebted to other parties.— Lynch, 3 .—Letourneux vs. Dufresne, 14 L. N., p. 65. The above case was confirmed in Appeal by the following decision : 2. Where a debtor enters into a contract (twenty-three days before making a judicial abandonment of his estate;, by which he transfers to one of his creditors practically the whole of his stock in trade and moveable property, he being at the time indebted to other creditors in a large sum, which he has no means of paying, it may be presumed that the debtor was in a state of insolvency. Knowledge of the debtor's insolvency, by the creditor with whom he contracted, may be presumed from the fact that the creditor had been doing business with him for several years and had an intimate knowledge of his affairs ; that the insolvent was indebted to Him in a large amount ; that the creditor held ovenlue paper of the insolvent and was aware that he was indebted to other parties.— Q. B.—Gdmour & Letourneux, R. J. Q., 1 B. R, p. 294. 3. An onerous contract made by an insolvent debtor, with a person who does not know him to be insolvent, and whose acts throughout .sh'' "" "le McDongall, Logie & Co., Ll d an. W E K "• ', ''f '"'^ fadure to the extent of mTonn . , ^ ^' '"'^"'''^'^ '" ^^e ^7,559.30 and on 1 th Jutr T '""""^ ^'^ ^'""'^ ''^'^ inP^ -.1- ., , "'•^' Jinlay.son, as ao'ent for W K P ■oft rnth the bank, as collateral secnrify againstV. E I'^indcbt 172 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1086. edness of S7,550.30 on the paper of MeDouiiall, Logic & Co., customers' not- s to the amount of $2,708.28, upon which the bank collected $l,C0:i.43, and still ki pt a note of J. P. & Co., unpaid, of $1,165 82. On the return of W. E E.,anothiT note of John Elliott & Co., for $1,101.83 previously di-counted by W. E. K., became ducat th>- bank, thus leaving a total debit of the Elliott tinns, on their joint paper, of $2,G(J0.53. The old note of $5,087.50, due 1st October and the one of $1,101.33, were signed by John Elliott & Co., and ...i the 10th Augu-t, were replaced l)y two notes signed by Elliott, Finlay^on & Co., and secured by 200 barrels of oil, 140 barrels remaining from th(! origina' numb 'r pledge.l, and an additional warehou-e receipt of 54 barrels of oil, endorsed over by W. E. E. to Finhiyson, Elliott & Co., and by thmii to the bank. The Hespondent. as curator for the estate of VV. E Elliott & Co., claimed that the pledge of the 20'J barrels of oil, on the 10th August, and the giving of the notes on the 16th Juy to the bank, were fnu.lulent pivfcrences. The Superior Court held that the baijk had knowledge of W. E E.'s iu-solvnt condition, on or about the 13th of July, and declain-d that they hid received fraudulent pr ferences by receiving W. E. E.'s customers' notes and the 200 barrels of oil, but the Court of Appeal, reversing in i)art the jucU-ment of the Superior Court, held that the pledging of the 200 barrels of oil. by Elliott, Finlay.son & Co., on the 10th August was not a fr udulenfc preference. On an appeal and cro.-s-a|.peal to the Supremo Court : — Udd, 1st, That the tinding of the courts below of the fact of the bank's knowldgeof W. E. Elliott's insolvency dated f.oni the 13th July, was sn.stained by evidence in the case, and there had therefore been a fraudulent preference given to the hank by the insolvent in transfer- ring over to it all his customers' pajier not yet due. (Gwynne J., dissenting) 2nd, That the a a pas de ,ie„ d„ droit en.« „n agent d'uoe eo„pa«,Ue IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) •% /. :/ 5r /^>^ 4 1.0 !r I.I ::iiiM [if 124 IL25 i 1.4 I— 18 1.6 6" - Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 l\ "^ •1? \ :\ 9>^ ^>\ WrS <^\V"Q ^> m ^ 176 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 104^. d'assurance et une personne qui, par I'enfcremise de cet agent, prend une police d'assurance dans la co.npagnie et quune action mtentee par I'agent contre cet a^3Ur6, qui ne paye pa. ses prunes, pour la part ou le proHt que I'agent doit en retirer, d'apres ses arrangements avee la compagnie d'assurance, pourra etre debuutee snr .lefense en droit. — Tait, J.—Davettiy vs. Hinaiilt, M. L. K, 6 S. C, p. 205. 5 Qu'un contracteur ne peut poursuivre directement le proprie- taire. pour les travauK ordonn^s por le loeataire. et que son vecours n'existe que contre le locataire.-JETTE, J.-Larochelle vs. Baxter, 21 E. L., p. 87. 6 That while creditors, or inspectors, of an insolvent estate, are not ipso facto, liable individually for legal expanses incurred m respect of the liquid .tiou of the estate, and for th ■. payment of which assets .lo not exist, they may mr ke theu.selves so liable by some act of direct authorization or interference, e. g., by consultations with counsel, by giving them instructions, and by advances of money pai-l through the curator. Such liability is joint, in proportion to the amount of the creditors claims against the estate.— Davidson, J.- Lafiamme vs. Ontario Bank, R J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 371. 1043 1 Que celui qui contracte une obligation pour une com- pacmie.quin'est pas alors incorporee, mais que I'on se propose de faire inc°orporer, est responsable personnellement de I'execution de cette obligation, si la coinpagaie, ..pres son incorporation, la repudie. -Q. b. —Irwin & Lessard, 17 R. L., p. 589. 2 Qu'une corporation municipale est responsable du coAt des d^penses faites pour obtenir son incorpor.itioa-C. R.-ArchamoaaU V8. Corporation de la ville des Laurentides, 19 R. L., p. 266. 3 Que des personnes qui permettent que Ion se serve de leurs noms comme directeurs provisoires d'unc compagnie projet^eaux tias d'obtenir du parlement un acte constituant cette compagnie en corpo- ration, et q-.i signent los requetes a cet eff.t, sont respousables du paiement des honoraires du proeureur dont les services ont ete rebmus par le promoteur de cette compagnie.-Q. B.-Auger & Gornelher, M J. Q., 2 B. R, p. 293. 4. L'avocat qui a ^t6 employ^ par une partie des contribuablcs pour voir a la redaction, aux amendements et k I'octroi, par la Legislature, d'une charte de ville, a droit d'etre remunere de ses !•( |i Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Arts. 1046-1047 177 r^^U Corporation * La^Uute. I R. do K^m'^K^'^raZ^ vpresente, nest p^, to„u do payer le'pri. de cho.es veX, 1„ dTb F M^-^wnis, et ,,„i „„t ete incorpories 4 ImuneuWe -OR I tit B:r»r:t f c;;;r '- •'°- " "■ ^^ " - - L. p. 637 ; M. L. E., 6 Q. B, p. 77 ; 35 L C I p «5 '"^^ " ^■ lie „e sur le toit de la maison loufc. comme il est obligi par la loi fait enlever cotte neigo, pourra rocouvrer du loeataire L irl , 1 '; h taits pourcet on ivement —P.ir , T if j „ P*"^ ™' ^ ^^ f nievement-GELl.. J.—Hu,dmn m. Bai/nm, 18 R L., acemalade en conformite de telle requisition.-DELTRmiEu T h)re8t va. Cadot, 1 R. de J., p. 17a x^^-i-orimieh, J.— ....ntTartioleny "' """''^ »• ^'-.. noted in tKb S„pp,e. 2. Que le curaleur i, uno cession de biens pent intenter nom- ]. Iienehce des crSanciers, faction paulieune reclan,«^r„ ^ .IWgent pay.e par I'insolvable 4 r„^n de srcr/:!" Ir^L Zre' Pktni., .8 E. L. p. 509.-C. eL.9ELp 184 ■""''""' "'• ^|. La declaration allegnait quen avril 189], le gouvernement w tml"s 178 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 101^7. provincial desirant payer certains subsides vot^s en faveur de la compagnie de chemin de fer de )a Baie des Chaleurs, et voulant que ces subsides fussent d'abord employes Ji acquitter certaines dettes anterieures de cette compagnie, nomma un mandataire, qu'il chargea de faire ces paioments et qu'une lettre de credit, au niontant de SlOO,- 000, adressee k la Banque Union, fut mise k la disposition de ce man- dataire pour jet objut. Que celui-ci la deposa a la dite Banque Union et, le menie jour, fit a lordre du nomme C. N. Armstrong cinq cheques ('.e i!?20,000 chacun, et les lui remit dans le bureau du defen- deur, et qu'immediatement les dits cheques furent endosses etdelivres par le dit Armstrong au defendeur, ians qu li ne fut rien dii a ce dernier. Et le gouvernement demanda le recouvrement de cetti' somme du defendeur, par action en repetition de I'indu. Juge :— Sur defense en droit, que Taction ne d^montrait aucun lien de droit entrc le gouvernement et le defendeur, et ne pouvait etre maintenue — RouTHiER, J. — Casfjrdin vs. Pacaud, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 89. 4. Que les banques ne peuvent charger, sur les billets qui leur sont presentes pour escompte, qu'un interet de sept par cent par an. Que Ir. prohibition de la loi, en cette matiere, etant d'ordre public, celui qui a paye k une banque un interet depassantle taux fixe par la loi, a droit de rep6ter de la banque le montant de I'excedant.— Pagnuelo, J.—Banqae de 8t-Hyacmthe vs. Sarrazin, R. J. Q., 2 V. S., p. 9(3. 5 A party who receives money from a Sav Bank, on a con- tract that has no legal existence, is bound to retu.- u under art. 104." C. C. which provides that "he who receives what is not due to iiim, through error of law or of fact, is bound to restore it." — Andrews, .1. Langlais vs. La Caisse d'Economie, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 65. 6. En matiere de repetition de I'indu (condictlo sine causa, condictio oh tiirpem causam,) il faut distinguer entre les contrats nuls, d'une nuUite absolue, ceux qui sont contraires aux bonnes moeurs, ou immoraux, et ceux qui n'ont pas ce caractere. Les sommes dont on se dessaisit en vertu des premieres, ne peuvent pas etre repetees ; celles dont on se dessaisit en vertu des secondes, sont sujettes a repetition, par application de la regie que nul ne pent s'enrichir aux depons d'autrui.— Q. B.—Rolland d- La Caisse d'Economie, R. J. Q., 3 B. K . p. 315. lO-iS. Decisio7i nitmher 17, noted at this article, was reversal in Appeal, where it was held as follotvs : m n ii Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Art. 104^. y^^ ^^^^^'^'^l^^^^^^^ ^°-f ^ -^ ^^y -hoc, fo. received fro. U. .ure^T, ;t;^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^"'^ ^ ^^^"^ ^^ instit,ution within the nLniL Jc S T r ^'^r" '^"'^^"'^"•^' amended by 41 Vict cap 6 3 9fi ^^ ' '''P ^^' '''■ ^'^' § 2, as municipal Tnd school ^'wh; T^iZ'^^^'^'^^-^^'^P^ ^•-- 90 created, money has been n«n ?' '^"^''^^^^ ^^ tl'e exemption be recover^d. In such a tion T ^''^ "P"" ^"^'^ P^'^P^^^^y' ^^ -ay had been nnaelo^lXlZT^' ^^ —"eg^cl that such paymen^t voluntarily, but thr^XLToVlL^:^ '° '^^^ ^^^^" --^'• the declaration conform w th tl^ Z ' '" '^'"''"^'^^^t *« '"ake to change the nature oT the If ^ ''^' ""* "" '^'^^'•^*'°" «"ffi«i"nt the casf has blen sub. ^ -T b" ^/^""^,?^- ^"•'"^^' ^^"^ '^^*- imposed for special purposes e a th.'o ^ I ' ' '''*'"'^' ^'^ ^'^^^^ of their property._(Leave to Inta 'If'T^'^^^" ^^ ^ 'i'"-" i" front •4 App. Cas. p.'eeO; 12L N n'28 ' ^" ^"^^ Council was refused. •^8; 16 S. C. K, ;. 3;o'lt-B!'ri::'r^Q^t;^^^^^^ '' ^ ^- p- 3. The Statute, Q. 38 Vict eh 7'i o '!>» limit, of the Zl of St Z ^"'"P''"^'' *PP''"''"t'' "-"hi" tl.e Statute. Q. 40^°t ch 29 ' "^f/'TP' ''■<"" '»'<««'">• "nder had been .ade to the Colil.nL'o^"^ ••«?, although „„ ,,t„™ pr«d&«eur. c„„™,e ' 'Zie „ ''° ''i * ""' '"'"1"'' P"'' »" garantie aceesso.re du remljoursemcnt d'un I, ;i 180 Consolidated Supplevunt No. l.—Art. 1063. emprunfc fait pour son usage personnel, paie la somme ainsi emprunt^e, ne pent ensuite poursuivre .a banque en r6p6tition de I'lndu. Des trois conditions necessaires pour donner naissance a ce recours, savoir : le paieiuent, I'absence de dette et I'erreur dans le paicment, les deux derniers font defaut dans ce cas.-LARUE, 3.-Petry vs. La Caisse d'hconomie N. D., 16 Q. L. K, p. 193. The above case was confirmed by the Supreme Court, the holding of which is noted in this Supplement at article 931, decision number 3. 6 That an asylum for the insane, established and incorporated by an Act of the Legislature, and supported chiefly by voluntary dona- uons the members of the corporation individually derivmg no profit from the institution, is a charitable institution within the meaning ot ESQ 2044 G146, and therefore exempt from the payment of municipal and school taxes.- Q. B.- Corporation of Verdun & Protestant Hospital for the Insane, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 299. 1053. As to damages to property.— See Vol. II, p. 597. Summary of Decisions. Railway AccioENTB (a) General 1 to Id Railway Accidents (b) Injtiries to cattle 14 to .s aucuno imprudence. Le rocdement d'une Wt^ dassurancMtablie pour ses eu,pIoyds par la corpa.n du cidcnts, est illej^al et xdtra vires et ne saurait soustraire la comnacmie a la responsabilitd de ses d^lits ou quasi-d^lits.-jEm' J JZ X. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.^ R. j. q., 4 q. g., p. 392. f). Une compagnie de tramways qui fait conduire ses voitures k cndroit ou le char prenait une voie d'^vitement, .ngage sa responsa- Other cases arising from accidents caused by Street Railvvav Companies are noted in this Supplement, at this article un the ^^^>^dmg of Street Accidents. "^ auicle, un , the la UActedes chemins de fer (CanadaX 51 Vict., ch. 29, article 2i2, ex,ge que les espaces qui se trouvent en arriere et en avan de aque aigudle de changement de voie, ou de croisement de chemt <^ a tete du rail. Dans 1 espece un accident est arriv^ k un accou- plour de chars par suite de labsence de cette garniture.-J.,/ Que a co^pagme d^fenderesse etant en faute, vu^ d^faut d'une gaS tXZtir".'''''''' seraitaventure entreles chars la nuitavec u t lanteme ^temte ne saurait exon^rer la comoagnie d^fenderesse tJ:m!ZtT ^"'«"«--^--urue. V^rdic?d-unjur., r! ?« L!f; Lt r^n Tfi™--C- ^-Rice vs. Ottawa and muntaw Valley liy. Co., R. J. Q., fi c. S., p. 33. :.| I 1H4 Conmliihdcd Supplement No. J.— Art. JOS."}. llAliAVAY AfX'iDKNTS (Iiijurie/i to Cattle), {Continued) :— 11. Wlu'i-o the propondcranco of (>vidf!nce was to tho effect that till' gates at the point where a railway track crossed tho puhlic high- way w.Mc closed and dansor signals displayed, and the Plaintiff s husband, while driving a horse car at a considerable speed, dashed acrainst the gate at tlu' moment a locomotive was passing, and was killed then; was negligence on his part sufficient to relievo the rail- way company from responsibility.-DAVll.soN, J.-Pradhoiawe vs. Grand Trunk R>j. Co., R. J. Q.. 6 C. S., p. 285. 12 The Plaintiff attempted to drive across th.s railway track of Defendant, where it intersected the highway, at the time the guardian was closing the gate-bars prior to the passage of a tram, and persisted in the effort to pass, notwithstanding the signals of the guardian,- the result being that his horse was fatally injured. Held, that the Plaintiff was (ruilty of imprudence in persisting in the attempt to pass, in spite of the guardian and that, under the circumstances, he couM not recover daniages—DAVlDSON, J.-Gendron V8. Canadian PanJ,r Railway Co., R. J. Q., 7 C. S.. p. 355. 13 A passenger meeting with an accident, when trying to alight from a train in motion, is not entitled to recover damages for the same, even if the train did not stop long enough at the place of his destin- ation to give him the necessary time to get off from the train. In such case the passenger has a recourse against the Company tor carryincr him beyond his destination ; but it is not responsible for the pas°senger's, imprudence, which is the direct cause of the acci.l.nt. — Chauland, J.— David m The Central Vermont Ry. Co., 1 R. de J.. p. 428. (b ) Injuries to Cattle ;— U. Qu'une compagnie de chemin de I\t est responsable de la perte d'animaux qui entrent sur sa voie, par 1. mauvais etat de sa cloture, et qui sont tues par ses convois.— Q. B.- Cie. du Chemin de Fer de Jonction de Montrdal et Champlaxn & Ue. Marie, 16 R. L, p. 680. 15 The Act D., 51 Vict., cap. 29, sec. 194, does not so change the provisions of section 13, cap 109, R. S. C, as to make a Railway Com- pany liable when an animal has strayed on to the land of an adjoining proprietor and thence upon the track, where it is killed, notwith- standing that the line of the Railway is unfenced.— BuooKS, J- Morin V8. Atlantic & North West Ry. Co., 12 L. N., p. 89. Conmlidati'd Supptemcnf. No. J. —Art. I0r,,3. iHg Raii^wav Accidents ilvjm-U'.H to Caftle), {Continued) .- D>^A|ONXou,.ty J».Ik..-/.',,//,„,,« ... Canadian Pacific Ry., 12 L. N.. 16. Whon tluMMnploycvs in charge of tlw trains of a Raihvav care a,u prudonco to prov.at injury to them and a n.er. sh.ciTenil. ol spo. vvll not ... eon.si,h.,.e.l sufficient to relieve the.n from s"- It 870 7 \7 """-^""'P"'-- -ith the (.-onsolidated Ilailway Act 1879. section l(, as amended by th^ Act 4(J Vict., cup. 24 se,- f. A Ra.way Con.pany is liable for anin.ais and cattle killed 'or mjured. by ...tt.n. on the track of the railway, in consecmenoe of tl e ab.sence of cattle ,uard.s. without reference tcf whether :«;:, were, as between their owners and the public, lawfully on the hi,h::; -Q. \^~Ponttac Panfir Junction Ry. & Brad;,, M. L. R., 4 Q. H. p. 17. Que dans los trois mois qui suivent la construction d'un chcmin de fer, ou avant cette construction, dans les six mois oui suivent la pnse de possession par une co»,pagrne de chemin de fer pour consru,re ,sa voie et avant quelle ait "-t^ reoui.se par ec it de taire des clotures elle n'est pas responsable des domn.ages'caus ux ammauxdes habitants voisins par I'absence de cloture. (S. R. C ch 109, s. 13;.-Q. B.-Holt ct Mdoche, 34 L. C. J., p. 309. 17a. Quune compagnie de chemin de fer est responsable d'un accident .survenu k un anim- ' ,ui serait eutr^ sur sa vo.e, par sa clo- ^;:z:^^:^tc:\^ b.-c^.....^. ^aan,,a. 18. Re.spondenfs horses escaped from his pasture durinrr the night, followed the highway about a mile to its intersectionrth lie railway of Appellant, which was unprovided with cattle-gua. s rayed upon the track and were killed by a passing enginc-r^ ' here is no common law obligation on the part of raflway^ compf ts o construct cattle-guards and the statutory obligation to do so is oT owards those using the highway properly and lawfully, and not to"^ n is teL: aTr^'"^^^^ ^^ trespassers. ^Respondents anmmls. being at large upon the highway and not in charge of any one, were trespassers; therefore, they did not get upon the railway from a place where they might properly be. within' the meaning '3 I ! 180 Coneolidatnl Suppleineut No. l.—Art. 105,1 Railway Accidents {Injurie» to Cattle), (Continued):— t]w Railway Act, ami. notwitljstanding the absence of cattle-guards, at the intorsfction of the hi-.'hway with the railway, there was no responsibility on the part of the railway company.— Q. K— Canadian IWifw III/. Co., <<• CroHs,H. .1. Q., M H. R.. p. 170.— Lynch, .1.- R.J.Q.- 2 C. S., p. :i(i5. 19. Under st!ction l!t4of the Railway Act, as amended by 5;i Viet., ch. 2H, s. 2, where animals get on to the railway company's proi)erty from the pul)lie road, where they were straying, either by g.>fcting through an open station yard-gate, or by getting over the cattle-guards and are killed by one of th.; trains of the railway, the company is not liable.— Tasciikkeai',. J.— C/roii^x V8. Canadian Pacific %, rv, R. .). Q.,:iC. S., p. «1. 20. The PlaintiH"s hor.se escaped from an enclosed field on his farm, and got on the track of the Defend^ats' railway, where, while running ahead of an approaching train, it fell into a culvert and broke its leg. The Defendants' employees found it necessary to kill tho animal in order to get the line clear. There was no evidence that the horse got on the track, owing to any fault or negligence of tlu; Defendants. In an action to recover the value of the animal— /feid. As the animal was straying where it had no right to be, and was improperly on the company's property, within the meaning of s. 2 of fi:} Vict. (1).,) ch. 28, amending s. 194 of 51 Vict. (D.,) ch. 29, the Defendants were not liable.— OuiMET, J.—Dhij vs. Canadian Pactfiv lijl. (V, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. lcS4. 21. Une compagnie de chemin de fer est responsable de la p^.i-tf de che\au.>c tues sur sa voie par un convoi, lorsque le proprietaire de ces chevaux est sans faute et que les employes proposes k la conduite du convoi out neglige de I'arreter en temps utile, ce qu'ils auraient pu faire facilement, la voie etant droite et les chevaux visibles k une ^x. Canadian PaciRc Ry., 15 Q. L. R, p. 93. ■'-eonam 30. Qu'une compagnie de chemin de fer est resnonsablp H.« .iommages causes, par une de ses locomotives, qui. en traCant un d ses convois, met le feu ^ des batisses pr^s de 'son chemin et qj^un meme action pent etre intent^e, pour ces dommages. par le proprlli^ de ces batisses et par la compagnie d'assurance qui h.i a ^tVsTrogle o., cfe Mc Willey, 17 R^ L.. p, 367 ; M. L. R. 5 Q. B.. p. 122 ; 34 L C •»., p. 55.-SUPUEME CouRT._17 S. C. R., p. 511 ; 13 L. N., p. 217. 31. Qu'une compagnie de chemin de fer est responsable des dom- le tea-Q. B.-NoHh West Atlantic Ry. Co., vs. Betournay, 21 R. L., 32 Une compagnie de chemin de fer, qui a la direction d'une voie lont elle est propri^taire par indivis avec une autre compagnie est' esponsable du dommage resultant d'incendies causes par fes feux . engins de Tune ou de I'autre compagnie. sauf recours.-C r!! Lemieuxvs. Quebec & Lake St. John Ry. Co., R J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 192. 33. L'assureur, qui a pay6 le montantde I'assurance k I'assure a poursefaire rembourser. contre I'auteurdu -mU^-^ 1 . , w- iauLt,i}rerf, 10 R. L., p. 4!H). 39. A municipal corporation is responsible for damages, arising from the bad condition of sidewalks and streets, without proof that it had notice of the defects which led to the accident complained of. Oor idated Supplement No. J. —Art. 1053. uji Street Accidents, (Continued) ._ 28..ec. 15) appiies;„o?onti:tZs':;:r '' ^t ^; '' ^'^^•' ^''p- but also to actions for clafna'es ru U ^^^ Penalty therein enacted. public order and rnay be lI^l^TiCL Tj":""^ "" "^'^'*^^ ^^ the absence of notice by th2 nl i ^'*"":^'^'^*^ « ^'^i^ure to invoke Hability.-C. K-XZoT^^f '?'] "Z' '^ ^beir admission of pour^tti::^:^L^f :t:;^- -P7-^>!« ^^^ ^--a^es ,ue toute Vitesse, lorsnne rien ne dt^M " '"' ''"^' ""'^"'•«' '"^"'-^^ ^ ;^-;o^.e pouJn.^ le ^t^r ;:r:^;;^ Y'T^:^'-^^^ ^'t^e n^fi Montnnl, M. L. R, 58 C 3 43 •' ■—Oadhoi.s vs. n^auvais etat de ces trottoirs, qui ne s 'Zt^ ? r""*^ P^^ '^ coupes de .nani^re , les rendre no^ ^ 1 Z'SI ' ^ T '"' "' devra payer le domn.age qui en resulted IjEXTi ^''^^'^^f-^'"-' f/e Montreal, M. L. R., 5 s C, p 45 '^ —Gould vs (Hte pare on,. co„t„, „/er t„?iti'i J ,::; T': ■: ,"'v"^' ^^ - =vo'i nglit in, the adjoining woD,i»t,n,' ? "Ijl'go'ion o„, or until notifled so to do bv t?,. „ ^ "''""' ""='' 'W^walks, Therefore, where tl eit^ ^. ZJ^T'^''^ 7'''' ■'""' "'"^ cused by a defeetive sMewllt- Tol ^ t T- °'' "" "™''''-"' P«,...ie.or i„ warranty, but faw't a ? "^„ "tCtlC "'■ °^"'"« had been jriven or ^h»^ \i- \ ^ i ^ * "^e required notice »=lion in warranty a Jnst Zb? °"'^ °"""'' ""' """"'<"" •"> -■riv^ dans c tte It^utt^Z,^""?':^"' '*'""'°' •*'"" "-i''""' "taWi que cctte trrch" n^ait oT ' .1'° '' ™'''°"' '"'-^l"'" -' pourvned'„„j,ardie„ Q„e c, vfd -'"d ° r "'"' "™ "'"'"■•'' °» * Ics sjndies des ci.eiiiins 4 barrieros de p-i ^f riili!^ 192 Cimmlidated Suppkiiwnt No. l.—Art. 10r>il Street Accin' nts, (Continued) : — Mo,itr6al sont rosponsablos d'un accidont cause par une ^'^cavation prnti Co. (f- Dedoges, 1!) R. L., p. SI. 47 Qu'une corporation de viUe qui, par ses employes, trace, sur U. St-Laurent, vis-k-vis de la viUe, un chemin de traverse, sur la .lac. k des endroits dangeroux et ou la glace n'est pas suffisante e. •^oupable de n6gligence et se rend responsable des dommages resultan .1 Jcidents causes aux voyageurs par retfrondemen de jt^e gla l-endroit trac^.- DAVIDSON, J.- Prefontame vs. loion of Longmiul, 20 R. L., p. 69. CouHolUated Sapplermnt No. 1 -Art. 105ii. ig;. Street ^cvAmma, (Continued) :— 4f). lJn,3 corporation .nmiicipalo qui, on faisanfc consfcruiro un trofcto.r no ren.ot pas l.s li.ux ,lans I. .nPMno eUt oh ils etaien v " no renu,fc pas un pont sur le |-o.ss.', laissanfc ainsi les dits 1 ^c an -.S;' .'tat dan.o,.eux, est responsablo on ,lo,n,na.cs pour los acc^l '"0 peuvont arr,vor k cet en.lroit, .nOu^o si l^trottoir a ete onstn t con^,rn.,t6 avoc lo r6,len.ont a,lopte k ctte Hn.-c/, _!z>"tl U Corporation de Bmu,port, R. J. Q., 1 Q. H., p. 405. 50. Qu'tnio corporation municipale ost rosponsablo du fait quo lo. nadr^rsd,mdosestrottoirs no sont pas convonablornont ou It quilnesuffitpas^cotto corporation ,lo fairo examinor do tc^Zl autre les trottoirs sous son controle par ses employes ma s ele ost ^o^^lo e la n.,li,onco de ses employes, si cei^l^^:: t^ ^ pa le trottou-s en bon ordre, de maniere a offrir toute slour 1 posMble aux passants.— DeLouimifr T If;//, r, ^"^^^^"^^ the Town of Cnf^ ^, a //'''"''^"f ^'^' •^—Mdls vs. Corporation of im lown oj tote bt. Antome, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 262. pend'Int nXe'''Tr'""' ''''T''''''''' ^ "^S''S« d entretenir une rue W "-i r ' '?'P'"''^'-''^^^^^^ ^ ^'' responsabilite qui result unacodent en plaulant que la rue s'est trouvkdan.ereu.e par su t( .an degel sub.t. son devoir etant do couper la glace e't de couvrirt t o to,rs de condros. Que. noann.oins. le demandeur, un vie la , s ^tan .mprudemnxent engage dans une rue k ponte raide san. gapp" ' t avec des claques en caoutchouc usees, il y a lieu de m tileries dom nages 4 cause de la faute commune des Darties.-P.oScTELo J White vs. La Git^de Montreal, R. J. Q., 2 C."s., p. 342 sPrvi!^!-^"'""" .^''P'^'''^*^'"" municipale. qui a permis au public de so seryn- duneruello privee et y a construit un e.out et numTotlle ':rZZ:l ^-uv^ont.est rosponsable d-un^cciden:^:!:'^ suUo du d^faut dentrot.en du trottoir de cette ruelle.-LoRANGEH J -GMigan vs. La Citd de Montrdal, R. J. Q., 2 C. S.. p. 405 53. As the statute, Q. 55-56 V., o, 50. s. 5, imposes the maintenance li)4 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1053. Street Accidents, (Continued) :— and repair of street sidewalks in the City of Quebec, on the proprietor of the adjacent lot, and not on the city, a declaration, claiminfr damages from the city for an accident caused by a defective side- walk, discloses no right of action whatever in the Plaintiff against the city and cannot form the basis of an action in warranty by the city against the adjacent proprietor, and such an action will bo dismisse.l on demurrer. To entitle a party to bring an action in simple war- ranty, a prima facie case in law against him must be shown by the dismissed.— Davidson, J.— Morris vs. City of Montreal, R. J. Q., 3 C. S , p. 342. 56.— La Cite de Montreal, n'ayn'Ot aucun droit de controle quant aux toits des maisons, raais seulemcnt le droit de faire punir I'occu- pant qui neglige d'enlever la neige et la glace, n'est pas responsable Consolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 1053. 195 Street Accidents, (Continued) .-— d'.m accident arriv6 par suite de la chuto dun avalanche do fjlace du to.h duno mai.so..-BELANaEU, J.-ThibauU m Cit^ de MontrM, R. •'• '^., 5 L>. b., p. 45. 57. Les corporations municipales no sont responsables dos acci- dents caus6s parl'otat des che.nins et ,les voios do communication sous leur contrulo quo lors" Supreme Court of Nova i|ui p'.u\ uiic am vor su- imo rv>iine.v co^ J 1^^ '•?"" '^ "^^^ '^^-^^ "^ '^^^ ^--"-"fc precautions w'Xe '^^^^^^^ t;'"^^'^"; "-•'--^' «?--> -re and 'V safe condition th^cTtv w " ^ JT"' '"^ ^''^ ^''^ sidewalk in was held respon le^^;. ir ^Tl '^ •^'^'^ '""^" °^ construction. Court, occurred! onse „ ""! .' "'"''' '" '^'' «P'"'"" ^^" <^'^« obser^ed-C R-ZZT' T'^' -^P^^''^' precautions not being cross!^- Ai!;S; ttt!r • ^'f ' ^^^ ^p^"- °-^ '^ ^->^ -'-h k.'ep in good order 2 . ' '.'f '^^'.^^^J^' t'^« corporation is bound to width, a^d four f efc in hti!hl f "' ."" /"^' ^" '^'"-^'^' ^^ *'-* - road, is a " dan. ro pla ? t;^:"' f, '""' "•"' "^^•^ ^ ^^'^^ -^ ^^e is responsible treDel^^ ----ee for which neither party .nore especi,diy whe^I tppe^ ^h tt'"' '"" responsibility^ injury was the fault on his n!rt sl vt, TT"'' '''"' ""^ ^^e to protect a bridge bv hl^ •, ' .T *''" ^^^^^'^^^ant neglected startled by the sudden anne '/"u "^' ^'*^'"^'ff'« horse, being bridge, th^ Pia::tiff :r^zr : t\nT -"'"^^ ^^^ ^^-^^-^^ ^^ "^ to the court that the in;ury woul I not ha^r'' '"' ^' ^^^^^^^^ the absence of hand raik the n!f T . . ''" «"«tained. but for ana ,ails, the Defendant was held responsible. -Q. B. I 1 198 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. IU6,J. MAKINE ACCIDENTS.-GENEUAL ACCIDENTS.— -Corporation of the Village of Danham & Oarrlck, R. J. Q., 4 B. R.. p. 82. G5 The Act, 52 Vict. (Q.) ch. 79, s. 275. provided that "if any .. person claims or pretends to have been injured by any acculen or ■■ cl ualty for which he intends to claim damages or compensation .. rom th city, he shall, within thirty days from the date of sue.. .. accident or casualty, give a notice to the city of such -tent.on con- "tanin.^the particulars of his claim and stat.n, h.s own dcnmcde " fa Hn^whiel, the city shall be relieved from all responsU.hty or " ^ y dam u'es or compensation caused by such accident or casualty, " ay a tkl.r.r provision of the Civil Code to the contrary notw. h- .. stamlin.." By 53 Vict. (Q.) ch. 67, s. 9. the above section was amended by s ikinc o,ft all the words after the word " dom.cde and subs- atut" therefor the following words :-" No action or such damages 'or indemnity shall lie an. no judgment shall be rende^^^^^^^^^^^ "action has been instituted within s,x months after the day th. .. : dent happened."-//^./..^ --Section 275. as amende , ^1'- no ;b.y the ri.^ht of action, when notice is not given. The only effect of th. sect on s to render the Plaintiff liable for the costs, if the c, y. when Ted (within six months) without such P-viou-ot,c. a,lm^ liability and offers adequat - compensation. - TAa. O. J. - i yie v.. City of Montreal. R. J. Q., C. S., p. 489. Marine Accidents : -66. H., a steam barge, was going up th. river from the Lachine Canal and O., a propeller, was com.ng down. O signalled that she wished to pass H. on the left or opposite side, o that provided by the rules of navigation. H. replied that she would keep to the righl. as usual. O. turned to the left and carae into collision withH sinkincrher. ff.W : That, as O. had deviated tron. the course ^ll^th: rules"of navigation re,,nred, she was liabh. .or the dam^^.s caused by the colUsioa-Q. B.-Neelon & Kenny, 32 L. C. J., p. 25J. See also cases noted at C. C. 2432, 2524 et seq. 67 GENERAL ACCIDENTS -.-Through the carelessness of the Defendant, a bundle of laths rolled from the gallery of he story ot a buUd^n.. in which the Plaintiff occupied the ground tenement. I fell in ;'the yard with a considerable crash and broke a flower pot wt h was standing upon a table. The Plaintiff, standing at her dour- Consolidated Supplement No. I -Art. W63. 199 Oenkhal Accidents, (Continued):^ «»i- « Z),„i,, „i R. I,. 50', M LR irn''"''"''''''"'-" «- J— «. L. R., 4. ». c„ p, ,M ' ■ ■^- '^- P- ■l°'i-l>AVlDso». ■' Q. B., p. 1,2. * ''-^"'"'' '^ ^"'"«'". '7 B U 1. 2!,', ; „, u K.. ■I-" «-iv^.°,r:i;:;'*':;:::';;:",:'"! "=* »- -p--* ■'•- »cci„„„t . «, iiuit,, tiiuco do luinieros sur ce Quiii n r r i- 1 !inaanl, U Q. L. li., p. 870. quai.— (^. B.—Lejebure ,£• tairo do la Ls:^!^:':^^ cc^fc ocoapaut „e ..ait pas propn.- ..r a iLuaT:': i:;::„:;t:""° """■''? °" '"^ p'^'^--" - »'-p -the im,„oj;t?i;"^r'"r','°°'"''"''°''>'' "•'»''«« 'ha' PlaiMirt- wa, staS „» o„ |, , 1' """ ■''"P™'"'!''- Tl,c fact tl.at - -:^^i:::';r rt-"^r "■"---- heading of Sra.e. Aco,o..., jS,:: ^'^^.^^Pf "-'■ ""J- «.« 72. The Appellants were hold resoonsihlp f.,. .i„ horn injuries sustained h,, f» d ^'^P""^'^'^ ^o^" datnacres resulting- from one of the" Z ,hf '^", ^r^?'^'^"''' ^^•^^' ^^''^^ alighting whilst he wa in the a't of ati:!" k''""° ^'^""^ ^^^ ^^ *-tarl 200 (hfinolidutfd Snffilmnent No. t.—Art. WSJ. (iKNKUAI. ArcMDKNTH, (Continumt J — T,\. .See also ''a-so of Vami^fie vh. Cilif ofMovtrr,,!, nofccl in this Suppl.Mu.'iifc ut tins article uiulcr the \wv\ of SruKKT AcciDKNTS, .Misiuii imiiibor 'M. 71. Tilt* IMaititid'M IiuhIiiukI was dirocttMl to acc-ompimy Dci'.'n'lant's hfli lu.y ill tlic l'a;r^oi>,'f elevator, to an upper st«)ry of tlie hotel. The .l„.,r to the elev/itor was open, hut the elevator itself was not there, and the hell hoy stepped forward to shako tlio wire rope, in ordn- to attract the attention of the operator. The I'lainftfs husband, iniaKnninj,' that the hft was there and that it was aluait to ascend, .stepped into the shaft an.l fell to the hottom.sustainin;r fatal n.junes. lldd.—'nxo deceased, haviiiir been misled by the act of the Defendants bell boy, and by th.- fact that the door was open, and the entrance to the lift, moreover, bein- imperfectly li-hted, tlie company Defon lant was ri^sponsible.-UlM-. J.— Calhoun vs. WindHor Hold Co., 11. J. Q., 4C. S., p. 471. . IF). The Plaintitr, while travelling on one of Defendants' steam- ships, was injured by a barrel which broke away from its fastenin^js, dnrin'i; temprstuous weather. Tt was in evidenci> that the barrel had be(-n "roperly s.'cured, and tliab the aecii«»c/a;//.' e,s'. La CiW de Montreal, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 507. 7(5,/. Que le proprietaire, tenu arontretien d'une cUUnre de ligne, est rcsponsable des dominates, envers son voisin, si, par suite de I'in- suH?sancc de la cloture, dont il est ainsi charge, les animanx .le ce ■•.-,j,.-. p.,,ssent sursa propriete et se rendent, par une barriere ou- \, ^^, <5t c j'ii lui incombait de tenir fermee, sur la voie ferree, ou ils ..e til I Jcr. Qu'une mii^e en demeure. par I'nspecteur agraire de »;vi. vJissement I'r.nicipal. n'est pas necessaire pour constituer ce Ou>,sol,i,lntr I Sufnilrm^U No. 1 Arf. tOr„{. 2OI I H. do ,]., p. 114. * ''" »t-Huncmtki', v. Jorin, , , , , ''"'»"^'"t 'H'st t.) rt'porfc .similar LMs,.H in fchiu Siin 79. Quo lor,s,,u-u„ ,lo,„an.|,.ur nV-taLlit pas ,|u'i| ait soufrort .l.s .lo.n,„a.e.s ...atc^nols. ^ nusoii .los pul,licati.l ,lo it 11 s- pi , sou action, ot ,n'il „.. p..ut tont an plus avoir .Iroit < uv£ .„ I^es mini.,... ,,u„i,p.. ,,j,„„,„, ,,^,^ ,^ -liscussion I'n ^^ P m. un app,.l .1 un ju-romont r.nvoyant.sor, action, .sans frais s.-.-a lui-m,.inon,.nvoy.'. sansiVais.-Q. H__o,t;„i.'/ ,('• r' « r :"•'"* ///. n„l,r.,.,.i; I r, . ^'iii liter a. Lie (I Impri,m"rie cr de PubUcaUou da Canada, 17 11. L, p. 242; M. L. R., « Q. B..p. ,,, '/-mcZ^i. 18 It. L, p. Ii4; y;} l. C. J , p. 29.'} '''• ^.-Irudd .( Kiait, M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 502. 82. In an action for libel, th« truth of the matter charcro,! as iihol nay be plea, led more especially when it is allo^el tl , t U nu c ■on wan ,„aae,n the interest of the public an3 eoncernin: .Is" ot public import. — Q B Tmdrl .(• ni„ vr ■ ■ "o "'iii'i'«rs ^^^^ «<*, M. L. K.. 5 Q. B.. p. 510.- Johnson. J._ M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 83. la an action of rhi '.•-nage.s for malicious libel, the truth of the 'W^. m\'<'' II it ! 202 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 106&. Libels by 'Newsvapers, (Continued): — alleged libel may be plea-led in justification, or in mitigation of daniages.—Q. B.—Leduc & Graham,^. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 511; 33 L. C. J, p. 184. 84. Que la verity des imputations contenues dans un ecrit injn- rieux pour un particulier et qui fait la base d'une action en dommage, ne peut etre plaidee commo justiHcation de la publication de cet 6crit dans un Journal— Q. B.—Trudel & Beemer, 19 R. L., p. 600. 85. A term, not injurious of itself, may become injurious from the intention of the writer, or speaker, in its application. Hence, to allege, falsely, of a candidate for election to the legislature, that he is an Orangeman, in a community where Orangeism is held in detesta- tion by a large proportion of the people, is an injure and gives risa to an action of damages.- C. R. -Noyes vs. La Gie. d'lmpriinene W de FiMication da Canada, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 370. 86 Qu'il n'est pas permis de faire connaitre au public, sans necessite ou sans utilite. les fautes du prochain et la cono publication of a ib 1 nay lawfully ploael the truth of the allogod hb.l and th t ^:. ; publisL in th;ioten.st of the pubUc an. -n-rnu^maU. s ^;ubUc in.port. and such allocations, if duly -^aW.^' , -^^. a sufficient defence in such case. (See ^^^Y^TrtfZ^vX^^^ n.ent at this article under the ^-'-^'^S "^ ^I^> -^ ;^y ^ ^^^^^^^ .„>UNSON, J.-Tnu(d cO Cie. d'hnp. et de Puh^u. Canada, M. J. K., r, S. C, p. 2S)7.-Q. B.-M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 510. no. Que le cur6 plemc„t dicWe, par la ,„ahce ot -cc ' mtu^Uon de „u .^^ ilecteui- a le droit de declarer publuiue.uent qn un <-anJi_ VmmdUaM Supplement No. /.-Art, W.U 207 °n .loputo, c.t"pVil JI* t.l ''d:'"''''"'.'^'""" "''"■"» ""•"■ '-™ briffu,, I„» .,,,,1 ,„„„ ,,„„„„'? «'"-P» >;'»'»"'l. -lont l„ c«,„li,lat 20 B. L.. ,K r„i7." ■ ' ■'°" "-"""■-« "-^Vi„„nt ,£■ ;w,;„, .=j„r„,,-Q, „,_„„,„;„ ., y„t.:t/, ;;' a L™: ,7;""""°' '""^ "■=» '!« «» instruction, aux a it, „ , " '"■ '"'r°'"' ""' '"'' ""' HitHcultd, „■„„ fait „„, 14 „"' „ ' ''"'".' »", """"^ *'■' '"Si"'"""' <1« l« "fi.. de ,'„ppo»or a la confinn.ti" „ d ^^'Zh "i" TT" '"""'"""" l"i. Levant I'offlci'., d:,.-!^;,™ r,"'?™'''''?'''*''''?'"'"'""™''-" «i.ivmntcs.-.J„w. Ou'i nW„ P""'.'"/™'" "liciKi de bui,,ona «t.uni„« ,t.to,„cnt, C uU Pla S' ■"'77'''"' '^ ""^"^"'^ -p-.- of t,. p.ti„„^, a:frr...r' ZLS;:: lilt 6 ' ^ , I, 208 Comolidated Supplertient No. l.-^Art. JOft.t LiHEL & SLxm^y^n.-I'rwile,rd CommunicationH, (Continued) .- an,l l.a.l boon generally known for two n.onths previously. Th« petition wa. mtintaine.l an.l the u>a,nstrates co.nuutnjent nuash • ?n an action ol' .lau,a,n>s, base.l on the statements c.mtau.od »n 1. petition an.l atli.lavits. IMd .-That the Defen-lants. havin- acted ,n ^U^lU on a privileged —ion. and their al.e,a^onshen^ relevant and made with probable cause, the plea ol •l'-^'^^' ' ^^^ -- estabUslu.d, and the action shonld bo .hsnussed.-DAVlUSON. J. LegaaU (w. Uuaidl, R. .»• Q-, I C. S., p. 52S. 1 1 q One I'aocusation port.'^e datis nn plaidoyer, malicieusement et san. canse probable, accusant les .leu.arul-urs, avocats et procureurs nwoir insLue, sans Tautonsation de leurs clients, des procedures e a-avoir perdu, par leur in.urie. leur inhabilite et leur ignorance d a, lo des cause, que les defendeurs leur avaient coati es. const.tue une in 1 et en..a.l la responsabilifce des defen.leur.s.-Par lama,onted, 72:^, (L^c^te. .). d, et Hall, J,. di.senti.Hu^^ Que la main, et ■'absence de cause probable pouvent sinfdrer above case was confinnod by tl... Court oF Review, where it was held as follows:- ' ^ourc ot 123. A party who, in a pleading, accuses another of fraud and <•- us.on. wdl be held liable in da.nages, if the circumstances be It such as would pro,luce. on the mind of a cautious and prudent man a lu.nest conviction of the guilt of the party he accuses In th ,>n..nU c.^, the Deiendantliaving been LgnLnt o^rLn m 1 Hs d btor by the Plaintiff and having himself received the greater '.ut of It, a charge by him that Plaintiff, in taking security t'or tfie 'oan, by way of sale A Hm^H of all debtors property, had act d c. lusively with such debtor to defraud him. the Defendant, S Si T o" "r"f • S^'^-^^'-''^'' ' <^i-"ting).-C, R,_ Matt. '. haft/., K. J. Q., :i C. S., p. 811. . 'f • liT''"" '\" ''^^'"^^"-'^'"i-- 'Vant represente au d^fendeur vi- cau-e de Ughse catholi.ue de Ste-Brigitte a Montr^U, que inlr^ quelle tut parente da demandeur.elles'etait mariee ave 'ce d rnle sans dispense, le defendeur. avec lautorisation du cure de la paroi^ I .t des renseignenients, et ayant appris que les epoux en ques^^n .u.t r te rehgieuse, sans trais pour le demandeur. la dispense reouise I- .letendeur se rendit alors die. le dema.deur. lui pai a Iv sa ^:Zl^\':r:T. '- -'- '-''^ b3a«x-freres,^ui d^ldl r .riuidtl '^^'^"^^•'^*°^- «"" mariage.et le demandeur, s'y ^tant H^lu d ara que son manage etait nul, que ses enfants^^taient ' p ites ill^gitimes et qu'il devait oes.ser de vivre marit^ilement avec - temmejusqu'a ce qu'il ent fait rehabil iter son maria.o X m 210 VouHoMaied Snpphmevt No. /.—Art. Wr,;l LniKi, & H\.smmL-Prhnlt n-issai.t avoc 1 autonsa- tion .In cur.'. .1.. la, paroisso, .-fc .,ue h- .I.Mnan.Uur no p.mva.t lo roch...- cluM- on ,Tsp.M.sal.ilit.^ p.mr sa cc^n.luito .lans l\.ccasion on .,uo,sfci..... QuV.tant prouv.', .pio l.- .kuuan.l.-nr ot sa f.-nuno. pmvnts an . i.-.o prohilu-. sotai.Mit uuu'i.'-s, sans av..iv ..l.t.>nn la .lisp.'nso pr.-alal.lo .1. l'onlii>airo .In li.-u. il ."tait .lu .lov.m- -In d,.n.an.lour, .•atlu.l..,ne mnan., ,K. so souuiottro h la .lon.an.lo ot aux consoils du ,l.ilon.lour. Quo .-o- pondant. lo dcMen.lour s.'.tant sorvi, con.m.. n.n, .m. .lo p.-rsuasu.n dVxpirssmns ot .lo tonu.-s ,lo .•o,n,mmis..n inutilonu-nt sovoros ot ..xa-M'.r.'s il n'v avait pas lion, s.,um los cim.nstanoos, .laconl.T .Irs tVais an iuM'en.lour c.mtro lo .louuvnd.MU-. Qu. 1.' .lof..n.lour a,vn,,t a.^n eonin.o nnnistro do la nAv^um oi n.,n en qualit.^ .lollKuor pul.l.c, .1 nnVn c.n,s.Mpu>ne.>, il navait pas .Iroit h I'avis .Vvni mo.s roqu.s par lartiolo -l-l .lu codo .lo piW.luro oivil- LoKAN.iKH, J.- / ichetle as. Avsyrrn/nis, 11. .1. Q., ;JC. S., p. 43(5. lor,_ _A pors(in win) assumes to li.)ld himself .)ut as a loa.lor tu intluonc- pnl.lio .niitmn.. in favor ..f a particular can.li.lato n, .. ,nunioipal or other election, by so .loing suhmits his n.ot.y.vs tor su.l, action to the criticism of the .^lectors, ^vho are fairly .-ntitlo.l to km^xv whether his /.cal is that of a diainterost.Ml porson.actm- tor tlu> pul.lu- good, or that of a paid canvasser, oarnin- his wages. 2. Words en vevhu- the injurhMis imputation that Plaintitf sold Ins influ.mce .n elections, which words wore hase.l .,n l>laintitfs own acts an.l state u.ents, an.l wore uttered .luring the lu>at ..f an elect..)n s.pmMe, between partisans of the opposing can.ti.latos, and to which it was proved that no ]iarticular importance was attached by those wlio hear.1 them, sh.Mil.l lu.t make the party uttering them responsible lor more than nominal damages.-D.niEKTY, 3.-lV,an'st. r.s. Htuiuh,.; R. J. Q., 4 C. S.. p. !):i. 12(5 L'a]ipolante, .lans une acti.m pour faire mettre il.; cote sentence arbitrale. avait allogue .pie les arbitres avaiont accept.' rafraichissemontsetde la boisson du proprietaire exproprie etsotaunt, k plusieurs reprises, rendus incapables de remplir lours dev.ys. La preuve tit voir .lu'en etlot les arbitres avaiont accepte .les ratraich.s- sements et de la boisson du proprietaire. Jiuje, intinnant le jugeuu'iit ,k- la Cour 8up.M-ieure: Que I'appelante otait .lans I'exercise .1 un lUir .les Vovmli,/„Ml Supplement No. /.—Art. I0r„l 21 f L.MKL & ^^.^mm<.-Prl,nleoea VommunieuHon., (Confinued) - n(M hji. („,. ,L- Ih'oimlon, K. .J, (,^., 2 P,. R., p. 470 127. [„ an actio.. ..f Hian.lor a^.iinst a witnoss. f,„. sta(..,„,.nu -«<' '-y 1..... wlul. „n.,o,. ..xa.ninati,,,., it is suHid.nt to alZ U. lu- w,t,...sscs ,„ad. false a,..i n.alicious stat,..no..ts, k-n.,wi>.' tt' s o h.U.. cl.a.^.„. tho Plai,.ti,r with ,..,;i,n.y. without ali^.i .1 a.. stat.,n,..ts woro .rrol.vant to tho caun., in which he w^s ^xa med. I„ a„ acfon of shu.-lc... a,..„o..al aih^^ation that the Z^nZ, ..;;:::: rr -^"^""^■'-tsthcctofo.-c ....ichy , 'tr: :^ m. .ts, vv tl M.tcnt to h,,u.-c the PlaintifFln his characte,- c.v.lit a..(i a pt.jmo,, s too vuf,n,e an.l in.lefit.ite, a...l will he n.jc.cte.l on i^>n, R. .1. Q.. 4 G. S.. p. :J(|.,.-_])^vm,son .J._R. .,. g., , (. „„ p. 128 Un ccMnptc-ren.lu, vrai et fhlMe. ,|ans la presse ,ies seances "n co.n,te ,ln Honat du Canada, et nn co.n.nentai.^ editorial He uc.t-CASAULi, J..-/:«„,7.^,,r .,.. H^/,,;/., R. J. q., .5 (j. .s., p. 04. 129. Le rapport do I'instruction d'un proces devant une cour de ,ust,ce conh,nne k la voritd et fait de honne foi. au co.„. onlbale d. ™^ports jud.c.a.n3s. est p.-ivile.ie.--LouANOKH, ^.-S^^^Z^^Z dlmprimcrie de la Miveror, R. J. Q., 5 c. S., p. 100. im An entry in the minute hook of an incornomtnH 1. r, uiuci uio same to be expunged on writ 212 Connolulated Sxtjyplement No. l.—Art. W5&. LiBEi. & fiiAmWM.— Privileged C(mimun^ation8, (Contimied) .— <,f .rmndanm.. Even where the occasion is privileged, unecessarily i,.tomperatc and extravagant language w. I not be pr., ecte.l - AROH.HALU, J.-Phelan vs. St. (lalM Total Ahstvnence A- Bem^t Soridy., R. J. Q., •'•> C. S.. p. 438. i:« A report, made by a government employee, to the Depart- ment of Public Works, condemning the use of certain cement is an insufficient basis for an action of da.nages by the owner ot such cement, in the absence of proof of malice ; and mahce cannot b. presumed from the fact that Defenda.ifs views on the subject might L ■ erroneous, such report being a privileged communication.- Andrews, J.—Gauvreau i>h. Macquet, 17 Q. L. R. p. 245. l'}^ Ia' demandeur 4crit une lettre d'affaires h une dame JJrochn, nontenant les paroles suivantes : "Nous craignons bien que ce Mi-^neault ne soit un coquin qui vouS ait vole comme il nous a vole Le'd^fendeur plaide une Hrochu.-J«,9« : Que la lettre incriminee en ^cette cause n est pa. libelleuse.-LMUJE, 3.-Mignaidt vh. L^derc, I. Q. L. R.. p -M^^ VV^ An allecred libel was contained in a letter respecting the PlaintiHs, two of" the members of a partnership, written on behalt of the Defendants, a limited company, and sent by post in an envelope addressed to the firm. The writer did not know that there weir other partners in the firm. The letter was dictated by the managing director of the Defendants to a clerk, who took down the words m shorthand and then wrote them out in full by means ot a type- writing machine. The letter thus written was copied by an office boy in a copyin- press. When it reached its destination, it was, in the ordinaiy course of business, opened by a clerk of the firm, and was ,ead by two other clerks. Held, that the letter must be taken o have been published both to the Plaintiffs clerks and the Defendants clerts, ai/t hat neither occasion was privileged-C^mjr of Appka.., London, England.— PttWmaw vs. Hill, 14 L. N., p. ^66. 134 A .statement made by a person, in the course of a private ...1 confidential conversation with his family physician, is privileged, particularly where there is no evidence of malice.-TAlT, A.-b%vv >s. Marcus, R. J. Q.. « C. S., p. 46. CkniHoluiated Sapplenumt No. I.— Art. lOn.l. jig Libel & H^.,^ur.n.-PHvil.,..a VoMmuni.aH,„,nu,ucation en ..uosti,,,. otait pHvi- hau been .narried. about a InTb; ^l 1 s^l"" ":""'■ .'"^ ^^'"^ >n good faitli. in her own bon.f fn 1 . ^ '^^'^^'"il4 Voimdidated Supplement No. l.^Art. 105.i. Umu «t Hi.ANDKli,— iMvU'f/eti CoinmxinicafwnH, (Continued):— with thn .^xorciHc ..f tl.o .lis(Toti..nary powers ol" sucl. a lunly, inmatters or i„t>.rnal K.,v.>nu..ont. unless it l.e sl.own that it has aetod umhc.- ously (.1- in had faith. 5. Tlio laws or ruK'S of the Roman CathoUc Church in the prov nco of Qu.hoc, are k.iown to the c.v.l courts .nondy so far as they are proved hofore then> ; hut it hem- proved in this ease that, under the hiws of the Churcli, the arclihishup or hishop of a diocese is vested with authority to proliihit the n.enihers of that Church in his dioceso from rea.lin^^ pubheat.ons, which he ,.nnsid..rs opposed to its teachin- or .hscipline, the Deten.iant, as und.hishop of the diocese of Montreal, was in the exercise of a right in issuin.r a circular prohibiting the members of the Church from reading IMaintiti's newspaper under pain of deprivation of the sacra- n...nts; an.l although s.ich prohibition dul.in fact, prejudicially aHect the Plaintiir's interests, yet, in the absence of any evi.lence ot un- fairness or malice, it did not constitute an invasion of PlaintiH s rights which could give rise to a claim for damages. (5. The civil courts ol tlu- now province of Quebec have no jurisdiction to entertam a case in the nature of an appd comnie d'abm, the connection between Church and State, which existed before the cession, having been severed when the country b.>came a British possession. Qmnre, whe- ther the doctrine of privil.-god communication exists in our law, a.ul whether the question, in actions of libel or slander, is not properly as to the proof of fault on the part of Defendant.-DoHEUTY, J.- r;,-. de. Piih. de, Canada Revue vs. Mgr Fahre, R. J. Q., <) C. S., p. 4.{<). 140 Qu'un medecin, assistant de bonne foi ^ une enquete irre- ..uliere d'un coroner, ne .bit pas etre tenu responsable de rirregulantc de cette en(,uete faite par le coroner, dont il n avait pas le droit . . .vputer la competence. 2. Que, dans Tespece, le temoignag.. du .lefendeur, .lonne de bonne foi comme mddecin. devant le coroner etlr ■Ja.-v.constitue une communication privilegiee; '.\. Qu'une telle cu.u- munication faite de bonne foi, sans malice, et dans I'int^iet de lad.ni- nistration de la justice, ne peut faire ei.courir a ce medecin aucu.ie responsabilite, quelque prejudiciable quelle peut etre a la reputation de la demanderesse, et meme dans le cas ou il aurait commis u.u erreur scientiiique ; 4. Que, dans les propos tenus par le deteiideur apres I'enquete du coroner, il na fait que defendre son opinion .sc.on- titiquc et )U.stiBe sa conduite, en meme temps qu'ilne parlait que d a,.r chose notoirement comme de tous.-C. K-LafM vs. Pidgeon, 1 R. de J., p. 135 ; R. J. Q- 7 C S., p. 27. ConHolUlated Supplement No. t.~Art. WM. 215 ^'>.i.x & SLxmw.H.-.Privileffp.d Communications, (Contimml):- 141. U .1 fnii.Mtion ,Jans unn plai.joiri,.. prcluito ,l,ins uno IMS anco,,,„lu.,a.r.-,,l,)nno ouvorture au rt.cours..n.lo.nn,a;?..s on faveur < '■ a part,, .litfa.n^e. 2. Lor.s.,ut. Uans uno action ... .lonnna^.-s pour .I.Ha.nation, 1. .lotuan^lour fait uno doinamlo inci.l.-nto. k raison .l'aII6- ^'atu.Ms .hHlunatoiros clans la .lofonso. si 1„ .Ic'-f.-n-leur ost condan>n6 .lans hnstanco principalo. la .loruando incidento no p.ut.Uro ronvoyoo' I">"i- lo mot.t ,,ue les injures qui en font rohjot sont co.np.ns.Vs par <'Hl.vsque la .l.,,nan.lo principal.! contient k I'adrosso d„ .lofendr-ur ^.MiWMuont qui la r.>connait l.ien fon.l.'.o no pout m uumw totups la doclaror u.juriouao.-Q. li.~(!koqadte ,i- Mleau, K. J. Q.. :} JJ |t p 142. Des oxpro.ssions .littamatoires, k ra.lres,so do Tune des parties ••oi.fconu.'s .lans uno proc6.luro judiciaire, no donnent pas ouverture i uno action ondom.nanro.s, lor.s,,u'olle.s -sont p(.rtinont.!s au litil mot a M o>nploy6 d.u.s un sens autre (,uo celui qu'il porto ordinairon.ont. H. Lorsqu'une .'.xpression, dont on so sort dans un plaidoyer, ost susceptible .le plusieurs .ntorprdtation.s, la cour adoptera cello ,,ui ost confonne k I ....sembb du plauioyor.-ARcuii,ALD, J.~Lamarche m. Brwchesi, R. 143. Qu'uno partio dans une cause, qui est injurieio dans'uno pi^ce dr procedure dans la cause, pout, par une action distincte, reclaraerdes ., p. 122 and 18 R. L., p. 81. darnages.-Q. B.-Leduc & Graham, Sli L. C. J., p. 184; M. L R 5 Q D., p. 51 J. ' *'■ 151. Que le fait d'accuser quelquun d'etre denonciateur, pour infraction k la loi des licences, soumet I'accusateur a une action en do,nmages, vu que ce reproche tend a d^precier celui qui en est lobjet pT98:rrR'trrp^^^^^^^ -• ^''^-' ^^ h.^^. 152. Le mot " ivformer " n'est pas diffamatoire in .se _C R- Laplante vs. Paranteau, 33 L. C. J., p. 124. 153. A father, whose minor daughter has been slandered by words imputing that she was guilty of fornication, has an action of defarna! tion on lus own behalf against the slanderer.-WuRTELE, J.-AntiUe vs. Marcotte, 11 L, N., p. 339. 154. Qu'une personne qui accuse une autre publiquement d'avoir rondu sous serment un compte faux et d'avoir diverti d'un inventaire et recele des biens appartenant k des mineurs, pent etre poursuivie pour dommages^ la reputation et, outre les dommages r^els, elle pent etre condamnee a des dommages exemplaires, comme^r^paration civile — lELLiEU, ^.—Beauregard vs. Daigneault, 11 L. N., p. 403. 155. A mercantile agency is responsible in damages for commu- nicafng to its subscribers a false rating of a person engaged in b "- uess. whereby h,s credit is injured. Absence of malice and the fa t that the report was subsequently corrected, will not exonerate the Defendant but may be considered in mitigation of damages.-DAV.D- soN, 3. -Steele vs. Chaput, M. R. L., 4 S. C.,p. 200 ; 32 L. C J., p. 324. 156. Executors are personally liable for libels pubhshed by them m their said quality. The mere fact of having taken counsel's opin oT apart from any other circumstances, does not excuse a party rll^ m i 218 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1053. Libel & Slander.— MsceWaTicous, (Continued) :— libellous allegations in pleadings.-TASCHEUEAU J.-Rielh vs. Ben- ning. M. L. R., 4 S. C. p. 219-Q. B.-M. L. R., G Q. B., p. 365 ; 20 R. L., p. 537 , 157. In an act- ri r i siander, where the iniurious words were utte- red in a foreign language, it is not necessary to set out the words in the lancrua^e in which they were spoken. It is sufficient to state the words, in the fanguage of the declaration and to establish that they were uttered in the hearing of persons who understood their meaning and that the PI .ntiff suffered damages in consequence thereof. To charge a minister with having retained for his own use the whole or part of collections made by him for foreign missions, is actionable and, in this case, $150 damages were allowed -C. K-McLeod vs. McLeod, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 343— Brooks, J.— 11 L. N., p. 2. 158. Que lorsque, dans une altercation, la partie injuri^e d'abord, au lieu de s'adresser au tribunal pour venger les injures qu'on lui adresse, les repousse sur le champ par d'autres aussi graves et se fait ainsi justice a elle-meme, il y a lieu de decider que ces injures r^c.pro- ques s'annihilent par la compensation. Que, pour qu'une action en dommacres pour injures soit maintenue, il doit y avoir de la part dii demand'eur un grief reel et que lorsqu'il est difficile de dire laquell.- des deux parties a injarie I'autre davantage, celle qui se plamt n. doit pas etre accueillie, et pour condaraaer le defendeur, il fa'it pouvou constater surement le tort de ce dernier et les dommages resultant de ces injures— Mathieq, J.—Roherge vs. Moqiiln, 17 R. L., p. 634. 159. Que le ills a un recours en dommaL'es contre celui qui, par sea paroles, porte atteinte k \i consideration de son pere decm.- Mathieu, J.~Htiot vs. Noiseux, 18 R, L., p. 705.— Q. B.— R. J. Q., '1 B. R., p. 521. 160. Qu'il y a lieu a la deraande incidente pour reclamer, dans une instance! des dommages resultant d'injures proEerees par la partio adverse au cours de son temoignage.-MATHiEU, J -i^arnarti vs. Molson, 19 R L., p. 36. 161. The Defendant called the Plaintiff, who was mayor of a villa<^e, a bigot and said that his conduct as mayor was influenced by hisHcrotry." Held, that these words were actionable per so and that a small amount might be recovered, as exemplary damages, although Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. lOo.l. 219 Libel & SLXj,Bm.~ Miscellaneous, (Continued) ;- costs.- WuRTELE, J._}r2cMa7i m ^zini. M. L. R„ 6 S. C, p. 28. 162. Qu'une lettre injurieuse, adress^e a une personno. peut donner he« k une act.on en dorn.nages en reparation d'injures, qaoiou' He „" so.tpas pubh e. le defaut de publication n'etantVw rlon pon d^:nunuer les do,nmage.s.-CHAMPAONE. D. M.-Z.L. ... P.," ,^7. tfere dfns ?aauflle"l Z" ''"T '" ^''"""°"^' P""^" ^^^--tion de carac- ctculer dans sa nV '"r '7 " ^'""'^"^ ^^ defenderesse a fait circuler dans sa paroisse des calomnies propres k la miner dans son honneur et sa reputation, la defenderesse peut plaider que es accusa tions mcnnnneen avaient notoireu.ent cours dans la L ZoZlt eta.ent rep^tees publiquement par diverses personnes ; un r " mse en dro.t k cette portion de la defense sera renvoyee.-LiK.NGER'j - Robert vs. de Montlgny, M. L. R.. 6 S. C, p. 345 dessus'"' ?Re'!r; T' """'' P^^^^^^^'-- '- ™ots suivants ecrits dcssus _ Received the amount all right-nicely cau^rht in your own trap-honesty is the best policy-your conh^dence" ^arn^s "^^^il work no more-you do not need a diplo>na -rest on your laurl deeds go further than words-though your words of siturdarand Monday were strong enough. Au revoir."-est une injure e[ oue dans 1 absence d'aucun do.nmage reeljo defendeur doit etre cldal'' des dommages exemplaires. ^40 de doomages accordees.-M^XH EU ■l~0 Bnen vs. Semple, M. L. R, G S. C, p. 344. ^aiuieu, 165. The husband is not responsible in damages for slanderous or nsu t.ng language used by his wife, -Andrews, J.~BourasZ vs Drolet, R. J. Q., i Q. S., 107. ^umassa vs. 166. Defendant, being unable to collect a debt due to him bv Plamtiff. trans,n,tted his name to a collecting association which after notice inserted Plaintiffs name in the monthly lists issued bvH o their subscribers, the object of which wa'taS them oT hdentia information of persons who failed to pay or make settle" ."ont of their indebtedness, but " without expre'ssLg anT-udren" Whatsoever. Defendant was a member of this association Held ■ Tliat, as the statement made by Defendant was true, and what he dkl Ill silil^ 220 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arl. 105S. LinEi, & Slander.— ilftsfe/^a?u'ou8, (Continued) :— was without inalico on his part, and was of interest to his co members and as no special daniag(^ was proved, an action of damages could i.ot be maintained.— Davidson, J.—Aichin m Edmond, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 3G7. 107. Words conveying the injurious imputation that PlaintiH', .sold liis influence in elections, which words were based on Plaintitl's own acts and statement.s, and wiir.; uttered during the heat of an election squabble between partisans of the opposing camlidates, and t.. which it was proved that no particular importance was attached by those who heard them, should not make the party uttering them responsible for more than nominal damages.— DoHEllTY, J.— O/m/vW vs Hiirtabise, R J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 93. HiS. Le di'fendeur, dans une action en dommages pour diHama- tion, est admis a plaider la verite et la notoriete des faits dont I'iiii- putttion constitue le propos diffamatoire, cause de Taction. II en est autrement du caractfere et de la conv..ie allowed.— C. K—AIarchand vs. MoUeur, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 120. 171. The Defendants, M. and B., merchants, placed in the hands of the Defendant, A., a collector of debts, an account against the plaintiff, Sarah G., (wife of the plaintiff John G.,) for collection, well knowing the method of collection adopted by A., who, after a thre-itening letter to Sarah G., which did not e-oke payment, caused Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Art. lOGrl. False Arrests. 221 Pin fT 1 "f ''""•'^^•^"""^'y i« ««voral parts of the city, whoro the Plainffrs hved, a yellow poster advertising a nnmher of accounts for •sale, among then, being one against " Mrs. J. G,cen (the PhuntifH • Princess street, dry goods bill, $.59 ;J5." The evidence showed that Sarah G., owed the Defendants, M. and B.. 1$24.3;{ only IMd that the pubhcation was libellous and could only be justiHed by showing Its truth ; and as the Defendants had failed to show that Sarah G was indebted ■» the sun. mentioned in the poster, they were liable in da,nages.-Q. B. D.v.sion (Ontario) _ C?;-.«... v.. Mv,L.. 15 L. N n False Arrests .-172. Lea corporations municipales ne sont pas responsables des actes non autoris^s ni adopt^s par elles, des cons- tab es ou des agents de police, que la loi les autorise k nommer et k •lesUtuer.-L. K.-/io^s«eai* vs. Corpora' ion de Levis, 14 Q. L. R., 173. See case oiPoitras ., p. 422, See cases noted at C. C. 407 for Railway Expropriations. 194.^ Decision number 172, noted at this ar^,icle, ( Weir vs. Clawie) ■ was conhrmed by the Supreme Court. The holdings of the Court of Queens Bench and the Supreme Court are noted in this Supplement at article 503, decision number 1. 195. Where one of the Defendants had assisted his father to erect a mill-dam, on a water-course running across his property and th.- owner ot the land above that on which the mill-dam had been built' sued them for the damages resulting from the flooding of his fields, it was /..ZcUhat this did not constitute an illicit act, or an offence under V. O 10.,3, so as to render those who assisted the owner in the cons- true .on of such mill-dam responsible for damages caused by such construction The right conferred on the owner to utilize a water- com^e which passes across his land (C. C. 503), gives him the right to Hood the higher lands, which is, in effect, an expropriation Jf the usefulness of the portions of the higher lands so flooded, and the owner who has used this right is bound to pay a just indemnity for he daniages caused by such floo.Iing-WcTHTELE, 3. -Brown vs. Hoi- lav,/., 11 L. N., p. 378. 196. Where, in an action whereby it is sought to recover dama^res or injury to a wall, through the flow of water from a higher to a owor property, the evidence adduced by the parties does not make i . pet O r ^""' '' " ''Ir^'f °' ''^ ^°"^' '" '^'^^ '""^ '^^ -^pe^t- — hJ. h.-^Havijoson ,c Vmeberg, 33 L. C. J., p. 185 Ijll 1"^ H ■2-j(; Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. /i>r,.l. Damacies to Rkai, Estate, (Continued):— I<)7 A Railway Coinpaiiy whidi, nnd-r tlii' pioviHions of the Act U Vict. cap. 24. sec 8 (now R. S. C, c.p. 10!). sec. 47)exton.l.Ml to th. Defendant l.y tl.e Act 40 Vict, cap. 24, without ohtainnio tlie consent of the municipality, or the owner, raised a n.unicipal l.ridge pa.ss.n^ ov.'r their railway and also the approaches thereto, is liable to tlie a.ljoining proprietor for the damage sustained l.y him l.y reason ol th'.; increased height of the highway as it approaches the bridge.- BiKWKs, J.— i/t« >'H. Grand Trunk Rij., 12 L. N., p. 57. 19S A riparian owner, on a navigable river, is entitled to daina- ovs a.'ai'ist a Railway Company, althoug)^ no land is taken, from hnu, for the obstruction and interrupted access betwecm his pri of Quebec & Renaud, V.) R. L., p. 590. 201. Qu'une corporation municipale qui, a d^faut du proprietaire. fait faire des travaux sur un chemin de front, et, dans I'executiou de ces travaux, qui sont necessaires, modifie quelque peu le niveau du chemin, de maniere a causer quelques dommages a ce proprietaire. n cncoui t'oiiHoiidaM Supplement No. J. —Art. lOr,.',, 227 J)AMAOK,s in Real Estatk, fCnntinued):^ -0=^' ^^J"« l-s dispositions do la charfce de In cite de Montreal, 52 r ch. ,f), sec. 213 et 227. .vlative.u..nt a revaluation de do.nma.es .;.- doH co.n,n.ssaM-os. n'enl6vont pas aux cours do justice l.,ur ju idle on onl,„a,re pour condan.ner la cite a payer des donuna-.s t ^our > ; tro'V^'^"'"'^-;^ '•'-?»•- los n.odesde preuve ordinaire. - I A(.vuKr/., .J._ Lamarehe v,. La Cif^ d. MonMal, H. J. Q., 2 C. S. .H.<.,.s!arv ri "" ^""^^"°^'°"/f '^ retaining wall uas rendered • ssmy, hy the expropriation of a portion of a coUeo^e property in .. - to retan. the soil adjoining the street, which it\vas desir.S o .a..se to the same level as the rest of the college playground the r::^^'tT ' ^"'"r' ^° ''- ^-^^ ^^ ^^^' - -^^ ti . indtmnity. 2. Ihe prospective capabilities of the land and its -iaptabn^ty to particular uses, may betaken into accoun and th p. .pne or expropriated is entitled to more than the curren marke vahie of he pi.perty taken, if the expropriation renders it impo" sib e him to extend his educational establishment, as intended. anJ thuebj make larger profits out of the additional number of boarders aeen,aodated. 3. The fact that a church is left projecting to some Tt T : Tf:r "''^"''' "^y *^^'' expropriatbnof a ^ir paTo" e ont and that the architectural appearance is marred, cannot b^e aken into account in estimating the indemnity.-C R-City of Mn.hral V,. St. Mary's College, R. J. Q., 4 C. S.. p 410 '' ^ 204. Le defemleur exploitait une ecurie de louar. du ema^de^ situees sur la rue St Denis, en Incite ^ M^ -1. Le le mandeur fit voir, qu'4 raison du voisinage de cette ecurie ^4()00etaussiquil navait pu louer.au meme prix qu'auparavant "..- de ses maisons lautre etant occupee par lui-Lme' 4^ !-Que ■ -nandeur e ait bien fonde a reclamer du defendeur la dhninuUon .■ loyer et les dommages qu'il avait eprouves dans I'occupation desa .na,son.et auss. la diminution de valeur des proprietes, si L d^Jendeur 205 This was an action for damages, arising from the house of \um ' .1; H Iilt${ 228 Coimilidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 10n,t Damaoeh to Reai, Estate, (Continwd) :— the PlaintitFheing inundateaby wat.-r,tlirou0(i Qu'unc; personne a le droit de tirer do sa chose toute Tutilite ,u.n prohil.ee par lea lois, mais qu'en ce faisant elle .ui pas le droit de rien introduire, ou faire passer auoune chose, snr la propn6t«' yo.s.ne ,,ui puisse lui nuire, en diininuer hi valeur, ou uioditier sensiblen.ent le droit de propriete du proprietaire. Que, .,uoi.iue dans les centres populeux, il soit juste -lue los citoyens endurent des inconvenients de voisina-e phis grands des etablisse-nents industri.ds que des habita- tions particulieres, neanmoins, l.-s industriels doivent eviter de causer du .lo.nmacre a leur voisin en prenant toute les precautions .lue la pra- tique et la science enseignent, quand meme cela les entra.nerait k des sacrifices pecuniaires. Que le voisinage dun four k chaux .loit etre considere conune dangereux, insalubre ou incommode et de nature a faire du tort aux proprietes voisines. Que le fait qu'un propn^taire de four k chaux, ou autre 6tablissement industriel, avait 6tabli et coni- menc6 a exploiter son industrie avanb que le voisin qui se plaint ait acquis sa propriete, n'empeche pas I'.ndustriel d'etre responsable des dommaaes qu'il cause ; cette preoccupation ne pouvant tout au plus que le proteger contre la suppression de sou etablissement, en certains ca8, et donner au tribunal une certaine discretion dans lappr^^iaticM. du dommage.-TASCHEREAU, .].-Gravel r... (iervaxs, M. L. R., 7 b. L., p. 326. 207 Under cuutract with the cit} of Quebec, the Defendant openc.1 a trench for the introduction ..f water pipes along certain streets in th. course of which operation a land-slip occured opposite Plaintiffs property, whereby his house was seriously damaged. WM. that Defendant was not freed from liability by the fact ot working under contract. The contractor, as the party who personally does the act causing the damage, is more directly liable to the person iniured, than is the party for whom he executes the contract • and especially is this so, if (as in the present case) the work might have been so done as that no damage should result. The occurrence ot 8uch an accident is a prima fach' presumption that all due and sufh- cicnt precautions and care to avert possible danger were not used, and ConHolidat^d Swp,.lcm,'vt No. l.~Avf. Wr,.l. 229 Damaoks Akisin(, HioM Acts uk Wnsuc Officials. stn-.th as tins pr..s,M,.ption, for one who un.K.ftak.s u work ,F the ... nsf.oan. toforeseo an.l ,uani against all .-oasonaMo t t , ANDREWS, ,).—M-Jean va. Peters, 17 Q. L. II., p. 252. 208 U„e corporation municipale a lo droit d'tUal.lir des d^potoirs .ians le.s Inn.tes de son torntoiro. mais ello est re.sponsablo do^f T ■";;,'- qu. en rcsultont an.K propri^tair.s voisins.-U.r.L, J-CV.. , 1 'f't Sf-A moar vs. V/a,j of Montreal, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 228. 20!) Qu.. ie proprietairo d'un niouljn k seie, 6rige .sur un cours |1 e-ua. ast n.ponsable des don.nages causes par les sci^ros qui da e lau es eaux.se r^pandent sur les terres voisines.-Q. iL/ .J hahy, 21 R. L., p. 148. "" a un !rbr ^f ' ''"' 'f ' ""' 'f ^'"^' ^'^''''^^' ^"^ ""^ "^i^^e flottable au, aib„ etaunpoteauparlui plante sur la rive, dans le terrain •lautru,, et .ans necessite de le faire pour sauver son bois flott m^" seulernent pour ly retonir. apporte un trouble a la pos': ion u p 1 r.eta.re nveram et est passible dune action en co.nplainte de la p. rt « ce dern,er. k I'encontre de la.uelle il ne saurait tirer une ^^1^6 .ies dispositions de I'a -,55] s R O OR r ^eu use Damages Auisiyo krom Acts of Puruc Officials :-2 1 1 Qu'un S4-V13 dun accuse qui naurait pu. pour cette Json, subi,- son I- ces au jour hx^. et doit lui rembourser les frais qu'il a eucourus ^ c.tte oceasion.-RouTH.ER, i.-Donais vs. Basse, ij L. K, p. T93 oF wi?f.fl ^^'° ^ 'T'^ ^lisappears, or is lo.t, without any evidence f rTo .::! If "'^ *'" P'^'^?'^ P-thonotary,he is not punishable toi contempt the proper remedy of the party aggrieved by such lo « being an action of damatres Wurteif T N •, ^^ ^uch loss M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 186. ^^'^T^^E' J— ^«««i^re vs. Bickerdike. - que C.S rJoramage^ : :,>mpreuueut la depreciation des I » ' ill 230 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1053. Damages arising from Civil Suits. effets saisis et le tort qui est fait au credit du propri^taire des efi\^ts. — Q. B.—Ledaire <& Dessaint, 21 R. L., p. 32. 214 Que la question de savoir si un officier public pcut invoqner sa qualite, et se plaindre du defaut de I'avis mentionn6 dans I'art. 22 C P. C, ne se presents qu'au cas ou il aurait comniis, de bonne foi, I'acte dont on se plaint et que la bonne ou mauvaise foi est une quos- tion qui affecte le merite et ne peut etre ddcidee qu'avec le m^ntc .1.- ia cause.— BkLANGEK, 3.—Masson vs. McGowan, 35 L. C. J., p. 80. 215 Que les sheri^s, comme les huissiers, sont, en regie g^n^i-ale, responsables des nullit^s qu'ils commettent dans leurs procdduies Que les frais de ces procMures doivent etre mis k leur charge, sans prejudice des dominages-int^rets de la partie. Qu'il faut, cependant, pour qu'ils soient tenus responsables, que la nullity des procedures aient ete prononc^e ou reconnue par le tribunal competent.— GA.iNi::, J,—Bossi vs. Letellier, 1 R de J., p. 30. 216. Justices of the Peace are responsible in damages where llxy act iUecrally and without jurisdiction, under colour of their authority as justices, e. g., where they commit a person to gaol for havinji- refused as a witness, to answer a question put to him at a trial winch took place before them three days previously, the commitment, more- over not being in accordance with the order made during the trial. This' responsibility exists, even where the Court does not find anythnio- in the circumstances to indicate that the justices acted maliciously. -^ Q. B.-Moore £^ Gauvin,n. J. Q., 2 B. U., p. 462.-C. R.-M. L. 11.. i S. C, p. 376. Damages arising from Civil Suits :- 217. Que le cr^anci.M- qui fait 6maner un capia>^ contre la personne de son d^biteur, s.ins cause probable, et sur des allegations fausses, contenues dans la d('i)o- sition, sera responsable, envers son debiteur, -es dommages resultant de cette arrestation, la loi presumant malico dans ce cas.— Q. h. - Drapeau Jk Desloriers, 16 R. L., p. 433. 218 Libels in pleadings are actionable, when the allegati.)us complained of are false, or made without probable cause. Malice .s inferred by law from the nature and falsity of such accusations. I he mere fact of having taken Counsel's opinion, apart from any other circumstances, does not excuse a party making libellons allegations m ConsoLhlafed Supphnnent No. I— Art. W.5.,>. 231 Damages arisinc^ from Civil Suits, f Continued) :- ttn ofX ,f "T"' P^"^ of Justification, constitutes anag.rav.- U, p. 219.-Q. B._M. L. R., G Q. B.. p. 365 ; 20 R. L., p. 537. 219. Unrler the laws of this Province, an action lies for libellous allegations con a.ned in pleadings. A Plaintiff, in an action r lib who IS a tacked by an additional libel in the plea to his action ma -' 2 S. C, p. 146._Slipkemi ^ourt.-12 L. N., p. 33. ' ' ' "^ ^■' qui dans ^x" nprr ' ^'' '^'^f '" '" ^'""""^'^^ '"''''' "'^ Petitionnaire le can Ma 4lu • ^V^"^"^-^^'^?-" ^'^'-t-n parlementaire, accuse le canlidat elu d avoir, dans son election, induit at contraint diverses personnes 4 fajre un faux serment, d'avoir fait faire ce qu'onTppel supposition de personne," d'avoir tente de violer le secret du scru 1 ces accusations etant generalement des faits pertinents aux contesta tions d Elections. Que le fait que le petition.^ire n'a pas recces accusations dans son articulations de f.its n'est pas e"lo u," ^^'n.ss.on que les accusations etaient fausses, mais ne p ut^fcre con sider que con.ne un abandon de ces moyens de contestation par b C, p rr"" • ^■~ ^'"''^^''*'^ "•• ^''^~' ^f- L. R 4 S Reviel^' ct''"4"T'n f '" ''^^ "^^ '''''''''' ^^ ^^e Coart of Kev.ew._C. R._33 L. C. J., p. 234; M. L. R, 5 S. C. p. 423. content's ^ST "1 'T"'"''!' ^"' ^"^'"'"^^ ^" P^°P«^ diffamatoir.s contenus dans ses plai loyers k uae action.- C R- Lanh-i^ „ ■ Ohoquette. 15 Q L. R., p. 193. Laniiy v,. at thi!^'"' -^r "^'^ T' °^ ^^"^' '^ McN.aLy,noi.d in this Supplement itu:b:'24r^^ ''-- '^^^^-^^ ^^^^™'^' ^^^-^'^--- ^-i. .n..T' J^^'^"';"^ ^h*^ petitioner for an injunction beincr a «r.^^,- nom tor others who are not proved to represent an ad verse" latere t :: ? w::rot rJi f^"'^' ^^-^^^ ^"^^-^ ' -^ P-umption of tat; or ot want of probable cause against such petitioner. In the present case, the published .statements r.f the ComDanv a«v n T f me i^oiiipany gave the Respondent 1 iliin 232 Consolidated Supplement Nu. t.—Art. 1053. Damages arising fiiom Civil Suits, (Continued) .— reasonable and probable cause, for his proceedings. No action lies for damages resulting from the issue of an injunction, unless such proceed- ing has been taken maliciously and without probable cause.-Q. b.- Montreal Street Ry. Co. d- RUchie, M. L R, 5 Q. B., p. 77 ; 18 K. L., p. 12._SUPREME COURT.-13 L. N., p. 34 ; IG S. C. R., p. 622. 223 Que celui qui, sans cause probable et malicieusement, fait arrSter une personne sur capias, sera condamnee a des dommages envers la personne arretee.-C. K-~Denard vs. Gay, 18 R. L., p 654. ' 224 A writ of capias issued for the arrest of one Thomas Maheu. The Plaintiff who was the son of the said Thomas Maheu and bore the same name, represented to the bailiff intrusted with the writ that he was the Thomas Maheu against whom the writ was directed and, on such representations, he was arrested. On discovering the mistake, the capias was discontinued and the Plaintiff afterwards brought the present action to recover damages for false arrest, held, that, as the Plaintiff had, by such representations, brought about the arrest oi which he complained, he could not recover damages for the same.- Mathieu, 3.— Maheu vs. OlUver, 34 L. C. J., p. 53. 225 Qu'il n'y a pas lieu a accorder des dommages contre un loca- teur qui! de bonne foi, prend une saisie-gagerie contre un sous-loca- taire pour un montant de loyer dii par le locataire principal, quand meme le sous-locataire ne devrait rien et avait legalement paye son loyer au temps de la saisie-gagerie au locataire principal.— Champa- gne, D. li.—Thibault vs. Lefehvre, 13 L. N., p. 242. 226 Qu'un debiteur, arrete sous crt^nas, qui regie avec son cr(^- ancier pour le montant reclame par Taction, sans se reserver speciale- ment son recours en dommage contre son creancier, pour fausse arres- tation ne pent plus subsequemment poursuivre le creancier pour dom- mage • lerecju accepte par le demandeur constituant un reglemont hiial entre les parties.— Jette, J .-Desaatels vs. Filiatraidt, M. L. R, S. C, p. 238. 227. If there be neither malice, nor want of probable cause, a creditor is not liable in damages by reason of proceedings taken by him in the exercise of his right, to enforce the payment of his debt, whether by execuliuii, capias, or otherwise, although such pmcee.l.ugs Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 105,J. 283 Damages arising from Assaults. have been set aside by the Court for informalities. Q. B -Scott dt McCaffrey, R. J. Q., i B. R., p. 123. 228. Que ie creancier qui saisit imprudemment des biens oui appart.ennent a un tiers, sera, malgre sa bonne foi, condamnr^ "aye losfrais del opposition faite par ce dernier.-jETTK, J._i/ci^„3« m. Gauthier, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 407. ^^^cimmara T' ^"-u r?^'' ""^ "'" ^™ Respondents, in the course of con- versa , on w,th McL, accountant of a local bank, was informed as a Canada, and was going to start a saloon in Cleveland. O. Without investigating the correctness, or making any inquiries as to the o "L ot this report, which inquiries, if made, would have shown that it wis ounded on a misunderstanding and that Appellant was merely going to Clevelai. on a visit to his brother,-F., on behalf of the rJp- lebt ..,.. „:> the tarm. Held .-It was the duty of F. to have made r;;Tt "ZT r *° ''; "r^^^^ ^^ "^^ ^-^P-^ before actmg upm, It. In the absence of such inquiries, and of any verification or confarmation of the report, there was not reasonable and probable cause for the arrest, and S150 damages were allowed.-Q. i-Bur- rows <& Ranson, R. J. Q., 8 B. R, p. 152. ' 230. L'interruption des travaux, par bref d'injonction, ne donne .as ouverture au recours en dommages contre le demandeur qui en I taisant emettre, a agi sans malice et avec cause probable. On ne sau- nut tirer un argument a lencontre de cette r6gle, de I'art. 1033^ C P (., qui present un cautionnement pour frais et dommages C'esi k c'elui qu, poursuit en dommages ^ prouver malice et absence de cause probablc-LARUE, J.-Zat^oi, ,,,. Dr.ret, R J. Q.. 7 C. S., p. 151. For damages arising from libellous pleadings, see cases noted at S::f *h«^-^-^-f LIBEL and ^....., Privileged Commu- Damages arising from Assaults :-231. Que lorsque, dans une action en dommages, pour assaut et batterie, il y a dansl preuve de aves contradictions, et qu'il appert qu 'il y a eu tort de i pa^^ d d.ux parties dans la cause, elles seront mises dos a dos, chacune d'e lies pay..n^ses frais dans toutes les cours.-Q. B.-Turyen & ^,^.aL i7 234 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. J05.1 Damages arising from Assilts, (Continued):— 232. Le defendeur a assailli le demandeur et pour cet assaut il a 6te pnursuivi on cour de Recorder et condatnne a une amende de ^5 Le dt landeiir, subsequemment, a intente une action en dominarrc's centre le defendeur pour le m^me assaut. Jug6, que, le demandeur ayant porte une plainte a la cour du lleco/der, pour assaut simple contre le defendeur, qui a pay6 $5 sur condamnation, ne pent etic poursuivi civilement en domniages pour la meme offense. — Cham- pagne, D. M..—Bouton vs. Lallemand, 12 L. N., p. 260. 233. Qu'une personne qui pretend avoir des droits sur un immeu- ble ne pent de son chef exercer ces droits violemment et que le posses- seur de cet immeuble a droit de repousser cette violence par la forco —Gill, J. ~FUiatrau.lt vs. Prieur, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 67. 234. Qu'une personne assaillie, qui a porte une plainte pour assaut devant un juge de paix, ne pent, lorsqu'il y a eu ainsi proces, poursnivre ensuite en dommages devant les coars civiles.— Tellieu, J. Lanqevin dit Lacrolx vs. Bowrhonnais, M. L. R., 6 S. C. p. 317-. 235. Que le raari est responsable des dommages causes par le d^lit de sa fimme (un assaut; commis en sa presence, sans qu'il s'y oppose en aucune maniere et apparemment de son consentement. (C. C. 1294).— Mathieu, J. — Lavigit,eur vs. Liscumb, 20 R. L., p. 619. 236 An action does not lie against an insane person, or his heirs or representatives, for the recovery of damages caused by him while labouring under mental derangement.— C. \i.—Basby vs. Ford, R. .1. Q., 3 C. S., p. 254. 237. Where a servant, without provocation, insults her niasttr and, being ordered to leave the house for persisting, after rebuke, in such insults, refuses to do so, with renewed insolence, the master may compel obedience to his order, using sufficient force for the purpose and no more.— Andrews, J.— Thibault vs. Fraser, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 330. 238. Th-^ Defendant, on a Sunday, immediately after divine service, of set purpose, and inviting his friends to witness it, violently assaulted Plaintiff and bit him on the shoulder. Held, that such assault could not be legally justitted by Plaintiff's former declaration of his willingnes-s to iight Defendant, nor by an alleged assault Consolidated SuppU^ent No. 1. — Aii. lOf^S. Damages ; Miscellaneous : — 235 committed by Plaintiff on Defendant, a week previously and $25 damages were awarded.— C. K—Piche vs. Guilmette, R J O 3 C S p. 358. ' " 239. Une perponne, k qui on a vole une somme d'argent, n'encourt aueune responsabilitd civili; en faisant faire des recherclu's sur la personne d'un individu qui etait pres d'elle quand le vol a ete conirais et qui savait quelle avait en sa possession une somme considerable.— OuiMET, J.— Grant vs Harkins, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 206. Damages ; Miscellaneous :— 240. Decision number 256 noted at this article (Inglis vs. PhiUips), is also reported in the 33 L. C. J., p. 82. The judgment was confirmed in Appeal— M. L. R. 7 Q. B., p. 36. 241. Decision number 258, noted at this article, (Bernard V8. Ber- toni) was confirmed in Appeal, save as to the quantum of damaires — 16 Q. L. R., p. 73. 242. Qu'une corporation municipale, autoris^e k exploiter uue usine k gaz pour les besoins des citoyens, est responsable des dom- mages que cette usine cause aux voisins.— Q. B.—CUy of i'orel & Vincent, 17 R. L., p. 220 ; 32 L. C. J. p. 314. 243. Where a party pays, under protest, a penalty imposed npon him by a justice of the peace, in proceedings taken against him under the provisions of C. S. L. C, cap. 22, intituled ' An Act respecting ' good order in and near places of public worship," and such party afterwards brings an action in damages against the person whom he alleged liad maliciously instigated such proceedings and, at the trial before a jury, there is no evidence of the favourable termination of the prosecution against him, the Court were equally divided as to the right of such party to maintain his action. Sir \v. J. Ritchie, C. J. and Strong & Tachereau, JJ., were of opinion that the action could not be maintained under such circumstances, and Fournier, Henry & Gwynne, JJ., contrd. The appeal was in consequence dismissed with costs.— Supreme Court.— Potiras & Lebeau, 14 S. C. R. p. 742.' 244. Qu'une corporation municipale n'est pas responsable des dommages resultant de son defant d'ouvrir un chemin dont I'ouverture est ordonnee par ua r^glement.-Q. B.-Baldivin ct- Coi-poration du f'cmton de Barnston, 17 R. L., p. 338. p ii !H: T i 1 ! • 1 :i ! ■,, i '» ! < 230 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 105J. Damages ; Miscellaneoi's, (Continued) :— 245. Que dans une action en doinmages pour violation d'un brevet d'invention, la contestation soulevec par le d6fendeur, que le brevet d'invention a ete perime, sous les dispositions de la section 28 de I'acte des brevets de 1872 (S. R C, ch. 61, sec. 37) doit, en vertu de cette section, etre decides par le ministre de I'agriculture, ou son assistant, dont la decision est finale, ce qui n'empeche pas le d^fendeur de pouvoir plaider, en vertu de la section 20 du dit stntut, tout fait ou defaut,qui. par I'acte des brevets, entraine la nuUite du brevet.— Mathieu, J.— Hancock Inspirator Co. vs. Mitchell, 17 R. L., p. 484. 246. Qu'une corporation municipale est responsable des dommages causes aux citoyens, par la negligence de ses honunes de police k les proteger, lorsqu'ils peuvent le faire.-MATHlEU, J.—Viau vs. Cite de Montreal, 17 R. L., p. 511. 247. Que I'inex^cution d'une promesse de raariage peut donner lieu a une condamnation en dommages-interets, lorsque la rupture a ete le resultat d'un pur caprice et a porte atteinte, soit a la reputation, soit aux int^rets materiels de la partie delaissee, et lorsque, en outre. k I'occasion du projet, cette partie a fait des depenses, constituant pour • elle une perte. Que les auteurs de la rupture sont tenus solidairement a la prestation de tous les donimages soufierts a raison du prejudice moral, aussi bien que materiel, eprouve par la partie delaissee. Que la mere, qui a donne .son consentement a la promesse de mariage suivie de rupture, et qui ensuite consent au mariage de sa tiUe mineure, avec une autre partie, sans user d'autorite legale qu'elle avait sur sa tiUe mineure, v£l le deces du pere, pour erapecher la rupture, engage sa responsabilite.— Tellier, J. -St. Jean vs. Oawmont, 17 R. L., p. 594. 248. Defendancs obtained a judgment against the firm of S. and Son, and under it seized the etfects of ti.e Plaintiff, who was not a member of the firm of S. and Son, which was composed of his fatlier and mother, on the ground that Plaintiff had obtained po.ssession of the firm's good by frau.l and collusion, when said goods were sold under a former execution and Plaintiff became the adjudicataire, he being at that time in the employ of the said firm and having bought the effects of the firm for a low figure. The bailiff was notified that the goods belonged to the Plaintiff, but persisted in f>-e seizure and sale, until stopped by opposition and judge's order, which opposition was main- Consolidated Supplement No. J. —Art. WSJ. 237 Damages; Miscellaneous. (Continued):— tainecl Action by Plaintiff' for damages. Plea ger.eral denial • probable cause for making seizure, owing to the low price p^for' the .a.d eff-ects by Plaintiff an.l want of malice.-^./.Z. reversTn I the judgmen of the Court below, that the circumstances f th c s°e 1 no justify the Defendant in seizing the effects of a person who w^ not a Defendant and against whom they held no judgment Th t such cases come under the provisions of C. C. 1053 anc? 1054 That where, ,n svich cases, the wrong is proved, it is the duty of the Cour to assess the damages to be awarded. That where the Ph^nti^ estabhshes a nght of action, no costs can be awarded against 1 mf the Plamt:ff would thereby be punished for exercising his ri.ht to bring such action.-C. ^.-State vs. McNally, 33 L. C. J.? p. UQ 249. Qu'une action en dommages, pour violation dun brevet d'in- vention, qui ne constate pas ur.e decouverte nouvelle sujette ^ brevc"t sera renvoyee.-Q. B.-Bellemave c& Damereau, 18 R. L.. p. 250. The decision in the above case was reversed in the Supreme Court which he d that the combination was not previously in use and Tat a patentable !i;vention.~-16 S. G R., p. 180. 250 Que le d^nonciateur d'un crime, qui indique au mac^istrat un indmdu comme temoin important, tandis qu'il ne connait ri n de ce crime est tenu d'indemniser ce temoin des d^pen.^es qu il lui fai faire.-PAGNUELO. J._J.a7.no«e vs. Hurtuhise, 18 R L.. p. 400. 251. Que celui qui a cau.e du dommage, ne peut ottrir de mettre es choses endommagees dans le meme ^tat qu'avant, mais qu i do payer le montant des dommages en argent -Champagne D m1 Lefaivre vs. Roy, 13 L. N., p. 59. 252. The Plaintiff- claimed damages from a druggist for an al leged error of his apprentice in giving Plaintiff's messrnge; " arbot c. instead of " carbolic oil," which was asked for. It appear d tha "carbolic acid "was given, but the evidence of the messenJe luvt she asked for carbolic oil, was contradicted by that of the appr'n- .ce who testified that carbolic acid was asked fo'r. It also appC that the bottle was merely labelled " poison," instead of being labelled w.th the name of the substance it contained, as required by the P ai- :::::T:\''t^^-^^::''''^: ^/^^^^.thattheactLbeingfordam:. 6e....ndnu.for a penalty under the Pharmaceutical Act, and there iilHI m ■I 238 Consolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 105,1. Damages; Miscellaneous, (Continued):— bei.ig no evidence that the injury complained of resulted from the insufficiency of the label, this circumstance would not justify judg^ meat agaiust the Defendant.-C. ^.-Singer vs. Uonard, M. L. R. 5 S. C, p°418;34L. C. J.,p. 20. 253. Que le mari, qui s'est reconcili6 avec sa femme n'a pas d'ac- tion en douunage centre le seducteur de cette derniere.-C. K-Caron r',s (iuay, 18 R. L., p. «85. 254 Que le vendeur d'un fon,' de marchandises, qui est saisi par «n tiers entre les mains de I'acheteur, est responsable dos dommages eprouv^s par ce dernier, quoique la saisie soit plus tard cassee, si au t:.u,ps de la yente, il connaissait les causes f . ^^^te saisie et n a fait rieu pour I'empecher.-Q. B.-Gauviv & Leclam', 19 R L., p. 030. 255 Qu'un commer<;ant, qui laisse son ^tablissement de commerc.. pour aller resider aux EtalsUnis et qui est remplace par un autre, faisant le meme commerce et qui revient ensuite, pent, sans encounr aiicune responsabilite en dommage en vers cet autre commercjant. repan- dre des circulaires informant le public que s n ^tablissement n est plus au meme cndroit qu'il etait.mais au lieu ou il se trouve alors.-,TETTK, J,.—Racic.ot vs. Racicot, 20 R. L., p. 228. 256 Que la reconciUiation du mari avec sa femme, coupable d'adultere, nenleve pas au mari ««" f ««"^J, ^^^^.'^""l^f ;°"'^:i '' s^ducteur de sa femme.-C. n.-LabeUe vs. Pelletre.r, 20 R. L., p. 33(,. 257 Qu'une personne qui donne a un autre personne un billet. si/ Ao<« Scotia vs. Lepage, M. L. R., « S. C, p. 321. 258 That the Defendant was liable for the price of goods advaii- ced to C by the Plaintiff, on the unqualiBed opinion, given by the Defendak as to the solvency of C, when, in fact, C. was not solvent and the Defendant had not sufficient information to warrant the opin- ion.— Pagnuelo, .h— Graves vs. Durand, 14 L. N., p. 170. 259. Que celui qui induit I'enfant mineur a laisser le domicile Consolidated Supplement No. I. —Art. 105,3. 239 Damages; Misckli.aneoits, (Continued):- Minimeau v.% Ladouceuv. 21 R. L., p. 27,S. ^♦aauiiei , j.-_ '.» • 1 C. S., p. 184. ^^^-^'"if^ws, .J.- Arm/, r.s. So/w^sen. R. J. •261. Que cohn- qui, par sa presence, oncourage un charivari o.f rosponsable en clon.n,a.es, .>nver.s celui qui est 1 ohjet d ce aHvaH 262^ Qu'un forgerou qui, apres avoir ferre un eheval I'envoie u.;ner ohe. sor. proprietaire sous les soins d'un jeune gar.on e Tn 1..U e, ni n.ors, est responsable dun accident arrive a ceT cCl paTh ...gl.gonce de son conducteur et aussi du fait qu'i] aurai "nscon suiter le propr.6taire du eheval, fait soi..„er ce cheva nl .'-.ne ignorante dont ,e traiten.nt a rend.: le c. ev^ k p^ tout trava-l.-JETTE, ,l-McGuire v.s. Grant R. J. Q., 2 C. S p.^2«7 2ii:i The Appellant, a physician, by inadvertance, wrote bi-sul plutte of nK>rplnne instead of bi-sulphate of quinine, in a preslttio ^o. Respondent s ehdd. Bi-sulphate of morphine, not beinHn af^c e oulv exists vvLn H ] ; ' ^- ^•' ^'^^ ^"ch solidarity I'lu^ exist:, wlien the damage resu ts from tli<> .cr,^ i i „ " ;u. independent act on the "part of t^hTe^ I thnlTof'T I >.ys:cian b.ng the priu.ary cause of the accident, thrjZnent so - as It cundemr.ed hin. to pay five-sixths of the d;ma.e wouM not .■ distur ed. (Reversing the decision of Jette. j" f- Xt no .."^l.ce .s shown, the court will not allow any pecuniary con^ sL" 81 i H If ili ill ■ wm 240 ConHolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 1053. Damages ; Miscellaneous, (Continued) :— for gri(«l:' or mental sufrering resulting from the act complain.Ml of, but only the actual damage rstablished (Boase, J., diss.)— Q- B.^ Jeannotte <£• Comllard, R. J. Q-, 3 B. R.. p. 4()1. 904 La preuve do I'adultere, dans une action civile, par le marl contre le oinplice de sa femme, peut se faire par temoins. comme celle de d^lits et de quosi-delits. et par des indices et pres .mptions, II n'est pas n^cessaire, pour .'tMl.'ir I'existence de ce dclit, que Ics coupables aient ete surprise >pm titrpifadine, umu^ la preuve pout risulter de pr^somptions violontes, precises et conconlantes qui no laissent dans I'esprit aucun dout.' rais. . unable fPar la C. S., C. R., ot B R)-DanH I'cspece, il results de I'onsemble de la preuve des pr^somptions violentes qui ne laissent aucun doute que I'intim^ a s^duit et enlev6 la femme de I'appelant et a commis I'adultere avoo elle_et le jugement de la Cour de premiere instance, condamnai.t I'intim^ a payer k I'appelant $500, a titre de dommages vindictiis est maintenu.— (Couii de Revlsion contra).— Q. B.— St-Laurent <(• Hamel, K J. Q, 1 B. R, p. 438. 265 Those who aid and abet, or take part in, the hanging and burning of a person in effigy, with the object of bringing him into contempt, are jointly and severally liable in damages. The father n\ minor children, who, although aware that his children were plannmii and abetting a proceeding of the above nature, did not interfere to restrain them, but actually encouraged them, is responsible for tho.r acts.— Tait, J.—Lortie vs. Claude, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 369. 966 La tiUe, devenue mere, n'a de recours en dommages contro son pretendu seducteur que lorsqu'elle n'a ced^e qu'a une promesse do mariacre actuelle ou presumde ; lorsque (con-.i-e dans I'espece) lappat de sa faute n'a pas et6 I'espoir du manage, mais celui d'dchapper k la grossesse, elle n'a pas d'action en dommages.-La fiUe seduite na pas d'action en dommages avant son enfantement, et par consequent a prescription de deux ans (C. C. 2261), no commence k courir que .1. ce moment.— C. K—Midlin vs. Bogie, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 34. 267 An action will lie for the affront caused by a breach of pn.- mise of marriage, though no real damage have been suffered. An ottor to marry, made after action brought, is no bar to the suit. Qua'iy, is it even good as a plea in mitigation of damages.— C. R •-/.«/)<•'- riere vs. Poulin, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 353. Conaolidated Supplement No. I.~Art. JOS.I 241 Damages; Miscellaneous, (Co7itinued) :— ■ 2(i8 L'assurour. ,,ui a pay ^ le incutant ,le Tassuranco k I'assur^ a pour so fa.re rcnboursor, cont.o laut.ur du sinistre. le recours 'en . oTunagos de Tart. 1053 C. C.-Q. B.-Cedar Shingle Co.. ^- Rimouski Imurance Vo., R. J. Q., 2 B. R.. p. 379. nmiomlci 269. The rules of a workmen's union provided that an overseer was to he appointed for every shop or place where u.eu.bers were .'.np oyed : that the overseer should enquire of each workmen how he stood towards the union and report to it ; and tUt .nernbers should only be permitted to work with co-members, under penalty of losing then- benehcml rights in the society. The Plaintiti; a non-member clauued damages h-om the office-bearers and other members, on the j^HMind that he had been prevented by them from getting work, and he asked urther^ hat the rules of the .society be declared contra y to pnbhc order. Held: The Court has no power to interfere to compel workmen, against their will, to work in particular places, or w th particular co-labourers, or to condemn them in damages for refusing to do 80 and the action was, therefore, dismissed.-DAVinsoN J_ / frrault vh. Gautkier, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 83. ' ' ■J'^^:J^'' Defendant corporation placarded certain pri vate .stree w.thm the municipality, as " dangerous." These streets had been opened by the Plaintiff, through his own land and were his private pro- SLf d r V'r'^'r' ^°^P^'"''^" ^^""'^ have sufficieiitly ulhl ed ts duty and relieved itself from all pos.sible responsibility for the streets towards the public, by giving notice that they were private property and not under Defendant's control, and that it assumed no responsibility therefor. Having gone further and placarded the stree s as dangerous, it was, in any case, bound to prove that their condition was really dangerous ; and Defendant, having failed to make such proof, the Plaintiff had suffered a wrong for which he, was eat, led to comperusation, without proof of special damage or of malice on the part of Defendant. ^.*100 damages a]Iowed).-DoHEUTV J- Ldowrneux vs. The Town of Maisonneuve, R. J. Q., 3 Q S., p. 514." y^i^IIV^' D'3fendant caused bread, offered forsale by the Plaintiff, w hfc T "I ' "''/• '• '^ ""^''' '' ''^^"^ ""der standard weight. The loaves seized, according to the proof, were of brown broad, and were under the weight tixed for brown bread by the Defendants by-laws. The Plaintiff was afterwards prosecuted and ^1 1 i S42 Conaoluiated Supplement No. l.—Art. 106S. Damaoks; Miscellaneous, (Continued) :— convicted for sollinR bread under standard weight. In an action ..r dainaj^es against the City for the seizure of tlie bread.— //e^^ : ItbiMDg the right and .iuty of the Defendant, under its by-laws, to make the seizure complained of, and there being reasonable and probable cause for the same, an action of damages against the Defendant could not bo nmintamed.-TAiT, J.—Paquette vs. Cil,, of Ste-Cuniijonde, U. J Q., 5 C. S., p. 4. 272. A person who, by frequent visits and attention", alienates the affections of a wife from her husband, and causes her to aban.lni, the conjugal domicile, is liable to the husband in damages ; and the fact that the wife encouraged the Defendant's advances is not a sufficient defence to such action. (S500 damages u, lowed).- DoHEUTY. .l—Lebeau vs. Plouffe, H. J. Q., 5 C S., p, 59. 273 The Defendant sold Plaintiff a dog, which was subsequently claimed by a third party. The Defendant, although aware of this claim, suppressed the fact that he had bought the dog from an unknown person and thereby induced the Plaintiff to take an act.on to revendicate the dog. Defendant, when called as a witness in that case, disclosed for the first time how the dog came into his possession The action of revendication was dismissed, with costs against the Plaintiff, who now claimed that he was entitled to be indeinnitied ly his vendor. Held :— Although the Defendant was not impleaded as warrantor in the action of revendication, nevertlieless his suppre.ssion of a material fact constituting fault, he was liable, under art. 1053 C. C, for the damage thereby caused to Plaintiff ; viz : the costs which Plaintiff incurred in his action of revendication. as well as the price paid by him for the dog.— Doherty, i.— Hayes vs. Hersey, R. J. Q..5 C. S., p. 476. 274. Le d^fendeur, marchand d'harmoniums a " loue " au deinan- deur, qui a accepte, un harmonium pour vingt et un mois, moyennant $5. argent comptant et ensuite $15, tons les trois mois, avec condition que, si ces paiements sont faits r^gulierement, et aussitOt les vingt .t un mois expires, le demandeur deviendra proprietaire de I'harmonmm ; mais si le demandeur neglige de payer, le defendeur aura le droit. sans en donner avis ni en faire la demande, de prendre et enlever le dit instrument et pour cesjins, entrer dans aucun appartement dv, demandeur oii pourrait se trouver I'instrument, et cela sans f'tre Conmiulated UtippUment No. J.— Art. /Ool 949 Damaoeh ; Miscellaneous. (VontinueA) •_ 'In d.t harmonium, sera .l^houtee avoc .Idpens -Cimov / }"! liemard, R. J, Q., .5 Q S., p. 529. J— Xtt«a« vk 275. The Phiintiff, an architect, in response to .. nnhi;» „ 1 '.«.nent, offered „,a„, i„ e„,„p„««o„ f,„. ., .rilnXt tot .^Ted ■y Defendant on l,eins ,u,.„red by H„. ,„.e,ide„t „( Det";!^^^ W all the plan, sent in would be ,„bn,itted to Jisinter^S exoert Wore a cho.ee wa, n.ade. The plans were not snb,„ittedt exp'e ^ •in.l those hn«lly ojopted were ,„bn,ilte,l by an arehitee, Jb? not a eo^petitor within the tenn, of the f^ZC^l^^^ZuM- ..t he Pl.,„t,ffwa, not entitled to damages, it being evTdenf hit the Defendant was not bound to adopt the plans which mthtt ree.,mn,ended by the experts, and no partiality or bad fairhfn th^ :tr MTr?-;^rp.7r "'■ ' '-"■""" --- " 276. Where the holder of a timber license does not verifv fh. hcense before it issues, and, after its issue, works on lands and makt mprovements on a branch of a river which he believe £^0? pa part of the adjommg hmits. he cannot recover from the r'r^^^r^Z 244 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art 1053. Damages ; Miscellaneous, (Continued) :— losses sustained by acting on an understanding derived from a plan furnished by the Crown prior to the sale. (Fournier J., dissenting). —Per Patterson, J. The licensee's remedy would be by action to can- cel the license under art. 992 C C, with a claim for compensation for moaeys expended.-SuPREME Comxi.-Grant & The Queen, 20 b. C. R, p. 297. 277 Le 6 decembre, 1892, le secr^taire-tr^sorier de la ville de St. Henri avertit le demandeur, qui batissait sur sa proprietd en la dite ville qui! empietait sur une rue, lui intimant que, s'il continuait sa construction, il le ferait a ses risques ei perils. Lk-dessus, le demandeur, apres avis a la defenderesse, fit mesurer son terrain, par un arpcnteur iur6 qui constata que le demandeur batissait sur son terrain. Le "secrkaire-tr^sorier invita alors le demandeur a assister a une assemblee du conseil de ville, ou devait se discuter I'opportunite d'dlargir la rue sur laquelle le demandeur batissait. Trois asseinblees furent tenues, mais les parties nese sontpas entendues sur le montantdc I'lndemnite et le 7 Janvier, 1893, le secretaire-tresorier ecrivit au demandeur qu'il pouvait continuer sa batisse. Jug6:-Q^e le demandeur, qui avait suspendu la construction de son edifice, pouvait rdclamer de la defen- deresse le? dommages que cette suspension lui avait causes.— Pagnuelo, J.—Lemoine vs. La cit6 de St. Henri, R. J. Q., 6 C. S,, p. 515. 278. Que la fille majeure a un recours en dommage pour seduc- tion et rupture de promesse de mariage.— C. B..—Myronville vs. Girard, 1 R de J. p. 273. 279. Where two young adults, of opposite sex, share the same bed, it will be presumed that sexual intercourse took place, and thi.s presumption, in the present case, was not destroyed by the Defendant's denial. The Defendant i ot having shown that the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with any other man, he will be presumed to be the father of a child, not shown .o be viable, though born on a date less than 180 days (viz 177 or 178 days) after the presumed connection. Art. 218 ef .seq., of the Civil Code apply to children born during marriage, and nothin, therein containad precludes the mother of an illegitimate child from recovering lying-in expen.ses for the birth of a child born only 177 or 178 days after the alleged connection, and not shown to be viable , ».nd semble, it is for the Defendant, in such case, to establish viability. C. B,.—Ahirr restitution is demanded ; and, when no proof is made to the contrary, this will be assumed to be their nominal ^^'/'^^ '^*'^;- ™' ' Council.- /S'm^cai & Paaze, 14 App. Cas:, p. 637 ; 12 L. I^., p. 6.M-- Q. B— M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 461. 297 Que les dommages intdrets dus pour la reparation d un quasi-delit, ne doivent comprendre, pour la perte eprouvee ou le gam manque, que ce qui en est une suite immMiate el ^'i . " Teli^"-«. J.—Desrochesvs. Corp. du ComU d'Hochelaga, 18 J. ... . -08. 298 The municipality of H. (whose obligr.tions were subsequent- ly assumed by Defendants), in consideration ol th. gratuitous cessmn Consolidated Supplement No. l.~Art. 1053. 249 Measure of Damages, (Continued) .— PhJnr^ ^L P'f°*^'^;/ff''^^d to prolong a certain street thron^^h Plamfff-s lots, at a w:dth of 100 feet, and to open two other streets hrough Ins property. The street first referred to was afterwards hornologa ed at a w.dth of 60 feet only and the Defendants delayed to complete the other two streets. Held, that the measure of damal.es in respec of the street homologated at a width of CO feet, was The value of the 40 teet taken by Defendants and not retroceded and the deprecmtion n. value of the rest of Plaintift's property in consequence hi .t r °^^^""*"°^ "" *he street as prolonged. And, as to the breach ot contmct respecting the other two streets, the measure of damages was the interest (computed from the time when the streets could reasonably have been co.npleted) on the capital represented by the increased value which the Plaintiff could have got for his lots if tue streets had been made as agreed.-JoHNSON, J._ Aylwln v,. City of Montreal, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 402. ^ 299. Que les dommages-interets doivent comprendre, non seule- ment la reparation du prejudice eprouv^ par la partie lesee, mais aussi celuiquesouffrela famille, lorsque le fait dommageable ;ejailli:su elle et que tons ceux auxquels le fait a cause un dommage sont admis a r^clamer.-MATHiEU, J.-Larrive vs. Lapierre, 20 R. £., p. 3. 300. The amount of damages awarded by the judge who tries the case, m the Court of first instance, is in his discreLn'and Thou Id nt be interfered with by a Court of Appeal, unless clearly unreasonable and unsuppor ed by the evidence, or there be some error in law or ^S /tnn."' . d^™^g«^. estimated in the Superior Court at So.OOO, to $2 000 and the Supreme Court restored he jud.^nent of the Court of hrst instance.-SuPREME CovRT.-Cossette & Dun 18 S O. a., p. 222. ' 301 Where the damages have been appraised by the Court of hist instance and the Court of Review has reduced the at^ount the Cour of Appeal will not interfere with the award of the intermediate Court, unless it appears that gross injustice has bee.. , (one.- Q. B - Irait A Charbonneau, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 24 ; 19 R. L., p. 251 ; 34" L. ^- o., p. 124. ' .uuf^l !V'"' '"'t' '^i"''' ""^^ '''' '''^''''' ^"^ d^™*^g«« f«r libel, no substantia! damagos having been proved, the Court of Review reduced {V ^ 25 Conml'ulated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1053. Measure of Dkuko^^, (Continued): — the amount awarded from $500 to $100 with full costs of m'X.—C. It. —Noyes vs. La Vie d'lvip. et de Pub. du Canada, M I. R., 6 S. ('., p. 370. 303. Where a child was killed by the fault of tbc Defendants' emploj-ees and the f.ither sued for damages, it was keld that the measure of damages was tlu < osts inciu;v.i from the time of the birth of the child to the time of its death.-LoRANGEii. i.—Dnfreane t-s. Montreal City Passenger By. Co., M. L. R., "> 3. C, p. 10 ; 20 R. L„ p. 461. TJie decision in the above case was reversed in uppeal, s regards the liabi'ity of the Defenl mts for the accident. The case is reported in this SuppletiiiMit, at tl)i:i article, under the heading of Street Acci- dents, doois.'o I numbev 58. 304. Que le maimfacturier, qui fait un contrai avec un particu- lier.pou/ lui i'ournir certains articles dont il a besoin. a droit de recou- vrer de ce dernier, qui repudie son contrat, des dominages equivalents ji la perte qu'il eprouve dans la vente des efi'ets qu'ii avait spdciale- nient prepares pour remplir cc contrat. — C. R. — Neiv England Paper Co vs. Bertlduume, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 65. 305. That an agreement, by which the Defendant transferred to Plaintiff a barge for $300, whereof $50 were payable in July follow- iog, $50 in September, and the balance in annual instalments of $50, ami which stipulated that, in default of payment of the instalments as they became due, the Defendant would be at liberty to take back the barge, is a sale and not a lease. 2. That a saisie-gagerie seizing the barge under such pretended lease, was issued maliciously and without probable cause ; and vindictive as well as real damages may be allowed in such case.— C. K—Lamirande vs. Gartier, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 43. 306. Que lorsqu'une corporation a neglig6 d'entretenir une rue pendant I'hiver, elle ne peut echapper a la responsabilite qui resulte d'un accident, en plaidant que la rue s'est trouvee da' t* '•euse par suite d'un degel subit, son devoir etant de couper la gla( le couvrir les trottoirs de cer. -es. Que neanmoins le demar,. - r, un vieilbird, s'etant imprudr - .. mt engage dans une pente ■• • ' ^ans grappins et avec des claque^ ou caoutchouc usees, il y a - i ii; loitiger les doui- mmu' Consolidated Supplement No. I.—Art. 10',.',. 261 Measurk of Damages, rCo«r compte de la valeur actuelle de ces terrains au moment de I'ex- propnation et non pas de celle quepeuventleur donner la perspective des travaux pubhcs qui ont motiv^ leur expropriation. On L doit pas nou plus, en taisant cette estimation, prendre en consideration la plus va ue que ces terrains auraient puacquerir a la suite des travaux spe- cuatds dune execution difficile et d'un succes problemati.,ue. Les tnbunaux doivent renverser la decision des commissaires en matiere d expropriation, que lorsqu'il est ckiremont demontre qu'ils ont commis une erreur.-Q. B.-Za Cite MontrM JL- Lemoine, R. J Q Tb R p. 181. ■ ^■' •' 315 The Plaintiff sued for damages, arising from an error in a prescription, which resulted in the death of his child. Held -Where no malice is shown, the court will not allow any pecuniary compensx fbutc TfrT"fi ^"^"'"" "^"'^'"»" *"-^" *J- act'^.ompLinTd 31G. The Plaintiff, who is both a physician and a chemist was arrested upon a coroner's warrant for manslaughter, in having fiicTa prescription, which caused the death of a child. The Defendan s in publishing in their newspaper a statement referring to the matter b" 1 aint tf s dealing with the prescription. Held .-There bein^r no nroof ot malice, or that the damage, were increased in Iny a^certfLed amount by the error, nominal damages only could be'^aZ d and ) iendants tender of «100 was held sufficient. - Auchibald J .iTp 833. '"'- "'^"^^-"^^-^ ^^ * ^"'^- ^« Mont:X^l \~S 317. When a person has obtained a promise of salp nf ...oi * . I 1 f'^ A^[\.m X < i 264 Consolidated Supplement No. t.—Art. 1061 2. Decision number 18, noted at this nrfxcW.f Allan A Pratt), was taken to the Privv Council, \^'.ich refused to allow an appeal— 15 Q. L. R., p. 18 ; 81^ C C. .1 ^ -8 ; 13 App. Cas.. p. 780. 3. Decision number 27, noted at this article, (Stephens ,r, ct s'il n'est pas 6tabli que la p. .^caution indiquee aurait prevenu I'accideut. — Mathieu, J.—Archambiult vs Dominion Barb Wire Co., 18 R. !.., p. 57. 6. A railway company is not responsible for injury sustained l.y an employee, whose foot was caught in a fro?, where it appears tlmt there was no negii-^nce or fault on the part ui the company and thr accident was owing to a risk incidental i. the Plaint! T^ employuitnit as a brakeman. Where the Plai .,i, as a member of ai. insurance society in connection with ' ' e company. Defendants, received a sum of money from the society, >n nsation of injn'- " and, in consi- deration of such payment. ; .'d lease and discharge of Defendants '■ from all claims for damages, indemnity or other form of compensation, " on account of said accident, " he is precluded from asking for any further compensation.— Tasct-?.eau, J.— i^ourr/eaui^ vs. G > and Trunk Ry., M. L. R. 5 S. C p. 249. m Consolidated Supplement No. I.^Art 10,54 tBS Vtt,8 ^tat des out.ls ou des „,achino8 .,u'il met k leur usae. Ori dernier ne so f nn« i„ f ^ ^*'''' °''''''^«- P^urvu (pie c- uernier ne soit pas la cause p rem ere dc I'accidpnt PR n' vs. Ca" onn«-^^n> *. > i- ouvrage --le u_.... appa, .^enanfc a un tiers, pendant que It ! f.m 26(t Consolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. JUSl CO tiers est k se d.> huilor pendant .(uo la manufacture etait ('n operation, et son imprudence en passant sur un t»is de rognures do bois ,,ui se trouvait pres de I'arbre de couche, tout en ne relevant pas ontiferement le proprietaire de sa faute. cause principalo de accident, doit neanmoins etre pris en consideration dans le montant do dommagos a etre accorda (Jugement pour S.500.)-Mathieu, J.-Lapierre v.. I>o(m'%, M. L. R., 7S.C., p. 197. 15 Que lorsqu'il V a faute commune de la part du patron et do I'ouvrier, le patron est cependant responsable vis-a-vis de louvner, pour les dommages eprouv^s par celui-ci, mais la faute de ce dernier doit etre prise en consideration dans la determination des dommages. __(^| ll.^Clement us. Rou-^seau, K J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 263. 16 Le patron n'est responsable des accidents arrives a sos ouvriers qu'autant qu'ils sont causes par sa faute, ou sa negligonce. Partant, lorsque des ouvriers ont 6te noy^s par la rupture d uno ohaussee sur laquelle ils travaillaient, les dommages qui en ont re- sulte ne peuvent etre recouvres du patron, en I'absence de preuvo de la cause qui a determine Vaccident et qui d^montre faute ou ne- gligence de sa part.-Q. B.-Mercier & Marin, R J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 86. 17. Le demandeur, employd de la defenderesse, en s'en allant de sou ouvracre, s'est refugie pendant un orage dans une batisse apparte- nant a la defenderesse, et, pendant qu'il y etait. la foudre est to.nbee sur une poudriere voisine, aussi appartenant k la defenderesse, qui n'itait,ni construite suivant les prescripti .ns de la loi, ni protegee par une .section ConaolidatM Supplement No. l.~Art Wf. ', 257 u ont rendulu ch-h-nderesse responsable .lu dornmage quo lexplosion icelle a cau«^ au demaAdeur. Los lois concernant Tes'poudl" S • ^. art. 87.), par. 6. ot art. 1011, ot les re^lemonts fait'paHe L .t" termnt-Gouverneur en Con.seil conforn.t<,no„t k icollos s-annliouenf Ahestos Co., R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 18.5. Amjlo-Camulmn 18. Where ene of several employees charged with the removal of aIar^e,nndstone. was injured in the performance of thotaTand evulonce showed that the accident would not have happ:! "f the oreman had been present to direct the operation of the men th .• nployer .,s responsible. An employer is bound to protect hs em P oyees by the best possible means and even to son.e ext n alh^t thoir own nuprudence. De Lorimier I Thh^t m ^f"''."^'^ H. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 318. '^'""''"E«' ''-^otson m Treoethrick, la Un contreniaitre qui, on dirigeant des travaux. fait deplacer une secfon de olmudiere et la fait n.ottre dans un endr^it trop 1 troTt o .1 y ava,t un danger, contra lequel il devait lui-men.e se protje ' na pas d action en dounnages contre ses patrons pour des blessuref I' la. caus^es par la chute d'une barre de fonte dun t.s qui su vant uf a ava.t pas et^ suffisamment bloqu., mais qui d'apres la preun pu' otro derange par lui-,neme et ses hommes. Pour rendre le natron -esponsable, il faut qu'il y ait faute, ou du .oins niu^^^c ; f^e 1 tres-legere de sa part, et la victime ne doit pas avoir%ommis e H-eme una faute; sd y a faute des deux partfes, il rests au t bunal a deciders, laresponsabilite estseulementatt.nu^e,ou si elle doiUtr repouss^e ^n toto, suivant les cireonstanc.s , et s'il n'y afaute nfdt cote m de 1 autre c'est un cas fortuit. Dans lesp^., il n'a pas 6te rouv6 que Taccdent ait ^t^ cause par aucune faute ou nXence jles^de^fendeurs.-RouTHrKU. ,^ .-Carhonnea. vs. Lain,, R j'(^Tc. 20. Le contremaitre de. defendeurs, dans le but de faire une paration, ava.t laiss^e uno courroie pendante et detach Jsur un ^dettr ^■'""^''"'^P^"^°" obscurdansla manufacture des detendeura La courroie trainait sur le plancher de ce passage et le fils mmeur du demandeur. ayant k passer par 1^. dans re'^ Zde 258 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 106^. ses t'onctions, fut saisi par la courroie et tn^ instantanement. La courroie netait pas entour^e d'appareils protectours, au d^sir de I'ar- ticle 3024, S. R. P. Q. Jacje : Quo les defendeurs etaient civileinent responsable de la mort de I'enfant du denmndeur.— Pagnuelo, J.— Tremhlay vs. Davidson, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 405. 21. Le maitre n'est pas responsable des consequences d'un acci- d(!nt arrive a sou employut such authon-ty had no' bet o fine In th^ "^ ^^^'"»-^"^>'-- //.^^.-The Plaintiffs husband bei t Ir^ ttt , rf" " '"^""" tin.es required to attend fires outside of H T ""''' '°™'- objected to sucli service fir'. '^''/'^ "''^ ^'^^y- '^'^^^ "ever having leaving authority^ orde tl i "e n'to It' 'T^^ "" '^'="""-«-^'-. city, the fact that the chief othSont' Tv I " ""''''^'^ "*' '^"^ -•.^stance, without first obh,in n h "' ^"^"^^'^ '^''<^''^'^' ^" ^his .;.ayor. was at ^: a ^n!!:^ ^ ni:-;:;:: ^ 'X 7"T the city responsible for the mere aet of , • T / "''^' '"^'^'^ the city limits, in the absence of any eWd I eoT/^^ '^T' w.th the death of Plaintiffs husbaL - DoH.tv J / ?"""'"" ri.' City of Montreal, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 249 •^''''''' ""• a* 1 "•'^v'-i ^'"'^^^ q^e'Je 6tait en mouvement dii-Pr.*- nf ,„ attondre son arret ce on- n'-,n,.„,v ^ • . "vcmtnt auect et sans .- I„r4ae ,e .Itt^ WstX Cwflr Vrl'"^' "■'^' iMuiiis large oue le coiitonn „„i . . , , " '*>»'*i'' otait .uouhns „no pla„ehe ,„i couvrait e„tii,le°n: ecu ea' T " ■l- Indent oette planehe ,e tro„va,t 4cart., l^S „.'; ':';[ I I' if; 260 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 105^. n^anmoins a blanchir un morceau de bois et se fit couper quatre doijrts de la main gmche.—Jugd ;— Que I'intim^ avait commis une imprudence en fcravaillant k la machine en question, sans que la plan- che qui servait de garde fut a sa place, et qu'il n'avait pas de recours centre I'appeiant a raison de I'accident dont il avait ^te victirae.— Q. B.-Roberts & Dorion, R. J. Q., 4 B. R, p. 117.-Pagnuelo. J.-R J. Q.. 5C. S.,p. 411. 28. Where two stevedores are independently engaged in loading the same steamer and, owing to the negligence of the employees of the one, an employee of the other is injured, the former stevedore is liable in damages for such injury. The failure to observe a precaution usually taken in and about such work is evidence of negligence.— GwYNNE, J. dissenting. — Supreme Court. — Brown & Leclerc, 22 S. C. R, p. '53.-Q. B.-R J. Q.. 1 B. R, p. 234. 29. That a Railway Company is liable in damages, to an inex- perienced employee, for injuries sustained in executing the orders of a train conductor, while the train was in motion and without warn- ing of the danger.— Lynch, J.—Daudelin vs. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 1 R de J., p. 105. Miscellaneous.- 30. Qu'une corporation municipale est respon- sable des dommages qui sont cau,ses par les representations erronees faites par son prepose, k une personne demandant une licence, pour faire un commerce licencie, dans les limites de la municipahte, a I'eftet quo la licence octroyee dans le mois de mars vaudra pour une annee, tandis que, par les reglements en force, la license expire le ler mai suivant la date de son octroi, et que, dans ce cas, la corporation devra rembourser, k celui qui a pris la license, la proportion du cout de licence pour le temps pour lequel il n'en a pas joui et ses frais d'iiis- tallation, pour faire le commerce, s'il est demontrd que cette personne n'aurait pas pris cette licence sans les representations du preposd de la corporation. — C. li. — St-Michel vs. Cite de Montrdal, 16 R L., p. 605. 31. See also case of Montreal Stceet Ry. Go. & Wilscam, noted in this Supplement at article 1053, under the heading of STREET Acci- dents, decision numberj|45. 32. Contractors are not employees or servants within the mean- ing of C. C. 1054.— Brooks, i.—Morin vs. Atlantic and North Western Ry., 12 L.»N., p. 89. Gonsolichted Supplement No. l.-Art. 1051 261 rieain, agissant sur V\nvJu , I t^^ 'e gouverncmont ame- "">« L, p. 52. ""°"»-C- R.-Ar.mW( „,. Cit^ „f Montreal. 18 R. cartage Ld d ive^;t , "r'''°* "f "'T'"'"'''" '''='="». '" «'« paid 1 "..oh^; 1 °.: trtv c ttr'' ™* ""'-' •"■"« in«icM seve.rdi,;t;:;rt p,r;ri^rs:;:f ^ 5 S. C, p. 155. IJAVIDSON, J.~Lm>d.e vs. Muir, M. L R., Lors d' conti pT,?:::,!!:"' '"™«™,.""-. -^ ™de,„c„t .is R. L., p .321. ™'^"' ■l—P'r.auU vs. Oanmlmn Paci/k Ry., 20 t* mai pto" ;:,"zr::r t '■"''.''""'^'° *' ^^^ ■I"'"- '™»i« j- Ja„, la .-ue audCsous 0„JT ""■■"' """' ''"PP"'' "" P"»"' .«p™s„He .,™ drr„.4:: Sr^i^crTr:.;: r"^; r ' ""■ •°™^""'. M 1- K.. 5 S. G, p, 81 ; 3a L. C. J., p 55 pi»....ir>s a„d „.:«.;"■ ; *:i':„T«.e"'r "" i"""- -»-» "ifcrfcre to restnui, thorn 1 .T! , „ °™ ""'"'■"■ ''''' ""' »;He for tWr acta [In' T T 1"^ ^ encouraged ti.em. i, re.poa- act*.- U,T, ,J._/,(,,(„ ,„ e;^„,; R. J. Q„ 2 C &■ p V'" r,! i" 262 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1054- 38. Where a person, passing along a public street, is injured by the fall of a heavy object, from a scaffolding suspended in front of a building on which Defendant's employees were working, it is to be . presumed, in the absence of evidence or explanation on the part of Defendant as to the cause of the accident, that the thing fell by rea- son of negligence on the part of his employees. In order to be relieved from responsibility it is for Defendant to show that every precaution had been taken to prevent such accident.— DoHERTY, J.— Caron t«. James, R. J. Q., 4 C. 8., p. 03. 39. A father is responsible for the act of his minor son, unless he establi-sh that he was unable to prevent it. and his mere absence from the locality, at the time of the commission of the act, is not sutli- cient for that purpose. The responsibility of the parent is presumed, it is the rule, and the onus is on him to show such circumstances, as to the control or discipline to which the minor may have been subjected, as might make of the particular case an exception to the" rule. So, in the present case, no proof having been given (^n behalf of Defendant to show what training his son had received, arnl no such defence having been set up by his leadings, he was held liahlr in damages for injuries caused Plaintiff by being run down on the highwayV such son, who was driving at the time a vehicle which he had hired from a livery-stable without his father's knowledge. Pedes- trians have a perfect right to walk, either on the roadway or on the sidewalk, and it is the business of drivers of vehicles to see that they avoid them.— Andrews, S .—Berthiaume vs. McCone, R. J. Q., 5 C. S. p. 492. 40. Les administrateurs d'une ecole sont responsables civilement de la maladie contractee par un enfant frequentant cette ecole, par suite de louverture, par I'instituteur, d'une croisee pres de I'endroit od I'enfant etait assis, la temperature etant froide et I'instituteiii' ayant refus^. de feriner la croisee on de permettre a I'enfant de .s m eloigner.— J KTTi^;, J.—Peterkm vs. School Trustees of St Henry, K. .1. Q.,7C. S., p. 117. 41. The Plaintiff's son, aged 14 years, while swimming in a public swimming bath of the city, Defendant, suddenly sank and did not rise acrain to the surface. The guardian of the bath, when notified, did not attempt a rescue by diving, and when the body was recovered by u grapnel, some 20 or 30 minutes afterwards, life was extinct. In tlie opinion of the Court, there was no. Pvidence to sustain the theory that. Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Art 1055 26S proof of a vo>t mnrf.!,?. " '°°""' ""'' '''«■■« Wng no «oat, J, uf/p~::furL:rtrT„:i:°',' ''-' "■"'' -«■'■ UAvm^oN. J.,_A,.»«„^rf „, r,,, ofM.mr..M. R J, Q., ,. c. s., p 345. the s!L*:;:j.r,,fr;itt t? '"^7™^™"^ ™=-s«.i - ioa.ii„g one, a„ employ! 7 i^MfeH, i'-"'''" «r"°r' "'" """P'^i-*' °'' "'» usually tken in and Z, '° ^ *"" °'*'"™ " P'-^-iWon C. B., p. 5a-Q. R^k' i Q."™ -R ^"™X-^™»» * i"*", 22 S. inflated on a pedestrian t 'lll-'r: '= ^T''^'}"' '"I '"iurie. inflicted nn n r..^ . • , -^ "y-'aws, is responsible inHicted on a pedestrian who is struck by the boy's sled ONeil vs. Emerson, R. J. Q., 6 C S p 307 -Tait, J.— dark, with two 1,0 se! led WaZl, T"'' f"* *" '"«'"'">'. "f^r his ha„d,,. The ledtre^iti^dn;' ;rrki„'f„r7"'' which ran out from a farm hnnt, ■ i j ., baikin^r of dogs, Plaintirs hands were iZ s'/Tn j, ^d ft^ t^ '"^''^"'f ,""' "" domestic animal bnn.,^ l,i« n,„. "f'"'. that a dog, although a and the Defend „ bet '':„;;" "! ^r»' P-"«^- of exemption he at ,a,.ge „p„„ a p„hhc ^ :1:^;!!:::^' ::^r^ ^fi^^^^' was hel: ttlwr''' °'"''° ""^^ ™ ■■"--<■ - «--. >vhere it licabit existed in the counfrv ^f i. • 7 occurred. Ihat, as a bad sons p,«sing l,y, I „ ae i„7wol h^'T °''' ,""""' """' ™' »' P- C, p. 501. ■ P' ^'' ' ^^ "■ ''■' P >59 ; M. L. R, 6 K, 264 Consolidated Siipplevient No. l.—Art. 1066. 2. In an action of damages, arising out of a collision between tho Plaintiffs two -wheeled cart and the Defendant's omnibus, where it appeared to the Court that, notwithstanding the bad condition of the- thoroughfare and the narrowness of the space in which the vehicles had to pass, a collison might have been avoided by the exercise of ■greater care on the part of Defendant's driver and, at all events, by stopping the Defendant's omnibus, when the difficulty of passing was perceived, it was held that the Defendants were responsible for the damages caused by the collision which ensued. — C. R. — Thibaudeau '/w. Montreal City Passenger Ry., M. L. R, 4 S. C, p. 400. 3. Que le proprietaire d'un mur, qui s'ecroule, par suite des vices de construction, et cause des dommages au voisin, est responsable de ces dommages.— Q. B.— Evans & Lemieux, 17 R. L., p. 295 ; M. L. R, r, Q. B., p. 112. 4. The owner of a building is responsible for damages caused by the falling or giving way of a portion of it, where the accident occurs, either from want of repairs, or from a defect in its construction. The obligation of the lessor is .similar to that of the owner. — Tait, J.— Simvions vs. Elliott, M. L. R, 5 S. C.p. 182.— Q. B.— 20 R. L., p. 6()6 ; :}4 L. C. J. p. 336 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 368. 5. II s'agissait dun accident cause a une voiture par un cheval echappe dans une rue publique, ou il avait ete, par son maitre, nban- donne, sans entraves, mais la preuve lit voir que le demandeur avait, lui aussi,laiss6 son cheval sur la rue, sans I'entrave et que celui-ci tour- na de cute et obstrua la rue, en traverse et que c'est dans cette posi- tion qu'il fut frappe par le cheval du defendeur. Action deboutee avee depens.— Champagne, D. M.—Beaucaire vs. Whelan, 13 L. N., p. 13. 6. Que le pere qui prete, a sou fils majeur, un cheval non vieieux, n'est pas responsable des accidents que le tils peut occasionner lui-nieme en conduisant ce cheval— De LouiMiER, S.~Melan<;.on vs. Lehlaw:, 15» R. L., p. 326. 7. Que la prudence la plus ordinaire, ainsi que les reglemonts municipaux. obligent tous ceux qui conduisent des voitures a modorer I'allure de leurs chevaux en traversaut les rues. Qu'en vertu de ce devoir, une personne dont la voiture it le cheval sont conduits avee une as'sez grande vitesse et qui frappe un enfant qui traverse hi rue, assez gravemeat pour aiaener la mort de Cet enfant, sera responsable Coaaolidated SuppUnumt No. l.—Art. JOfjo. 265 au p^re de ce dernier du dommage que lui en resultera-MATHlEU J Kennedy vs. Couwille, M. L. R, 6 S. C, p. 308. 8. Que le proprietaire d'un chion vicieux, qu'il tient dans sa cour pour proteger sa propriete, est responsable du dommage qu'il cause en mordant une personne qui ontre dans sa cour pour 2ffaire.-C R —Lapalm^i vs. Elliott, 34 L. C. J., p. 228. of h!; ^T'J" f" ;lestroyed the Defendant's house, leaving one of the waLs standing m a dangerous condition, and the Defendant knowmg the tact neglected to secure or support the wall or take it down, and some days after the fire, it was blown down by a high wind and damaged the Plaintiff's house. Held, affirming the judl m nts of the courts below, that the Defendant could not shi.ld him"- self under the plea of vis major and was liable for the damages p. 248.-Q. B.-33 L. C. J., p. 175 ; 20 R. L.. p. 670 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. R, 10. The proprietor of a liou.e, fronting on a public street is res- tiom the roof whether the house be tenanted or not. The injur? caused by such a snowfall, being in the nature of a .uasi-delit one co-propnetor n.ay be sued alone for the damage, he l/aving the i^h ^r'^ STS1!tt' ' '' '''''-'-'- --^-- - 11. Le maitre qui prete soncheval a un homme, employe par lui a la journee. pour les affixires de ce dernier, nest pas responsaird'un accident arnve par la negligence du serviteur.%. Le' prop i4ta,re d un cheval non v.ieux n'est pas responsable d'un acciden' ca'u pa majeure.— L. K~Grant v.s. Diivand, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 179. 12. Lorsque I'action doit etre renvoyee pour un autre motif que n uffisance de la preuve, une motion par le demandeur pour Tr ntendu sur le serment suppl<^toire, sera rejet^e comme inutile L^ . .tre nest pas responsable des consequences d'un accident, arrivd I .^employe, qu.se fait ruer par un cheval appartenant au ml re qu.l condu. au cours de ses devoirs, si ce serviteur connait bZ la dans la circonstanee. «eu servant volontairement et librement, sans y H •ill MS m wy 266 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1050. ^tre aiicuneiiiorit CDntraint. — C. R. — lii'itUHHeim vs. Boulanqer, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 7rj._ANDUEVVs, J.— R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 298. 13. Pedestrians liave a perfect right to walk either on the roail- ' way or on the sidewalk and it is the business of drivers of vehicles to see that they avoid them. A father is responsible for the act of his minor son, unless he establish that he was unable to prevent it and his mere absence from the locality at tlie time of the commission of the act is not sufficient for that purpose. The responsibility ot the parent is presumed, it is the rule, and the onus is on him to show such cii'cuinstances, as to the control and discipline to which the minor may have been subjected, as might make of the particular case an exception to the rule. So, in the present case, no proof having been given on behalf of Defendant to show what training his son hail received, and no such defence having been set up by his pleadings, he was held liable in damages for injuries caused Plaintiff by being run down on the highway by such son, who was driving at the time a vehicle which he had hired from i livery stable without liis father's knowledge. — Andrews, J. — Berthiaume vs. McConc, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 492. 14. Un mulet, appartenant au d^fendeur, s'etait echapp^ du clo.s oh il ^tait enferme et apres avoir subi pendant plusieurs heures les mauvais traitements d'enfants du voisinage, s'etait refugie chez If demandeur. La, I'enfant de ce dernier, ayant provoque le dit animal et tente de s'en emparer et de le monter, bien qu'il eut et6 averti de ne point le faire, fut gravement bless ^ par I'animil. — Juge : — ('intir- mant le jugement de la cour superieure, Archibald, J.j — Que le defen- deur, proprietaire du mulet en question, n'etait pas responsable de I'accident arrive a I'enfant du demandeur. — C. R. — Lacroix vx Jasviin, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 418. 15. Que le proprietaire d'une maison incendiee, et dont I'un dts murs endommages et qu'il a neglige de demolir, s'ecrouli), qu Iqucs jours apres I'incendie, est responsable des dommages resultant de cet ecroulement au proprietaire voisin et causes par sa negligence. — Q. B, Noixlheimer & Hutchison, 35 L. C. J., p. 138. 1036. Decision number 5, noted at this article, was confirmtnl in appeal, but was reversed by the Supreme Court, where it was held as follows : 1. In an action of damages, brought against the corporation of the Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 1050. 267 City of Montreal by A L. et al, descendant relations of L., who was k.Iled dnv.n, down .«. .lalpiee street, which was alleged to ha " been, at the nne of tl-.. accident, in a bad state of repair, by be^' In-own h-om he sleigh, on which he was seated, againstV wall of : buddmg. the learned judge before who.n the case^as tried, vvi hou a jury, granted Z L et al. Sl.OOO dan.ages, on the ground that th .ere entitled to that sum by way of solatium for "the bereaven, nt suffered on account of the premature death of their father //."/ reversing the ,udg>nent of the Court of Queen's Bench that 1 e .ulgn.nt could not be affirmed on the ground of ..II a as t^Z^T^r ""' ^ '''"'-'''''''' '^ ■^-^^--'^ ^he verdict, on the ground that there was sufficient evidence of a pecuniary loss for wh.ch compensation could be claimed Z. L. et all action must b R^'p' m oT":^ CoauT.- Ci,, of Montreal .- Laielle, 14 S C tt., p. /4l._Q. B_15 B. L., p. 474. droit'ccmrf T- ''' ^"'1 '' ,""" " ''^ '''^' P-^^ '^ ^■'"'^•^ d'un tiers, ont droit^contre le tiers, a des dommages comn.e consolation.- MATHiEr, J.-Vanasse vs. ViU de Montreal, IG R. L., p. 880 3. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant in damages for the death of l.er husband, who was killed while in the employ of the Dofendan an a jury awarded her .S6,500. The DefeLda'^it moved lo For rit'tHarVt t'r'^ ""'"'r^'^- f^- ^■'"^^ ^^-^-^E^^^ni. 30. For a new trial. A the argument on the motions, it was urged by the 2 61, 2262, 2207 and 2188, the Plaintiffs right of actioS was proscri^v e by the expiration of one year (C. C 2262), and that, as PI nt ^s husband died more than one year after the accident occurred and did not bnng an actu>n, the present action must be dismissed Te Plaintiff replied that the right of the wife to dama,ges for the deaf^^ ot her husband is different to that of tlu. husband for dan i ^ suffered hrough injuries to himself. That, in any ease the 1 u done to the Plaintiff was without malice and ^va. aVasi:oft^Ice To wluchthe prescription of two years would apply. That the point hould have been pl^M.-HM .- (WauTEii'i dissenting T t e prescription invoked at the argument not having been pleaded VUHELE, J. J.) Ihat all bodily injuries, whether coining from n Z" rr,rn"' ^" ^"^^^"^^ 'y '^ -— prescription^ -c tne widow aioae from the loss occasioned to her by the 268 Covsolidated SuppUnient No. 1. — Art. 1066. death (jf her husband. That such right, while p rafted on an old ri^'ht, represented an essentially now cause of aciion, not existini^ during the life-time of her husband, and only created by his death. That the action of the Phiintitf, having been instituted within one year from the death of her husbanl no prescription had been acquired against her. That only one right of action exists for an injury suffered and if, in the present case, the husband had brought an action or recovered damages or indemnity, no separate or furtlici' claim could have been urged by his wife. — C. 11. — Rohlnmm & Cim- adian Pacific Ri/..',VS L. C. .).,p. 145 ; M. L, R., 5 S. C, p. 225.-Q. B. — M. L. R., (i Q. B., p. 118 ; If) R. L, p. 483.— Reversed in Supreme Court.— 19 S. C. R., p. 292 ; 15 L N., p. 70. The decision of the Court of Review and of the Court of Queens Bench was confirmed by the Privy Council, which held as follows : An appeal to earlier law and decisions, for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of a statutory code, can only be justified on some special ground, such as the doubtful import or previously acquired technical meaning of the language used therein. The Civil Code of f. 'yer Canada does not make it a condition precedent to the right vi liCMon given, by article 1056, to the widow of a per on dying as th. > L.;i uumtioned, that the deceased's right of action should not have bvn oxtingui.shed in his. lifetime by prescription under para- graph 2, ol article 2262. The death is the foundation of the riglit given by the former article, which is governed by the rule of prescrip- tion contained therein and is exempt from the rule of prescription which barred the claim of the deceased.—PRivY Council. — Robinson S Canadian Poxijic Ry.—L. R.,U892; Ap. Cas., p. 481 ; 15 L. N., p. 250. 4. The right conferred by Lord Campbell's Act, adopted by the Consolidated Statutes qf Ontario, cap. 135, s.s. 2 & 3, to recover damages in respect of death occi-sioned by wrongful act, neglect or default, is restricted to the actual pecuniary loss sustained by the Plaintiff". Where the widow of deceased is Plaintiff" and her husband had made provision for her by a policy on his own life in her favour, the amount of such policy is not to be deducted from the amount of damages previously assessed, irrespective of such consideration. She is benefited only l)y the accelerated receipt of the amount of tin- policy and that benefit, being represented by tlie interest of tl;e money during the period of acceleration, may be compensated by deducting future premiums from the estimated future earnings of the deceased. Consolilated Sapplenunt No. l.-Art. 1067-106.:. 2flf) -Privv Co.rxcrL :-rOn appeal from Ontario^. - Grand Irwnk- R & JennimjH, 13 App. Cos., p. 800. ^ •^• 5. Quo le montant do I'indemnito acco-di'. k l„ „ ■ the following terJ, ° «7oo ,„T ,, ^L^°", *" '"""'° "' *•■•»» "" ««, the e.eeption of ti.e h;p„tKt:::tte T : ^r 2'tt having sold tie prof t ' , th '°" '""°""''' ™* ''-<' ""^ 8«-Ai.. * RUM.. M. lT,?q" b! ^IS.™ '"""""'J-* B- cof^tt::.i«ttt^^^^^^^^ un terrain desiVne et aui tip 1 . L . '. '''^"^'^'^uire une jorare sur »n. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1?r 7/ 1.0 I.I 1.25 :^ U 111112.0 iiiiiM 1.4 11.6 rlluujgidpiUL; Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4b03 \ ■^ S \ ^\> o'^ '^.1* '«^1j"" "t^^F i'i d;U^ flhl 'II 270 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1065. 3. Que la personne qui, dans un acte de vente, s'est reserves k jonissance d'un partie de maison, que I'acheteur doit entretenir efc a oblig^ ce dernier a certaines prestations annuelles, peut obtenir contn- I'acheteur une condamnation pecuniaire pour les reparations neces- saires a cette maison, qu'il neglige de faire et en dommaore pour Tin demniser du refus des prestations auxquelles il s etait oblige. — Q. B. — Dufrenne <& Bergeron, 19 R L., p. 293. 4. Que le consignataire de marchandises n'a pas droit de refuser de les recevoir dii voiturier, qui s'est oblige de les transporter dans un temps determine et qui ne le fait pas, mais qu'il n'a qu'un i-ecours en dommage. — Mathieu, J. — Bailly v.s. Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co., 20R. L., p. 127- 5. Que le manufacturier, qui fait un contrat avec un particulier, pour lui fournir certains articles dont il a bcsoin, a droit de recouvrer de ce dernier, qui repudie son cont ut, des donnnages equivalents k la perte qu'il eprouve dans la vente des etfets qu'il avait specialement prepares pour remplir ce contrat. — C. R. — Neiu England Paper Co. V.S. Berthiaume, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 65. 6. Qu'un donatour ne peut, en changeant de domicile, augmenter les obligations du donataire, qui est tenu de lui payer une rente, et de lui fournir certaines prestations personnelles et que ce donateur perd son droit a ces prestations si, par ce changement de domicile, il met le donataire dans I'impossibilite de les executer telles qu'elles ^talent entendues lors de la donation. — Mathieu, J. — Roy vs. Sabourin, B. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 467. 7. Where a person has obtained a promise of sale of real i-st^vtc and, relying on that promise, has resold the property, he is entitled iu recover from the vendor, by way of damages, the profit he would liavi' derived from the re-sale, if the vendoi^ refuses, without valid ground.s. to execute a deed of sale to him.— GiLL, J.— Newman vs. Kennedy, R J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 446. 8. Le locataire d'un brevet d'invention, moyennant une priiac sur les objets brevetes, dont il s'oblige k fabriquer un nombre mini- mum par annee, k peine de resiliation du terme de location, doit au locateur, a la fin de I'ann^e, la somme qui represente les primes svr ce nombre d'objets lorsqu'ils n'ont pas et6 fabriqu^s. II ne peut pas pr^tendre que I'ouverture donnee a la condition resolutoire, par son |,i: Consolidated Supplement No. l.~Art. 1067. 271 .lefaut de tenir son engagement, le degage de toute obligation cette condition n^tantstipuleequ'en favour duIocateur.-C l-BeauM "s'. Belanger, R. J. Q., (j c. S., p. 17. J^eauUet toire'tacr.Tf ' • '"'^'^'^ '''' ^" ^^'^^ ^''^''•- ^^ --^^^ion r^solu- toue taote est toujours sous-entendue dans les contrats pour le cas ou lune ou 'autre des parties ne satisfait pas a ses obliga'Zs et " .-•tgard.l article 1184 du Code NapoMon a ete suivf dans nle lejsla .on quoKiuWre dans une autre partie du Code. (Xppo^^^^^ -les codihcateurs cites.) 2. L'article 15'ifi rln r^.) n--i '^ "'T^ *^ -n principe different dans le ea't 'Hfl^^'^^ ZZ S.,p 51 '^—^''^^Q^^'tte vs. Archambault,R. J. Q., 7 C. 1067. 1. Que I'acheteur d'un immeuble, qui promet paver nartie u prix. aussit^t qu'il aura obtenu d.s lettres pate'ntes pouH dl la couronne aux mines d'or et dargent, sur ie terrafn vendu n" pas tenu de payer cette balance du prix apres la simple mise ;« d ...eure. par acte notari^, de la part du vendeur, de prendre Jes lettres" patentes et de payer le prix--Q. B.-BarUe, .- wJ, 19 R L s.d it a verbd Ir^^ ^' ^^^ T '^'""^'^'^ '^ ^'^P^'^ '^' P^«™-- 1-- t h t L I ""t^^*^- «^«" ^hen there is a written lease, provided f^^^^^^^^^^^ P-ed, either by a commencement of .!/-.«! 13 L N pVu. '' ''''- -Champaonk, D. M.-Leeary .s. La- a Que lorsqu'uaprotet est indispensable et que celui qui nroteste J..us^de protet-CHAMPAONr, D. M.-Lalunuere vs. Roy, 13 L. N., 4. Que la preu ve testimoniale d'un cong^ de deloger verbal ne neut aloir pour mettre fink la tacite reconduction d'fn baiV-Q E Lacroix tfc Fauteua; 21 R. L., p. 19. ^ 5 Que ie defaut de la demande par ecrit, exig^o par I'article 1067 ■l! II 272 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1068. mode de prouver la mise en demeure, et qu'une mise en demeure ver- bals est suffisante, si elle est l^galement prpuv^e, quoique le contrat soit par ecrit. (This case was wronp;ly noted in vol. 1 at article 1069.) — C. K—Belanger vs. Paxton, 14 R. L., p. 526. 6. That verbal notifications, made to a section-man in charge of the ditches and fences, on a particular part of a line of railway, is not a sufficient mise en demeure of the Company, when the claim involved the cleaning arid maintaining of the Company's railway ditch.— Taschekeau, J.—Guilbault vs. The Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 21 R. L, p. 215. 7. That where a lease in writing is continued by tacit reconduc- tion, the notice necessary to terminate it must be in writing. — Q. B. Lacroix & Faateux, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 40. 8 Que lorsqu'un billet est payable au domicile du cr6ancier et, qu'aprfes 1 echeance, le creancier ne soit pas en position de recevoir le paiemeat qui lui est offert, parce qu'il aurait depose ce billet ail- leurs, il devient cnsuite payable gen^ralement, et que si ce creancier en poursuit ensuite le montant en justice, .sans en avoir fait la demande au d^bitaur, il paiera les frais de poursuite, si ce d^biteur depose le montant en cour, sans frais.— Q. B.—Lessard & Oenest, 35 L. C. J., p. 20. 9. Le creancier, qui a omis de r^clamer des int^rets sur urn; somme poursuivie par lui, pent demander le paiemen*^ ^ ■^ ces interets par une action distincte, lorsque le ddbiteur a refurc ;es payer en meme temps qu'il acquittait le capital. La mise en deuiaure de payer le capital suffit pour mettre le debiteur en demeure de payer les inte- rets de ce capital ; partant, le d^fendeur condamne k payer le capital, ne peut se dispenser de payer les interets sur ce capital, pour le motif que le demandeur n'a pas conclu a ce que le d^fendeur fut condanine a les payer. — Jette, J. — Poulin vs. Land and Loan Co., R. J. Q., 7 C. S , p. 363. 106j^. T., being arrested under a capias, gave the bail ('Feb. IS, 1888; required by C. P. C. 828 for his provisional discharge. Tlic sureties, by consent, deposited S200 with the prothonotary in place of a bond, the terms of the written consent being : " Les parties con- " sentent et acceptent le ddpot pour payer le montant d'MJuge- " ment cl intervenir sur la demande en capital, interSt et frais, silnc " donne pas cautions, au d^sir de I'article 824 ou 825 C. P. C, le lev I, . Consolidated Supplement No. 1 —Art. 1069. 273 " mara 1888." The contestation of the capias was dismissed, Feb 22 and on March 5. T. gave notice that he would put in baU under article 824 or 825 and bail was given, under the latter article by permissi -u ot the Court, the rights of the parties being reserved. The Plaintiff then attached the deposit, in the hands of the prothonotary for the cos s in the contestation of the capias. On an intervention by the sureties, each claiming half of the deposit, it was held that the date (1st March) mentioned in the contract, applied only to bail under C o. P 824, which must be given within eight days from the day fixed for the return of the writ, and that, T. having the ricrht to put m bail under C. C. P. 825, at any time beFore judgment, th^ case did not come within the terms of C. C. 1068 nor C. C. 1069 which appl.es to contracts of a commercial nature only. The intervention o: the sureties was therefore maintained._C. U.-Bowrassa vs. r/dbau- dean, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 439. 10e,». 1. Que le demandeur n'ayant pas fait preuve du jour ou .1 a fait demande r^gulifere du paiement des billets, ne doit obteuir m eret sur ses billets k demande que du jour de la signification de lact.on, qui est la premiere mise en demeure r^guli^re et legale qui so't au dossier.- Globensky, J._ Cl,roiuc vs. Pigeon, 32 L. C J p iii- I m 2 Que lorsqu un vendeur n'est pas pret k livrer la chose vendue dans le d^lai convenu, Tacheteur ne pent prendre avantage de ce defaut quapr^s avoir fait des ofl^res r^elles du prix de vente- Mathieu, J.—Desdve vs. Fr4dette, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 48 ; 17 R. L," p 3. Quune carte postale, adress^e k un commer^-ant, annoncant qu on a une certaine quantite de marchandises k vendre, k un prix designs, est une offre de vendre. qui, si elle est accept^e de suite, rend le contrat de vente parfait. Que le refus de livrer la marchlndise vendue, sous les circonstances ci-dessus, donne k Tacheteur une action e.i dommage contre son vendeur pour les profits qu'il a manqu^ de tane et quil nes pas n^cessaire pour I'acheteur de mettre le vendeur «n .iemeuredex^cuter son contrat, oude lui faire des offres r^elles avuut dmtenter Taction en dommage.- Mathieu. 3.- Fuller vs Moreau, M. L. R, 5 S. C, p. 121. 4. Quun commer9ant. qui fait un march^ avec un propri^taire pour qiiece dernier lui livxe une certaine quantity de bois.'dans Tn i'.iiifti '''Jill mm 274 Covsolidated Svpi>lcment No. J. — Art. lo70. \ d61ai determine, ne pourra faire couper ce bois par un autre et recla- mer des dommagcs de ce proprietaire, s'il ne I'a pas mis en demeuro d'ex^cuter son contrat. — Q. B. — Prouty d- Stone., 18 R. L., p. 284.. 1070. 1. Where the Defendants, by the terms of the deed of sah; of a strip of land to them by the Plaintiff", undertook to construct two crossinj2;s, with gates and fastenings, to enable the vendors to cross the railway, but no time was stipulated within which such crossings wore to be constructed, it was held that no damages could be claimed lor jnexecution of the obligation, until the Defendants had been put in default to make the crossings and, in the present case, no damat^^cs after the Defendants having been put in default having been provod, the action was dismissed. — Johnson, J. — Crevier vs. Ontario and Quebec Ry., M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 428. 2. The Appellant, on the 28th July, by a writing, offered eertiun property to the Respondent for |;50,000, $8,000 of which was to li.^ paid in cash on passing deed — "this offer shall remain open to the lOtli August next." The Respondent sent a letter to the Appellant, on tin; 10th August, stating that he accepted, but did not make any tondrr, or put tiie Appellant en dcmeure to pass a deed. Held, that it was the duty of the Ri^^pondent to put the Appellant en demeure to pass a deed, on or belore the 10th August, and to tender the $8,000 au'l. this not having been done, the offer or promise of sale becan.r ineffective by lapse of time.— Q. B. — Munro ™.i.,e a a««ie„tdaiui«: ij:L *„e iir " t'"" '°°^«'' " i- la dur« d„ bail 1 penl„t r° "" °?'°'!""' '" ''°"'' '"'"^'^ P™'""' ne pe3 /t™t:ot.tTe"cXi;":ra « • 'I™ '*°^T'' P" '^ ■='-• la pei-sonne etfravM n« ItlT ^ . ™'* ''" °'"° P™"-. ™ ...'^...;.. ,« rI ;-;; ;""r ": 7t': .fr v°- ''-^°"'- M, L R, 4 S. C p. 134. • P- ''^''— Dl^iDso .T._ ^^«p wbieK «,e seed ^^^^^11 t^T^l^^'^ °' Cd^^m Laroche, 16 Q. L. R., p. 15. Andrews, J._ =h.„d\et:o:rrardTi:re ™arr;r ^ ^? -"- protestation est tenn rl. r. 1 ^ ' *^ ''"' '''^ '■«5°'<^' ^ans lra>M eu lo portaut a uoe nouvelle fabrique 4tablie plus i'proxLit", 1'' I f 278 Consolidated Supplcinmt No. l.—Arh. /on!-l077. et qui pcrmet k d'autrcs patrons, signatainvs du merne traits, de passer aur sa propriety pour facilitcr le transport do lour lait k telle autre fubrique, eat repute agir de inauvaise foi, et rosponsable en doniinages- int^rets ; 2. Que telle responsabilite comprend, non-seulenient les portes de gain sur la fabrication du son propre lait, nuiis auasi les pertes occasionnees au propri^taire par le fait des autrea patrona, ainsi induits par I'exeniple ou les actes du d^fcndeur a porter leur lait k telle autre fabrique.— LoUANOEii, J.^Froulx m Rivard, 1 R. do J., p. 174. 1070 Where it ia stipulated, in a contract for work on buildings, that a certain sum per day shall be paid for any delay in the com- pletion of the work caused by the negligence of the party undertaking it the amount to be determined by the architect superintending the construction -the creditor is entitled to the sum so determined.- LvNCH, J.—Kncen vs. Mills, M. L. II., 7 S. C, p. 352. 1077. 1. Que le voiturier qui transporte par eau une certaino quantite de bois de sciage, a droit de retenir le bois transporte jusqu'au paienient du fret (art. 1G79 C. C; et de pratiquer sur ce bois, apres qu'il I'a debarque sur le quai, une saisie conservatoire, pour assurer a.m privilege. Que si, dans le but de faire ces procedures, il retarde son depart,1l n'a pas d'autre recours tn dommages contre le debiteu^r que les interets sur le prix du fret, conformement a I'article 1077 C (;._Mathieu, J.— Varieur vs. Rascony, 17 R. L., p. 105 ; M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 123. 2 Que le demandeur, n'ayant pas fait preuve du iour ou il a fait demande r^gulifero du paiement des billets, ne doit obtenir I'interet sur ses billets a demande que du jour de la signification de Taction, qui est la premifere mise en demeure r^guliere et legale qui soitau dos.sier. — Globensky, J.—Cleroux vs. Pigeon, 32 L. C. J., p. 236. 3. An agreement stipulated that all the accounts relating to the contract between the commissioners and the contractors must bo submitted to and adjusted by the engineers, and their certificate, fixing the balance due to the contractors on the completion of the work should be conclusive and binding on both parties without any appeal. Semble • That the interest on the sum awarded by such certificate will run not from the date of the certificate, but from the date of the completion of the contract.-Q, B.-Quebec Harbor Comrmsstomrs », olios ont ponlu tout droit sur I'iuunoublo vcndu.— C. R. — linrtmnd w. Duboin, 17 R. L, p. 392. 3. Que racheteur d'un iinmeublo, qui proinot payer partio co,.tracto^. Upon an action J^iouKht l,y the sub-contractor to recover the sum of i?:Ui .•{12 12 the huponor Court, whoso ju-I^Mnent was aftinne.l hy the Courtof C^u'ens utm ■ f ;, "^^" '". '"' ^"P''^""*^ C^ourt.-//././. affiru.ing the . ucl;,ment ot the court below, that the estin.ate as ^iven by th.. ngmeer was substantially such a certificate as the tontr.«,t ec en.|^ated. but. if not. the Plainti«-.ust fail, as a final cer " t f the engineer was a con.lition precclent to his right to recover - bUPBEME Covn-T.-GuUhauU d- McOreevy, 18 S. C. R.. p. 609 r:.l,/nf^'°p''"'-*' ^"^"r"' '"*^° '^^tween Her Majesty the Queen, in f' hr^ l^;r7'"^« ^' Q-'- -d S. X. Ci,„on. for L construe ion clauses that .he balance of the contract price was not payal^le until a hna certihcate by the engineer in charge was deliver^l.^showin" h extras and the redrct.on m the contract price upon any alterations. There was a clause providing for the final deciJon by the Commis s.oner of Pubhc Works in matters in dispute upon the Iking over or otthng for the works. The Commissioner of Public Works, after trtZ ^'^^P;f '^'^-^.-^ '- ^^--n that nothing was due to the con- tractors, and the engineer in charge, by his final certificate, declare.! Sonno f ^"PP^'^'^'^'/'y their petition of right, claimed inter alia .In The"."" P- ?^C--»P'-^-i g-eral denial and pay- ment. The Superior Court granted tho Suppliants .$74.20. the amount dec ared to be due under the final certificate of the engineer On an poal. the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada"rAppeal si > ncreased the amount to *13,198.77, interest and costs. ^I.Z re ' . ug the judgment of the court below, and restoring the judgment" f he Superior Court, that the Suppliants were bound by the Hn" 1 cer .hcate g.ven by the engineer under the terms of the contract. Zl^ IZfZZ: ^r''''?^\'- '■• ^'--ting) thatas the final tti- hcate had not been set up m the pleading as a bar to the action and entitled to 20 per cent commission on extras ordered and received the evidence fully justified the finding of the Court of Queen'rBtch ill 282 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 1080-lOSJ^. _ limiiiii that the commission of 20 per cent was still due and unpaid on $65,837.09 of said extra work.— Supreme Court. — The Queen & Cimon, 23 S. C. R., p. 62. 1050. The decision notad at this article (Kimpton ws. Canadian Pacific Rif.) is also reported in the M, L. R., 4 S. C, p. 338. 1051. Le bail en question contenait la clause suivante : " Should " the lessee desire any alteration to be male to the said premises and " should the lessor see fit to make the same, the said lessee binds and " obliges himself to pay 10 p. c. per annum upm the total cist there- " of, quarterly, with said rental. Jwrjd : — Que sous cette clause, ii etait a la discretion du locateur de faire, ou de ne point faire, les changements aux lieux loues demandes par son locataire et que, dans I'espece, ce dernier ne pouvait le forcer d'etablir une communication entre plusieurs magasins contigus que le locateur lui avait lou6s par ce bail.— Q. B.—Scroggie & Watmn, R. J. Q., 2 B. R, p. 104. 10^43. Lorsqu'une obligation est contract^e sous la condition qu'un evenement n'arrivera pas dans un temps, cette condition est accomplie lorsque ce temps est expire, sans que cet evenement soit arrive. Oue I'obliffation consentie avec condition resolutoire, dans un temps determine, devient une obligation sans condition, lorsque Ic temps fix6 est expir6 se as I'eveneraent de la condition. Que lorsqu'un cautionnement est fourni, sous I'arbicle 828 C. P. C, et que le dolai fixe pour le renouveller, suivant les articles 824 et 825 du meme code, est expire, sans que ce renouvellement soit fait, la cour ne pout permettre que ce cautionnement soit donne ; le delai, dans ce cas, netant pas un delai de procedure, mais formant parfcic d'une veritable convention, avec condition rdsolutoire et qui est devenu pur et simple. — Mathieu, J. — Letang vs. Renaud, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 193 ; 19 R. L., p. 221. 10Jli4. 1. Une banque qui, en escomptant un billet, recjoit d'un tiers une valeur en gage, comrae garantie accessoire de paiement, sous la condition quelle usera de diligence pour recouvrir le- montant du billet du faiseur et des endosseurs avant d'encaisser la valeur, donne ouverture a cette condition en acceptant un renouvellement du billet et en traitant avec un des endosseurs, en vue de sa liberation, moyen- nant un paiement partiel, lui donnantainsi un moyen de contestatiuu de Taction quelle a contre lui. Le tiers proprietaire de la valeur mise en ga"-e est dfes lors fond6 h en pnursuivre le recouvrement do la Consolidated Supplemmt No. J. -Arts. 1085-108S. 283 ''"^3r"~A^' ^"^"^ ^'*'"^''' '^'^ ^''*Ple ct Pacaud, R. J. Q 2 B R p. 424.-ANDKEWS, J.—R. J. Q., 3 C. S. p. 8. 2. Petitione, who had obtained a contract from the Provincial security for its fulhhnent, sought to obtain a declaration of the secu nty desired but the Government avoided giving it. On petition of nght claiming damages, /AM that the Government had thutpri ved itse^, until it should choose to indicate the security, of the hZ to invoke the suspensive condition; and it was not necessary for Petitioner to shew that he could have given the security thai the postmaster subsequently became a defaultei'and it /a I'ht to recover the amount of the defalcation from the Appellant, mil That the breach of the conditions of the surety-boruJ did not have a 1088 1 La promesse de vente avec tradition, qui est faite sous ondition r^soluton., pour defaut de raccomplissement des obligat on e L itii;"' ." TT. P" ' ''"'''■ L eve«ement de la condUion. L e 1 d^fau de 1 acheteur, opere le resolution du contrat de p] in droit, sans 1 intervention de la justice, qui n'est necessaire que lorL'e 15 7l.TI 2lt '"'" '"'^ — ----C. ^.-PricL. tJZ 2. Le locataire d'un brevet d'invention. moyeni ant une prime sur les objets brevet^s, dont il s'oblige k fabriquer un nombre m nhnum ^ la ftn de 1 ann^e, la somme qui repr^sente les primes sur ce nombre d objets, lorsquils n'ont pas ^t^ fabriques. II ne pent pas pr^tondre quo rouverture donnee ^ la condition resolutoire^ parCn d/flut de emr son engagement, le degage de toute obligation, cette comlii n eta.t stipulee qu^en faveur du locateur.-C. K-Beaudet ... B^Z gtr, n. J. y., 6 C. S., p. 17. 3 See also case of FiliatrauU I- Goldie. noted in this Sunple- mont at article 1 47g, decision number 14. ^^ 284 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 1090-1092. '•'' ^1 1090. The maturity of a note, during the pendency of an action prematurely brought upon it, is no answer to the exception of tlir Defendant that such note was not payable at the moment of tlio institution of the action. — C. R. — Wark vs. Perron, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 56. lOOl. Decision number 1 noted against this article (McMasf'r <(■ Moffat) is also reported in the M. L. R., 1 Q. B., p. 387. T. appelant, avait signe un acte de composition et ddcharge, f T"^ ''' ^'"^ ^^'^^^'^«» insolvent, he has an absolute vl^f T : ^' '°"^ "''' ^ '^'^'^' '« ««* of his ass t^p ovTded h to f ^^ toadmimster his estate and dispose art lOqa I,'/, '° P™'^'^""^. ^nd without fraud and «|v™ „„,„ eon j.trr ;irr^;::-7-- «100 par an sans S et 1 TbZr" "?"" '" *''°°° P"^""'^ l^s reprtsentant, du dlb tear de ol, '• "° '"«'""™' «'°"''' a..s dernier, defendeurs dan r f T'""' " " ''™'' "»*"'' "^' ""'^ '" »-*■ •lebUonr.nnteretsnr =ette soXe TJi S""' TT'"'"'' ''° Par Pugnnao, J. _ «,„(,<, anil u?. ' ™'""'°"» ''i' I" ertance. ■■.viendraitnnepartiern:: ^r,. ,^"'' °'"' '■"°'™''l« ""l-'l .■ 1. b^n«ce d'trt.cl'^3^ d„ 3: t ^'"i" "'^ ""' P™' -*- «.vr,:drL"'-:;Tr t;:xrd r" °' '^^ »"twithstandinKtlieinsolven,.vnf .h.!, f'P"''"='i for payment, \i E' 286 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 1093-1105. 1003. Note. — For cases as to the effects of acts of composition and discharge, see cases of Thurston & Viau, noted in this Supple- ment at article 1091, and of Vineberg & Beaulieu, noted in this Snii- plement at article 988, and of Roy vs. Faucher,a.t article 1176 and also other cases noted at those articles. 1006. — Le defendeur qui a 6t6 condamn^, sur une saisie-reveit- dication, a remettre certains effets mobilliers sous quinze jours de la signification du jugement ou, k defaut par lui de ce faire, d'en paytr la valeur, ne pent plus, apres I'expiration du delai fix6, otfrir d^ remettre ces effets, son obligation se trouvant alors transformee en une obligation de payer la valeur des effets en question. — Jetti^;, J. Stevens vs. Livinsov, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 191. 1105. 1. Que I'obligation do la part des enfants de payer uiu' pension alimentaire,r|Uoique n etant pas solidaire, suivant I'acceptation gen6ralement regue du mot, oblige eependant ceux des debiteurs pour- suivis, r-auf le recours de ces derniers contre les autres co-debiteurs.-- Q. B.—Mainviae& Corbcil,m L. C. J., p. 179; M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 90: 18 R. L., p. 30. 2 Les clients defendus par un avocat, dans une meme cause, par une seule et meme defense, sont tenus solidairement au paieraent d^s honoraires de cet avocat.— Routh IE R, J. — Frenette vs. Bedard, 12 L. N., p. 362 ; 13 L. N., p. 266. 3. Qu'il n'y a pas solidarite legale de garantir la cession de droits faite par plusieurs, si cette solidarite n'est pas stipul^e. — "C. U —Forbes vs. Burns, 21 R. L., p. 203.— Jette, J.— 21 R. L., p. 163. 4 Que la loi prononce la responsabilite solidaire des personiie.s qui requierent les services d'un notaire. (Art. 3619 R. S. Q.,) — Jettk, J. — Cherrier vs. Messy, 35 L. C. J., p. 41. 5. Jugc, (reformant le jugement de la cour superieure, Belangei , J.) — Les arbitres noinmes pour I'expropriati )n en matiere de construe tion de chei in de fer, sous I'Acte des Chemins de Fer, 1888 (Canada), peuvent retenir les services d'un greffier pour les assister dans leurs procedures et ce greffier a un recours solidaire pour ses honoraires ct d6penses contre la compagnie et la partie expropri^e. — C. R. — TasK>- vs. St. Lawrence Ry. Co., R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 301. 6. Lorsqu'une inaioon ■; et^ lou6e k plusieurs locataires conjointe- Consolidated Supplement No. J. —Art. 1106. 287 ?',s. srri R diTpiisr^ '^ '^ ''"''■ - "--^' ^- - ^-- 1106 1. Que I'inexecution d'une pro.nesae cle mariaco nent donner heu k une conda„,nation en domn.fge-interets et, que s' ute de la rupture sont tenus solidairen.ent a la prestation dP hn do..ages soufferts a raison du prejudice .oral, a'^^b^^^^^^^ f „ r f Tn^lr '''f °^ ^''^'^'' '"• ^''^^«^^' "oted in this Supplo.nent ::::::r sr'^^ "^^ ^^^^^-^^^ ^^--^ - ^- ^-'' '= 3. Que lorsque le ilommoge o «« caus4 par pinsieurs Der.„n,„.« en me„e te,„p,, |e de„a„dc„r „„ pent pren< J„,/pa el L C dommase c„„t,e cl,acu„ deux separemeut, ,„ais il It I Jp" ,r™ v o eu,emble pour le „„„ta„t d„ dou„„a.e ,u'i, a souffert-C„T ^l' U M.— Z^/aitre m iJo^/. 18 L. N., p. 59. cation dtnVn^' n'*'T«^' ''P''''' '"' dommases resultant de la publi- cation dune hbelle dittamatoire est solidaire— C R Pn. t\ Rodier, 20 R. L., p. 108. - ^— ^«2/^«^' rs. 5 The proprietor of a house fronting on a public street is res ponsible for accidents to the public, caused by snow and id fall 1; t-n the roof whether the house he tenanted^r not. ^I e t] ^C caused by such a .snow-fall, being in the nature of a .wi? /one co-propr.tor may be sued alone for the dan.age, he halin^tt ng 5w R j.g,iTrrr ' '' ''''''-'-'■ ^-^— '■. 6. Those who aid and abet, or take part in the hanging, and bu,„ ^i:ii:R^t rrS.;S^ ^^ Jan.ages.-T.., J.-Zo..i. l.! 1 ,J;.^^VfP«n«al^ilit^ civile pour la reparation du tort cause nar los d^hts de la presse est solidaire.-C. K-lRiverin vs. ^TZn^ merie et de Pub. du Canada, R. J. Q., 5 C S., p. 336. ^*^'^^'*- 8. The Appellant, a physician, by inadvertence, wrote bi-sulohate ot morphine, instead of bi-sulphate of quinine, in a prescription for I ! 1 h. i»! 288 vl 1 > . lilH ll!3i ,lUJlJ| Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 11^1-1138. Respondent's child. Bi-sulpho,te of morphine not being an article of commerce, the chemist, to whom the prescription was taken to be fil- led, without communicating with the physician or making any in- quiry, substituted sulphato of morphine, and the result was that tln^ child died. If bi-sulphate of morphine had been administered the result would have been the same. Held (affirming the ruling of Jett^, J.) :— 1. Although under art. 1106 C. C. there may be solidarity in the liability, established under art. 1053, C. C, yet such solidarity only exists when the damage results from the same act, and not from an independent act on the part of each defendant. 2. The error of the physician being the primary cause of the accident, the judgment so far as itcondemed him to pay five-sixths of the damage would not be • listurbed.— Q. B.—Jeannotte & Couillard, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 461. 1131. The decision noted at this article was confirmed in Ap- peal by the folloioing judgment : Que la Cit^ de Montreal pent recouvrer de I'un des proprietaires indivis, dont Ic nom est port^surles roles d'^valuation et de cotisation, tout le montant des taxes impos^es sur I'immeuble dont il est proprie- taire par indivis — Q. B. — Cassidy & City of Montreal, 17 R. L., p. 61S ; 33 L C. J., p. 159; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 388. 1132. 1. Qu'une compagnie de chemin de fer est responsable (k's C. S., p. 432. 1144. Qu'unc personne employee par une autre pour solliciter dos annonces n'a pas le mandat ni I'autorisation suffisante pour solliciter le montant convenu au contrat ecrit. fait payable au commettant. Qiu.' le paiement d'un k compte, fait le jour du marche, au dit sollicitiur d'annonces et accepte par le commettant, ne suffit pas pour prouvcr que I'agent dtait autorise a collecter et le defendeur n'est libere de tel k compte qu'en autaut que les demandeurs I'ont re^u. (C. C. 1730.)- Champagne, D. M.—RotiUlard vs. Mariotti, 12 L. N., p. 259. 1147. La saisie-arret frappant d'indisponibilite les sommes saisics et le jugement declarant valable cette saisie-arret ayant I'efFtt de transporter judiciairement ces sommes aux saisissants, la vente a un tiers d'un immeuble, dont les loyers ont 6te saisis en vertu d'uno saisie-arret, suivic, pcst^rieurement a la vento, d'un jugement de vali- Consolidated Supplement No. L—Artn. lUS-Iip. 291 clit^, est, en I'absence d'allogation de fraude on de doconfituro. sans effet sur cette saisie, memo ^i I'egard dos loyors non encore ^chus anting by bun ot erroneous certificates, cannot prejudice th^nartv subrogated.- St;PHKME Col-kt.- 0^oens & BedelUoTa tp7sl son btlli'"''"''"' •''"'. ^ P'^'^ ""' P"^'^'^ ^^"^ 1 assurance et qui donne son bdlet pronnsso,re k terme pour le reste, lors de ia signature de la 1156. I Que I'acheteui- d'un immeublo. dont les fruits et r- c„u, scat ,a,ais et rovendiqafa entre ses ma „s par un tie 1 „„i ; pirantie et le fait condamner a I'indemmser, par le iugemcnt „„i ctw;:'d:r™*° n°v' ""■ ^-^^ ="»'"' auZidi ' : pmpr det e It t ""T ' '""' " " "'"P"^*' "« '"' '" ?-■>«"'« 4 m !l'f !■ 1 ii 294 Conaolidalfd ISujypltinri^t K '■ J.—Art». JIM-U6.i. 2. Lo proneui par bail einphyt^otiqu.-, <]\n concodo une moiti<5 .I'. I'imnioublo hiWU.k la '-Iwirye, par son sons-preta'ur, .le payer la inoitu" ,/,, ^anon .>t qui. onsuite. tai sort! la totality au bailleur principal, CHt - sub«Hi{6 aux droits l,yp..th^caires J« ce dernier contro le sous-preneur pour la moitie dont celui-ci est t.mn hypotliecaireinent. Pour que la subrormtion soit acquire k I'un des deux debiteurs, (lui paie leur dett." coiniiume. il n'ost pas n^ce.sairo qu'ila y soient tenU3 de la meme manifere ; il suffit qu'il y ait co-obli«ation des dcux, lors meme quelle serait personiielle pour Tun et siniplemcnt n-oUe pour 1 autre. - CasaULT, J.—Givgraa vs. Glngra.^ IG Q. L- K-. P- 202. n The accomodation endorser, who pays a promissory note, is subro-mted by law in all the rights of the creditor, including any hypothec which the latter may have taken as collateral security— (,. R.— McCaffrey A- Letournewx, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 135. 1158. The Defendants received certain money, by the hands of an acrent, who was instructed to buy certain goods and to take a receipt for the mongy. Instead of so applying the money, tlu. Defendants gave the agent, with his consent, a receipt for the money as payment of a prescribed debt for goods previously sold and delivered. Held, that the agent had thereby exceeded his mandate and that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the money.— Champa- gne, D. M-.—Dupuia vs. Evans, 12 L. N., p. 251. 1163. This article, as -eplaced by the R. S. Q., is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 741. 1. A consignation, to be effective, should be made, partie appeUc at a place and time and with a person duly designated to the other party.— Davidson, i.—Fournier vs. Leger, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 233.— Q. B.-19 R. L., p. 389 ; M. L. K, 6 Q. R., p. 448. 2 Que des offres r^elles, qui ue sont pas renonvel6es avec le plaidoyer, ne valent rien.-CHAMPAGNE, D. M.- Lt'r.ijw vs. Hoy, 13 L. N., p. 59. 1168, Where the purchaser of real estate was to make a casli L -meat by accepted cheque, the fact that he did not at first appear at . . r^cje of the notary with the cheque accepted, but got it acc^p ^ ov tu bank a few minutes after and offered it to the vendor the ss..,,;, ":.iy, was roi a valid ground for the seller's refusal to cos.ipietb "^^I'.e sale.— G :.v., 6.— Newman vs. Kennedy, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., D. 446. Conaolidutrd Sapi>/rmin,t Ao. / ^Arfs. ///;ii //fif). 2f)5 1106. Les .l.-niors consijfntvs ua greffe par uno compaKnic .lofou- doresse. avoc opposition uHn d'armulor a uruv.ai.ie-ex6cutio,. n.wl.iliere dun jUKou.ent rendu centre olio et ponr couvrir le ...ontunt .I. .e JUffoment, .s,,nt la propri^to du detnandeur et la mise u,. li.,uidation de a con.pa«n>e. avant ,,u'ils les ai.-nt touches, ne donne pa. droit au m^ nn^TZn-"^- «-'^'---- '^- ^^f-nlcoau,,L Fi.k and Uil Co., 17 y. L. R, p. 65. Il(ll>. I. T., rapp...lant, avait /v^no un acte do composition et „/ ,.„ Roy, M. L. R, 5 S. C., p. 451. ' ' ^ * 4. Que la remise dun cheque, qui n'est pas pay^, ne constitue pas un paiement et n..pere pas novation de la dette.— Q. B— CWd Is Unites de Kingsey .I- Quesnel, 19 R. L., p. 470. 5. A claimant upou au insolvent estate is not bound to reduce 296 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1169. his claim by the amount of a composition ottered by the insolvents previous to their insolvency, which the Plaintiff agreed to accept without prejudice to his security, but which composition was not accepted by all the creditors of the insolvents and has not been received by the claimant.— Q. B. — McDonald & Seath, 34 L. C. J., |i. 81 ; M. L. R., G Q. B., p. 1G8. 6. Que la femme separ^e de biens d'avec son mari, qui achete dii cessionnaire des biens de ce dernier, les biens qu'il a c^des, peut s'obliger l^galoment a payer les dettes du mari, et que cette obligation de la femme, acceptee par le creancier, constitue novation de la di'ttr du mari.— C. R. — Warmington vs. Lapierre, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. fit). 7. A judgment does not operate novation of the debt upon whicii it is based. It follows that, where a debt is created in the Unitcil States, and the debtor subsequently removes to the province of Qucbic^ where judgment for the debt is obtained against him, the creditor has no right to issue a writ of capias founded on such judgment fArt. 80(), C C. P. j The interest and costs exigible under such judgment, bciiii; accessories only, follow the nature of the principal debt, and do not constitute a new indebtedness, having its origin within the province of Quebec, for which a writ of capias could issue. — Q. B. — Rochelcau & Bessette, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 9G.— C. R.— R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 320. 8. Que la cr^ance resultant du pret d'une somme de deniers ne .sr present que par trente ans, meme si, apres le pret, le debiteur a cod- senti au creancier un billet promissoire qui serait prescrit par le laps de cinq ann^es depuis I'echeance de ce billet. — Tellier, J. — Catigniin vs. Prevost, 35 L. C. J., p. 29. 9. A prescription of thirty years is substituted for that of five years only where the admission of the debt from the debtor ri'sults from a new title which changes the commercial obligation to a ( ivi! one. In an action of account, instituted in 1887, the Plaintitt'claiiiK d inter alia the sum of S2,3G1.10 being the amount due undar a dwA of obligation and constitution d'hypotheque, executed in 18G(), and which, on its face, was given as security for an antecedent unpaitl promissory note dated in 1862. The deed stipulated that the uniomit was payable on the terms and conditions and the manner mentioned in the said promissory note. The Defendant pleaded that the deed did not affect a novation of the debt, and that the amount due by the promissory note was prescribed by more than five years. The note Gon8olid(tted Supplement. No. I. — Art. HG9. 297 was not produced at the trial. Tlehl, revorsinfr the judfrment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) that the deeployer au paiement des frais auxquels I'ayant pourra etre con- damne (C. P. C. 526;._Mathieu, J.~Girard vs. Prevosf, IS R. L, p. 12. The Defendant may oppose to a demand for damages for libel or slander, the fact that the Plaintiff on his part libelled the Defen- dant and that there is compensation dmjwres. where the attack and cle ence are alleged to have been simultaneous, as in a discussion between the editors of two newpapers in the columns of their respec- 304 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1188. 411 m tive journals.— Johnson, J.—Trudel vs. Cie d'Imp. et Pah. da Canada, M. L. R, 5 S. C, p. 297.— Q. B.— M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 510. 13. Qu'un d^fendeur, poursuivi personnellement, ne peut opposer, en compensation a In demande du demandeur, la part du demaudeur dans une dette d'une society en nom colloctif dent il i'aisait partie et que le d^fendeur, aussi un des associes, a payee en entier.— Q. B.— McLean & Bickerdike, 18 R. L., p. 277. 14. On the 25th June, 1888, the Defendant accepted G.'s accom- modation draft for $249.75, at three months. On the ?ith July, 1888, the Defendant purchased goods from G. to the amount of $215. On the 26th July, 1888, G. made a judicial abandonment for the benefit of his creditors. On the 28th September, 1888, Defendant paid the accommodation draft. In a suit, by the curator of G.'s estate, for the recovery of the $215, price of goods, Defendent pleaded that he was entitled to compensate this sum with the amount he had paid on the draft for G.'s accommodation. Held:— I. That the judicial abandonment definitively settles the relative positions of the insolvent and his debtors and creditors ; 2. That, from the date of the abandonment, all the unsecured creditors acquire the right to be paid by contribution out of the proceeds of the debtor's estate ; 3, That compensation can- not take place to the prejudice of rights acquired by the insolvent's creditors by reason of the abandonment and that therefore creditors are without right of compensation for claims maturing after tlic abandonment — De Lorimier, J. — Riddel vs. Goold, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 170. 15. Qu'une dette non liquide peut quelquefois etre opposee eu compensation, quand elle est facilement liquidable, comme le prix d'une pension et entretien, et lorsqu'elle est liee a la cr^ance r^clam^e par 1.- demandeur, laquelle est elle-meme contestee— Pagnuelo, J.—Ddcar/i vs. Pominville, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 366. 16. A Defendant, sued in damages for libel, cannot plead compen- sation by damages suffered by him from calumnious attacks made upon him by the Plaintiff— Q. B.—Trudel & Viaa, M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 502. 17. Que le porteur d'un billet promissoire, qui lui a et6 remis en gage, comme siiret^ d'une creance qu'il a contre I'endosseur du billet, et qui trar'-portc ce billet, pour v.aleur re^ue, a un tiers, perd. pur la, Connolidated Supplement No. I. —Art. IIHH. 305 tout recoui-s conti-eson (lc)bitour,.l()nt la detto se trouvo ainsi compen- sde et 6teinte.— Q. M.— Lepage & Hamcl, 19 R. L, p. 439. 18. Qu'il n'y a pas de compensation lorsqu'il s'a 'J7 20 ' ' ' * ' ' ' iMrH ilSI l-i f ;.i'- 306 CoriHolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1J88. 24. Que dans une cession do droits succussil'a, la declaration faito par lo cedant, qu'il est le seul parent et successiblo du cle cujiM com- porte jfarantie quant a la (juotc part du droit cetl*' par lui. Qu'il ii'y a pas solidarite legale de garantir la cession de droits t'aite par i)Iii- sieurs, si cette solidarito n'est passtipu'ee. Que dans ie cas de stipula tion de garantie de la part du cedant, In connaissanco par Tacquen iir, d'une cause de trouble, n'enipeche pas ceuernier d'oxercer son reco'irs contre le ct^dant. (1512 C. C.) Que I'acciuereur d'un ininieuhlc, qui 6teint un droit sur rinnneuble pour lequel il est garanti, a droit i\r diniinuer le coAt do ce droit sur le prix de vente qui lui est reclaim' — C. K—Forben vs. BtiniH, 21 R. L, p. 203.— Jette, J.— 21 R. L, \, 163. 25. Dans une poursuite instituee par la couronne pour r»'clainii d'un avocat lo niontaut d'une taxe iuiposee sur I'ordre des avocats, cet avocat pent plaider en C(Jinpensation les services professioa-icK qu'il a rendus a la couronne. Get avocat n'a pas le droit de produir.' une deuiande incidente pour la balance des frais qui pent lui rester <\\ir par la couronne en sus du niontant de vsa taxe, niais doit se pourvoir par le moyen de la petition de droit. — Andrews, J.—Fortier vs. L gelier, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 323. I li- 20. The Plaintiff, salaried beadle of the parish church, claimed $140 from the Fabrique for alleged special services in connection with his employment. Plea, that by Plaintiff's gross neglect the church was burned, and plate and valuables lost, wliereby Defendants suffered great damage, which they set up in compensation. Denun-er to plea, nn the ground, 1st. that Defendant's claim, being for unli(|ui- dated damages, could not be urged in compensation, 2nd., that Delcn- dants did not allege that at a regular meeting of the Fabrique, or (.f the parishoners, they had been authorized to so pleaiJ. Held, 1st. Tl.at inasmuch as the respective clainis of the parties, appeared to be abmit equally easy of liquidation, justice required that they should be trird by one suit ; and, 2nd, that the want, in Defendants' plea, of allegation of authorization to defend the suit, was not good ground of demurrer; though a motion to compel them to pro'luce the authczation would probably have succeeded.— Andrews, J. Giroxix vs. Card cfe Mar- guilUers de Btauport, 17 Q. L. R., p. 315, 27. Que le defendeur ne peut opposer en compensation t\ une deraande claire et liquids des dommages non liquid^s, meme lorsqu'il les reclame par une demande incidente qui est jug4e en meme temps Conmliddted Supplevwnt No. J.~Art. llOl). jjoy que la .lon.ando priMcipalo.-BKLANOKU, 3.-Mas,on vh. Mc.Gowan, Hr, L. C J., p. 81. 28. Jnsqu'fi la r.nMitioii ot au r< crc'-anco certaiae et .leter.nin^e.— C. U.~L>'feh,m' rs Auhru I R ,1,. •I, p. 'J33. 29. Le.s taxes munioipales no sonfc pas susceptil.les de compensa- tion ; ams, un cntribuable. qui a 6te elu .nsoiller municipal, alors quil devait des taxes, ne pent opposer I'exisi nee d'une creance co.itro la corporati.m pour echappcr a la declu^ance prononcei^ par lartl'l.. i:?o du code munieipal.-U. R.-Oauthier vs. Chevalier, R. J. O 7 (' S., p. 178. ^■' ■ m L'intime, dehiteur do T. en vertu d'actes d'obli-ration lui avait sotiscnt deux billets a ordre, moyennant proro<..,tion du terine etT.avait endo.sso ces billets a I'app.lant. Uno action n'uliai'.o et si^moe par I'appelant, comme procureur ad litem, fut portee contre int.mn, au noin do T., en recouvrement du montant des oblitrations, et les biU.ts furent deposes en Cour au retourdo la som.nation.' L'inti'.ue fit signifier a T. un transport qui lui avait ete consenti d'une dette (lui par compensation, eteignait celle pour hujuelle Taction dtait portee' FA-dessus, Taction fut retiree avant defense, et avant demande de plai.loyers, et I'appelant en intenta une nouvelle, en son propre nom tondee sur les billets promissoires, dont il etait porteur comme susdit' A cette nouvelle action, Tintime plaida compensation par la dette due par T.. qui lui avait ete transportde. Ju(j,\ que ce plaidoyer etait biin tonde.— Q. B.—Hould t£- Toumpmnt, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 5(il. 1I»0. 1. Decision number 1, noted at this article (Muir i<- Muir) is also reported in the 19 R. L., p. 228. Decision number 2, noted at this article, was reversed by the Court of Review, which held as follows : 2. That Railways subsidized by this Province, under the Que- bec Railway Act, 1869, are liable to seizure or sale by ordinary pro- cess of law.— C. R.~Mason Manufacturing Co. vs. Levis <& Kennebec Ry. Co., 7 Q. L. R., p. 30. !|i!'*l!l 308 Consolidaled Supplement No. l.—Art. I !'.)(). 3. Decision miMibor IH iioUmI at this urticlo ( Itedjidd .aHa„hle l.y the will.-C. W.-Perraidt m ManHon, M L. II, 7 S. l.'J. An (mlinary .loht cannot he set up in compensation a-minst ,1 claun tor the returr. of a deposit.- Q. H.- Rattray & Methot. 16 O It' K., p. 2G3. * 14. Qu'un chcnin do for pent etre saisi ("t von.hi comme tout autre nnmeuhle. et quo la .lesi^mation Ju chemin, telle que .lonnee dans ,a charte c e la conipagnie. est sufKsantt.-Q. K-Union Bank 0/ Lower Canada *fe Corporation of WicUiam, 21 R. L, p. 212. 15. Qu'une pension aliinentaire declar»5e in.saisissable peut n^an- mo.ns etre saisie ft la poursuite d'une personne. dans I'espfece. Tepouse du d6tendeur. a qui le creancier de cett. pension alimentaire doit Jiii-merne, des aInnents.-jETTE, 3.~Bdair vs. S4n4cal, R. J. O 2 t/ •S., p. 22(J. ' 16. Que les d^fendcurs. ,,ui ont coup6 ill.5„alement du bois sur la terre du dernandeur et 1 ont .nleve, ne peuvent, a la saisie-revon.ii- mt.on que celui-ci en fait, lui opposer, en compensation, du bois qu'il aura.t coupe 'egalement, quatre ans auparavant, sur la terre de I'un des detendeurs, npohafiiH ante omnia restifuendus.—Cmoit J ~Duh^ vs. Gudret, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 314. 17. Que le montant adjug,! pourlibelle est saisissable—jETTE J —Uearosiers vs. Meilleur, R. J. Q„ 2 C. S., p. 411. 18. Q'un executeur testamontaire, qui a m poursuivi par un he- ntier en destitution de sa charge, et qui a fait debouter Taction .le eethentier, avcc depens, peut cha.^^er.^ce dernier, le montant des traisqudaa,n8ipayes,malgr4 que les revenus %ue9 ^ cet heriticr soient, par le testament, declares insaisissables. Qu'un dernandeur est Hon recevable k se plaindre de I'irregularite d'une consignation faite par le d^tendeur lorsqu'il en a touche le montant. Dans cette cause le lugementcondaumaiademanderesse k payer certains frais en com- pensation dosfrais que le defendeur avait a payer.-DELoHiMiER. J. qwi7,tal vs. Ruhenje, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 462. _ 19. Le legataire d'un immeuble, " a titre d'aliments et soutien de la vie, sans qu'il puisse aucunement etre assujetti et arrSt-'; paraucun 310 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1190. " deses cr^anciers presents et futurs," peut I'ali^nor et, partant, I'hypo thequer, pour garantir le rembourseraeat d'une somme empruntee pour y faire des additions et ameliorations. Le creancier hypoth^caire a \v droit, en vertu d'un jugement condamnant le legataire a lui payer des interks Melius sur la somme ainsi pret^e, de saisir les loyers dus par les loeataires de I'immeuble. Le legataire contestant cetto saisie-arret ne peut tout au plus en demander la nullity que pour partie, et w peut conclure qu'a une ventilation pour etablir la valeur respective de I'immeuble tel que 16gu6 et des ameliorations faites au moyen de I'cmprunt, la proportion du loyer due a raison de celles-ci etant, k tout ^venement, saisissable et independante de la condition du leg. — Casault, J.— Faribault vs. Gnay, R. J. Q., 4 C. S.,p 143. 20. Le tiers-saisi peut declarer que la dette, dont il est debiteur, est insaisissable, et une contestation fondee sur le motif qu'il a fait telle declaration, est mal fondee. Des revenus, stipules insaisissables, d'uri immeuble pea vent cependant etre saisis pour des reparations et ouvrao-es necessaircs pour la conservation de cet immeuble. — C. K— Demers vs. BouthiUkr, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 32. 21. Un testament contenait la disposition suivante : " Je donne " et legue a mon frere, C. A. Pacaud, domicilii avec moi, une pension " viagfere et annuelle de $120 par annee, payable par trimestre et " d'avance, a compter du jour de mon deces, et je le tiens quitte de " tout ce qu'il pourra me devoir au jour de mon d^ces." Juge' : Quo la pension ainsi legue letait k titre d'aliments, et n'etait pas saisis- sable. Bien qu'une pension alimentaire soit saisissable en satisfac- tion des frais encourus pour son obtention, {Belleau, vs. Ennis, R. J. Q, 6 C. S. 194), elle ne Test pas des frais adjuges centre le pension- na'ire sur une procedure malheureuse par lui faite dans le but de col- lecter sa rente.— C. R. — Pacaud vs. Damoultn, R. J. Q., 7 C. S. p. 296. 22. Une pension alimentaire accord^e en justice peut etre saisie pour les frais encourus pour I'obtenir, lesquels sont censes etre d'une nature alimentaire Les provisions alimentaires accord^es par justice sont insaisissables, meme pour les frais qui les ont fait obtenir ; inais les pensions ne m^ritent pas la meme faveur, et les frais qui les ont creees doivent etre consideres comme dette de la meme nature que la chose qu'ils ont produite, c'ost-kdire comme dette alimentaire ; et, meme si on entendait aux pensions creees par justice I'exception pour leur saisie que I'article 558 C. P. 0. fait pour les provisions, elle u'lu GonsoUdated Supplement No. I— Arts. nOO-JSOS. 31] seraient pas rnoins snjettes k saisio pour los frais qui leur ont donn^ 1 existence.-C. R.~Belleaw & Ennis, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 194 „f «rf*?*^'iv« ^r '^'' '^^" ^"^'^^^^^^ «««^'^. °oted in this Supplement at article 1188, decision number 14. 2. A witness of one party may levy the amount of his taxed ZZT""/ ' ?r^u' ^"'■'^' '^--J^-ned to pay them, oven after the hnal judgment has been rendered in favor of the latter, awarding hnn, against the tenner, costs tea much larger amount. Compensation does not take place, in such a case, so as to bring it within the excep- tion in Art. 281, C. C. P., "that the amount allowed the .-iJss has no already been paid to such party or his attorney in virtue of a R J Q^rC S p in '^°''""-^"'^«^^^«' ^-Brousseau vs. Trottier, in fullTarSrim' '''''"^' "" '''''^'' ^^^^' '^ ''''' "^^^^'^^^^^ 1200. Que le voiturier est tenu de remettre an voya^eur la vahse que ce dernier lui a confiee, ou de prouver que, si cette°livrai- son est impossible, ce n'est pas sa faute. et que, s'il pretend que sa vahse a disparu par cas fortuit, il doit prouver le cas fortuit _Pa- M ?''^' t „ "''''•^ '''■ ^«^«'^'"*^ Pacific Ry. Co., 35 L. C. J n 42 • M. L. R., 7 S C,-, p. 131.-Q. B.-R J. Q., i b. R.. p. 311 ^' ' I *^.?*u^" ^^'"""^ *" P^'*^^ *'''='' 'P'"'*^' "'^"«rs in his answer to a p ea, the burden of proof in support of his affirmation rests on the party making such allegation.-C. R.-Bur7j vs. Forsufh 32 L T T p. 207. ^ . ■". v^. t*., 2. Le cr^ancier d'une obligation consentie par une ferame mariee et qui est attaquee pour d^faut de consideration et coinme ayant et^ consentie pour une dette du mari, doit etablir que I'acte est fond6 sur une consideration prc.pre a la femme, surtout s'il se presente, comme dans lespece, des circonstances de nature k faire douter de son exis- tence.— Q. B.~Union Bavk & Gagnon, 15 Q. L. R. p. 31. 3. A similar decision (noted in this Supplement at article 1301 dem,on number 3) was rendered in the case of Artisans' Permanent miuaing bociety vs. Lemteux. ^rJ' ito^lT'' '"'' '^ ^'f'^ ""'■ ^^"'^' ""^^^ '" *h'« Supplement at article 1220, decision number 1, and case of Baxter vs. GrZ, noted in tius oupplement at article 1242, decision number 5. iiiii i(|i 312 Consolidated Suppiement No. l.—Art. 1:303. 5. A person suing for damages for libel and who alleges that he had no knowledge of the libel until one month previous to the insti- tution of the action, must prove his allegation ; failing which, his action, if instituted more than one year from the date of the libel, will be dismissed.— Q. B.—Tetu & Duhaime, 18 R. L., p. 374.— C. R.— 15Q. L. K, p. 275. 6. It is sufficient for the shipper to prove the reception of goods by a carrier and the fact that they have not been delivered to the consignee, to place upon the carrier the burden of proving that the loss was caused by a fortuitous event, or irresistible force, or has arisen from a defect in the goods themselves.— Q. B.— Richelieu & Ontario Nav. Co., & Fortier, M. L. K, 5 Q. B., p. 224 ; 18 R. L., p. 83 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 9. 7. Where action is brought on a contract, in a district which is not that of the domicile of the debtor, the Plaintiff must prove conclu- sively that the condition containing the election of domicile, which is relied on to give jurisdiction, was pointed out to the Defendant by the agent when obtaining the subscription, and that the Defendant agreed to be bound by such condition.— Gill, J.—Belden vs. Christie, 33 L, C. J., p. 335. 8. The shares seized in this case, being held by the Bank in trust for E A. M. et al, the onus of proof was on the Respondent to show that the shares had been purchased with E. A. M.'s money when insolvent.— Supreme Covm.—bolmes & Carter, 12 L. N., p. 339; 16 S. C. R., p. 473. 9. Qu'un voiturier est responsable des avaries et dommages (jue souffrent les marchandises contiees a ses soins, lorsqu'il ne peutprouver qu'ils sont imputables a force majeure et que la preuve dc la force majeure et celle du vice de le chose meme, si le voiturier Tinvoque, incombe a cc dernier.-Q. B.—Ouimet & Canadian Express Co., M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 292; 17 R. L. p. 225 ; 32 L. C. J., p. 319. 10. When persons are occupying lands, which have never been marked off by a regular survey and one of them, instead of bringing an action en homage, to settle the limits of his property, su.s a neishl'our for the value of trees alleged to have been cut by huu uuon Plaintiffs land, it is incumbent on the Plaintiff to make it clear, by positive testimony, that the tr.es were, in fact, cut upon hia land.-Q- B.—Millilcen & Bourget, M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 300. Consolidated Supplement Wo. l.~Art. 1203. 313 11. In the case of voluntary deposit, the depositary being only liable for the loss of the thing deposited if the loss be due to hi° fault and negligence, the depositor must prove such fault and negligence.— Champagne, D. U.— Chevalier vs. Beausoleil, 13 L. N., p. 90. " 12. A municipal corporation issued and handed to the Treasurer of the Province of Quebec certain debentures, as a subsidy to a railway company, the same to be paid over to the company, in the manner and subject to the same conditions on which the government provincial subsidy was payable under 44-45 Vict. cap. 2, vtz. " When " the road was completed and in good runfling order to the satisfaction " of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." The railway sued the Pro- vincial Treasurer to recover the debentures, after the government bonus had b en paid, and the municipal corporation was made mise en cause. Held : That as the Provincial Treasurer had admitted by his pleadings that the road had been completed to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the onm was on the municipal corporation to prove that the Government had not acted in conformity with the statute.— Supreme CovRT.—County of Ponctiac & Ross 13 L. N., p. 154 ; 17 S. C. R, p. 406. 13. Que c'est au demandeur qui poursuit devant le tribunal du lieu ou 11 pretend que son droit a pris naissance, k prouver, sur une exception declinatoire, qu'en effet son droit d'action a pri.s naissance dans les limites de la juridiction du tribunal ouil poursuit.— Mathieu, J.—Fraser vs. Oilroy, 19 R. L., p. 80. 14. The burden of proving that the loss or destruction of bao-^a ^M;* I EililSIXtBiSKEi jeure, doit prouvor que I'incendie ne provenait pas d'uiio cause qui lui i'ut imputable, la presomption etant, eu I'absence d'une telle preuvo, que I'incendie est le resultat de sa propre negligence. Pour redanirV lo beaefie de Texception decretee in sa faveur par le statut federal, S. R. C, ch. 82, le voiturier doitprouver que I'incendie n'est pas du a sa faute, ou a sa negligence, ni a celle de ses employes.— Q. B. — Richelieu .£■ U7itario Navigation Co. & Pierce, R. J. Q , 4 B. R., p. 8.— Louanokh, J.— R. J. Q., 3 C. S. p. 139. 27. The election petition was served upon the Appellant on the 12th of May, 1891, and on the 16th of May the Appellant tiled pn- liuiinary objections, the first being as to the status of the petitioners. When the parties were heard upon the merits of the preliminary ob- jections, no evidence was given as to the status of the petitioners and the court dismissed the objection. On appeal to the Supreme Court ; Held, reversing the judgment of the court below (GwYNNE, J. dissent- ing) that the onus was on the petitioners to prove their status ius voters. (The Stanstead case (20 Can. S. C. R. p. 12; followed).— Suprb:me Court. — Aniyot <& Labrecque, 20 S. C. R., p. 181. 1304. 1. Que dans une action penale, pour des paiements faits k des electeurs, en contravention k la section 92 de I'acte des Elections federales de 1874, la quality d'electeur doit etre prouvee par la pro- duction d'une copie ou d'un extrait de la liste 61ectoraIe et que la preuve de cette qualite par t^moin n'est pn suftisante— Mathieu. J. — Filiatrault vs. Prieur, 18 R. L., p. 666. 2. Que dans une action penale, pour une somme de $200, a raison r li' ^^l-rr 7' °"-'°" "P""'"' '°"^ *^""°'°« competents pourprou- e le d^ht de desertion (S. R C, ch. 103, sec. 45 ; S. R P. Q.^rfc 5G25) ma,s ne le sont pas pour prouver lengagement verbal qui* doit etre fait en presence de temoins autre que le inaitre ou son 6pouse.-DESNOYERs. J. S. V.-Major vs Labelle. 12 L. N., p. 39a A a/' ?"^, ''' '■''•S'""'^^ hospitalieres de St-Joseph de THotel-Dieu de Montrea peuvent gtre ten.oins et que, dans certains cas la cour Cnrrf^P^-^" faire examiner par un commissaire-enqueteuZ MATHIEU, J.-Rdigieu-^es Ho.pUalUres de St-Joseph de VHotel-Diev, vs. Banque Vtlle-Marie, 18 R L., p. 249. 3. The testimony of a witness, who declares that he does not know whether there is a state of rewards and punishment afW fs C., p!r72!"" ''^•"'^''^^"''"''^^^ ''■ ^^"^^^^"^- M- ^- ^' 4. Le t^moignage des epoux, I'un pour ou contre r«nfr« r'.=t admissible que dan.s deux cas determines .-1. Lorsque "l etat "del Hi' ^ I ', t i i I ;- 326 Consolidated Supplfment No. l.—Art. 1^32. dpoux peut se troaver aftecte ou modifi^ par le resultat des procedures instituees p tr I'un contre I'autre. comtne dans la separation de corps ' et de biens ; 2. Lorsque ce te.noignage est offert ou demand^ dans une cause ou I'autre conjoint est en liitte contre un tiers. Au con- traire, quand les epoux ne sont en instance devaat les tribunaux qui raison d-int^rets purenient pecuniaires et que le t^mo.gnagc de lun d'eux n'est demande que pour repousser une pretention qu il el^ve h rencontre de I'autre. sans qu'il y ait lieu de soiipc;onner aucune entente ou collusion entre les parties, il n'y a plus lieu d'appliquer la prohibi- tion de la loi, vu qu'on se trouve alors en presence d'une cr^ance ordinaire, qui rentre dans les regies du droit commun qui r^gissent les rapports des creanciers et les .lebiteura (Other issues in connection with this case are noted in this Supplement at article 202. decision number 2).— C. B..—Beavidry vs. Stamps, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 55. 5 Lorsqu'une saisie-arret apr6s jugement a 6te pris entre les mains d'une femrae. lui ordonnant de declarer ce quelle pouvait de- voir k son mari.il sera permis d'intcrroger cette femme sur la declara- tion qu'elle a faite en vertu du bref.etcela nonobstant les dispositions de I'art 1231 C. C, qui declare que le mari et la femme ne peuvent gtre temoins I'un pour ou contre I'autre.-TASCHEREAU, J. ^Demeravs. Brunei, R. J. Q., 5 C. S.. p. 377. 1333. Amendments. The following paragraph is added to article 1232 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada : 1. « Notwithstanding that which precedes, any party to a suit may give testimony on his own behalf in every matter of a com- mercial nature; but his credibility may be atfected thereby." 3 " This Act shall not affect cases p.mding at the time of its sanction." (30th December 1890).— Q., 54 Vict., cap. 45, ss. 1 and 3. Note. See also clauses added, by section 2 of this Act, to article 251 C. C. P. Article 3597 of the Revised Statutes of the Province of Quebec is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph : •' The oath of the advocate makes proof as to the services rendered by him having been required and as to the aature and durutioa :' PI it . i Consolidated Supplement No. I— Art. 1'232. 327 thereof, but such oath may be contradicted in the same way a^ anv other evidence."-Q., 54 Vict., cap. 32, sec. 2. ^ ^ 1. Erratum The names of the parties in decision number 11 noted at this article, were Taylor & Neil. «i oer 1 1 . 2. In an action brought by a father in his own name, for dam- ages ansing from an indecent assault committed by .he Defendant upon the Ph.,ntitf's daughters, aged respectively 16 ancf 24. the d ildren so as^aulted are competent witnesses.-CH.MPAGNK, D. klZZl vs. Paquette, 12 L. N., p. 194. ^agarae nrouL^nnn'"'.^"'''"' P'"*^ ''^''' '°° affirmation sous sennent pour es injuies dont 1 se plamt. (Le juge.uent dans cette cause a d Zlio^Z' T- 'W''' -"•ement).-C. K-Dukaim.Ts. letu, 15 f K, p. 27o.— Q. B.— 18 R. L.. p. 374. u, '■ ''r! '"'! '*' "'""'''■ ^' "» PlMotiff •' 01th, of the value of SL r. ■"; '"'Tf '"■■ ""''" '" *' ""''"^y of «-« """ier, a .e R T * it R^p^'sir "■' ' '■ °- f • ''' ^ '' "^ ^- '■■ P- *^-* B- 6. Le serment de I'avocat est recu a I'appui de son compte pour o* v., c. 61 -L. K.— 5mtt6ien vs. Allaire, R. J. Q.. 1 Q S., p. 275. behaff it To? '' ^-T'' ''""°^ ^' ^""^"^ "^ ^ ^^''t"«««- on his own behalt n a commercial case, to prove a contract alleged to have been made at a date pnor to the coming into force of thelct. 54 Vi .'q) ch. 45.-D0HEHTV. J.-Platt vs. Drysdale, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 282 dan.^1 ,^""^"'-f ™«"*^ 1 1-^ ^l^«i«'"on de la cour de revision k Quebec dans la cause de Beauh^en vs. Alla.re, lavocat pent prouver par son ermcnt. la requisition. la nature et la dur^e de ses 'services prof es Z 54 'f" Vr'o ''''' '"^^'"^^^ ^"^^"-- ^ ^^ passltl-on du statut 54 Vic. c. 32, s. 2. qui autorise cette preuve.-J.TTE J-^a gnon vs. St-Jean, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 459. - - ^^ ''• ^A« m s ' m 1 1 W I' "I" 328 Consolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 1232. 9. Quo le demandeur, a\ocafc pratiquant, avait un recours pour le monti;- *:. de ses hoiioraires eb d^bourses contre la corporation defen- deresse, ^ai avait beneKcie de son travail. Que le demandeur pouvait prouver la requisition, la nature et la duree de ses services, en vertu du statut 54 Vic, ch. 32, sec. 2, bien que ce statut tut posterieur aux services en question.— Taschereau, i.— Burroughs vs. Corporation de Lachute, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 393 ; 1 R. de J., p. 111. 10. Aucun commencement de preuve par ^crit n'est requis pour i'admission de la preuve testimoniale de la requisition des servicer d'un avoch.t. ce dernier p>.uvant prouver cette requisition par son propre serment. — Tellier, J.— St- Pierre vs. Lepage, R. J. Q., 6 C. S.. p. 511. 11. The provision of law which authorizes notaries to make evidence in their own behalf, establishing their employment as notaries, extends only to such employment as specially appertains to the functions of a notary and not to services which may be per- formed by a notary as an ordinary agent. — Archibald, J. — Kittsov vs. Duncan, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 402. 12. In an action Paidienve, the Plaintiff's own oath is sufficient to establish that he iiad no knowledge of the contract he sought to annul before the year preceding the institution of such action. — C. K. —Houliston V8. Hart, 17 Q. L. R., p. 249. 13. In an action by a tutor in behalf of a minor, the minor being the real Plaintiff and a party to the suit, within the meaning of Art. 1232 C. C, cannot be examined as a witness for the Plaintiff.— DoHERTY, J. — Lefehvre vs. McDonald, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 321. 14. Le defendeur arrets sur capias, pour une dette d'une nature comraerciale, pent offrir son t^moignage sur la contestation de c^ capias par reqtiete.—C. K — Davvison vs. Garceau, R. J. Q., 6 C. S.. p. 328. 15. Where a person is sued on a promissory note, the indorsement of which he admits to be in his own handwriting, his own evidence in the cause, to the effect that he wrote his name under the impres- sion that he was signing as witness to a receipt, cannot avail to exempt him from liability on the note in the absence of any testimony to show that he was incapab'e of understanding what he was doing.— Tait, J.— Darling vs. McBuurmy, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 357. ConsoLid ited Siippkrnent No. J.~Arf, 1^3S. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS. 329 Decisions under §1 nn. Ito 6 " §2 *• 7 " 8 " §3 '• " §4 " 10 " n " §5 " 12 Dhc isions under § 7 (a) commence in ent depreuve paf ^cnt nn. 14 to 26 DeciHJons under § 7 i (b) Mibcellanous •' 27 " 36 aa33. Par- 1.— For tlie judgment of the Supreme Court in decision number 13. noted against this article (Mna Life Insurance Lo. & Brodw) see article 992, decision number 8. 2. For the judgment of the Privy Council in decision number 1 noted against this article, {Montreal Assurance Co. <& McGUUvrav) see article 246S, decision number 7. 3. S. brought an action to compel V. to render an account of the sum of $2,500, which S. alleged had been paid, on the Gth Oc- tober, 1885, to be applied to S s first promissory notes matui-inc. and in acknowledgment of which V. s book-keeper gave the following receipt: "Montreal, October 6th., 1S85. Received from Mr D. S. the '• sum of two thou.sand Hva hundred dollars, to be applied to his first " notes maturing. M. V., per F. L." an.l which V. failed and neglected to apply. V. pleaded that he never got the $2,500 and that the receipt was given in error and by mistake by his clerk. After documentary and parol evidence had been given, the Superior Court, whose jus.oni lenquete aduiettantune preuve tesLoniale .t trouvan «n commencement de preuva par ^crit. dans la d<^position d'une de parties dans la cause.-MATHiEu. i.-Kay vs. GibeL, 16 R. L. p 41 1 /k ■ !t '^;*""f ^"5' '° ^''^^ ''' ^ commencement de preuve par dcrit must be the best evidence obtainable of its kind and vfill not give Hse to the presumption where the existence, in the hands of the party oi' other more direct and beUer written evidence is made to apCr'no cause being shown for its non.production.--ANnREWs, J. ^G^ 11;°! vs. Laohaud, 14 Q. L. R., p. 278.-C. R.-14 Q. L. R., p. 366. 16. A partnership cannot be proved, as between the alleged partners by oral evidence, unless there is a commencement depreZe par ^o..^._Davidson. J.-Mclndoe vs. Finkerton, M. L. R., 4 S c! r. . f* ^"' ^°J,^^"«'/^"^ »» ^crit signd par un cr^ancier. il est dit que ce creancer a d^cLr^etmanifesterintentionde faire don et ren^ de sa creance k son debiteur, pour des causes et raisons k lui connues la preuve testnnoniale de la re.nise de la dette est admissible, cet ecrit cons ituant un comn.encement de preuve par ecrit suiBsant-TELLlER J- Vohgny vs. Palardy, M. L. R., 4 S. C , p. 108. 18. A promise of sale may be proved by verbal evi.lence where there is a commencement of proof by writing. In the present case I u^emorandum of figures, in the handwriting of Appellant's n ana.;r with his statements when examined as a witne.s, 'constituted a "uffi' cien commencement of proof.-Q. B.- Montreal Loan & Mortgage to. & Leclair, M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 374. '^^ 19. Lorsque le vendeur nie avoir fait aucune promesse ou deeJa ra^.on concernant Inexactitude des lignes, la preuv'e testimon a e dj elle promesse ou garantie ne pent etre faite sans un couimencement de preuve par 4crit.-Q. B.- Baveluy S Vi,neau, WQ.L. E p 2G1 II' ; i i M; 332 Conaolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. 1233. 20. Dans une action en dommages, pour inex^cution d'une pro- messe de vente par le propriotaire reel de I'iinnieuble, dont le titre forniel etait au noin d'un tiers, I'aveu du detVndeur (le propri^laire reil) (|u'il avait accepte la proposition d'achctcr du demandiur, a la condition que le dit tier.i, porteiir du titrc, y consentirait,iie constituc pas un commencement de preuve par ecrit du contrat de proniesse de vente. — Larue, J. — Coalumbe vs. Buulavger, 15 Q. L. H. p. 268 — C. R.— 15 Q. L. R, p. -274. 21. The admission of the debtor that he gave as his reason for refu.sing to sign a writing acknow' 'ligini; his indebtedness, that he could not sign until he saw a certain person from whom he proposed to borrow ; his further statement, made at the same time, that his creditor knew better than himself what was due ; and the fact that he appeared satisfied when informed that he would get a month's delay for payment of the amount, if not proving a renunciation, establ shed such a probability as to constitute a commencement of proof in writing, justifying the admission of parol evidence to prove renunciation of the prescription then acquired. — C. R. — David vs. Goyer, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 178. 22. The admission or declaration of an agent binds his principal only when it is made during the continuance of the agency, in ngard to a transaction then depending. The evidence of a person, who hus ceas d to be agent, is inadmissible to serve as a commencement of proof against his principal, to contradict the terms of a contract of ^oan made during the existence of the agency. But the production of a cheque, signed by the agent, payable to the order of a third party, showing that the amount of the loan, aft r deducting charges, was paid to said third party, is evidence in writing that the lender placed the money in the hands of such third party, and that it was not paid direct to the borrower as represented in the deed of loan. — LYNCH, J. — Knox vs. Boivin, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 311. 23. L'dcrit qui emane du repr^sentant de la partie, dans I'espece, du notaire qui recevait pour elle les int^rets dus sur une obi gation, peut servir de commenc-^ment de preave par ^cit centre cctte partie, iorsque cet 4crit a ete fait dans I'ex^cution du mandat conlie a ce mandataire. Ce commencement de preuve par ecrit peut etre oppose, non seulement k la partie elle-meme, mais k son succe seur, meme k titre particulier, par exemple, a Celui auquel elle a transporte les droits que ce successeur invoque. — Q. B. — Watters & Casddy, R. J. Q., 3 B. R> n, 270. Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art, JS,%3. 333 24. Que les entries dans k-s livres de McCready constifcualent „n prcuve te tunon.ale de loblig.tion alle,m^e par la deumndoresao - C K-Scanlan vs. Smith, R. J. Q., c C. S. p. 58. • lad,ni!''^"T" commencement de preuve par ecrit n'est requis pour ladn.s,s.on de la preuve testimoniale de la re,uisition des servTc dun avocat.ce denner pouvant prouver cette requisition par s' m propre serment.- Tku.ku. J.- St-Pierre .s. Lepagl R. J Q.. 6 C. S.! 26. Qu'une convention, k I'effet que les vi.illes clotures ne seraient a.te. qu. lorsquelles tomberaient de v^tuste. ne pent etre Pou'e lAscHEHEAU, J.—Suvard vs. Renaud, 1 R. de J., p. 422. Miscellaneous: 27. Que dans le cas de saisie-revendication la preuve de la propnete des effets saisis, quelle quen soit la valeu p.'-ut oe ta,re par teu.o.us._C. K~ Boardn.an vs. Lslcin, 18 R. L., p! 2.37 28. The fact that an election was held may be proved by verbal ev.^nce. Moreover, such a fact is a public fact'which the oL ^rmot ..nore. when it i. not specially put in i.ssue by the parties.-- C. K-Brwson vs Goyette, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 102. at ai J i^n::;r s;^r ^-^'^' -^^^ - ^'-^ «^pp^^-- 30^ In an action negatoria servitutis, respecting a road on the Pamfrts property, the Defendant n.ay plead that the .oad Ts one ed m com.non rom time imn,en.orial. by several contiguous neig" bo s. ot whom he .s one, to reach and work their farms, other J.sl ANDREWS, 3.~Perron vs. Blouin, 16 Q. L. R., p. 91. 31 Que la possession legale de biens meublesdonneaupossesseur pos,ede.-TELLiER, ^.-Boticher vs. Bousquet, M. L R., 5 S. C, p. 11. si.n/)' '^"' ^* «ig"^t"re. par une croix, n'est pas valide etquu.n reyu >^ne dune cro.x. en presence d'un temoin, ne constitue pas un ecHt tl' 334 Conaclidated Supplement No. 1. — Art 1234.. 33. Quo la prouve testiinonialo d'un cong6 de deloger verbal ne peut viiloir pour mettre tin a la tacite reconduction d'un bail. — Q. B. — Lacroix d- Fatilewx, 21 R. L., p. 19. 34. That a reci'ipfc signed by a c^o^s, in the presence of a single witness, is valil, hut is not a private writing which makes proof bet- ween the parties, without evidence of its execution, and only co sti- tutus a commencement of proof in writing.— Davidson, l—Trudeau vs. Vincent, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p 231. 35. Que !e refus, fait par le d^tenteur d'effets mobiliers, qui ne lui appartiennent pas, de les livrer au propri^taire, peut etre prouv^ par t^inoin, quoiquo la valeur des eti'jts exce.le cinquante piastres.— Ma- THIEU, J. — Boarnot vs. Robert, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 301. 36. La preuve testiraoniale de I'existence d'hypoth^ues sur un immeuble u'est pas legale.— C. R.—Leclaire vs. GoM, R. J. Q., 3 C S., p. 331. * 1334. 1. For the judgment of the Supreme Court in decision number 15, noted against this article, (Mna Life Ins. Co. & Brodie) see article 992, decision number 8. 2. Que la preuve testiraoniale d'une convention vcioale changeant la position et les obligations respectives des parties, telles que reglees et (letaillees k un 6crit, est illegale.— Q. B.—Andcrson & BMis, 17 R L., p. 99 ; 15 Q. L. R., p. 196.— Cahon, J.— 14 Q. L. R., p. 181. 3. In non-commercial matters, verbal testimony is inadmissible to .-.Ktcnd or alter the purport of a written receipt. Verbal testimony is inadmissible to impugn a written docuuiont for fraud, except when such fraud is charged in the making of the document, or isimmediatuiy connected therewith, in such a manner that the party against whom it was practised could not protect himself in the drawing of the docu- ment, or otherwise, in writing.— Andrews, J.— Gilchrist vs. Lacli'ivd, 14 Q. L. R.. p. 278.— C. R.— 14 Q. L. R., p. 366. 4. Parol evidence is inadmissible, on the part of the endorser of a promissory note, to establish an agreement, pleaded by him, that he would not be required to pay the note.-C. K—Decelles vs. Samoiiette, M. L. R , 4 S. C, p. 361 ; 32 L. C. J., p. 236. 5. The Appellant (Plaintiff) sought to recover machinery trans- Consolidated Supplement No. l.^Art m^ 335 ».y him from Keiffer hT] \ t ^ *" P"''^'^"' °^ *^« machinery existed, whichd:/:;: r;t:,7r'atl^f;"^''r''"'*-^^^^" pin-chaser in good faith from Keitfer -O B wT. ' 7^ '*' '* '^^ ation any other lcu::^n^1etee?ttT:^^^^^ ''^^^ --^^- evidence, but must look at th« .1 / . ^ '^' '''' *"^ extrinsic passed thereund r ;L J -tu^'r '" t1^^ "'^^ ^''^^^^^^ ^- C. p. 89. ^««ar% u.. McDomjall, M. L. R., 4 S. admlir?:: Ivlt Se ^r h'^^"^"^ ^ ^ '^ ^^^^ ^"^ P-t lenrit valablement fat n. ?! ""^ ''^'""^"^ ^^"^'"^ t^moin que '« Q- L. R, p. 163. cermcs.— O. R— .9w?/< m ^r^^^ers. wWting. ..was ;:te ^o ' S tnd tVr "' ^'^ ^^"^"^^^ '" thence to be forwarded^o New York on D.f ' TT"^ '' ''^''^' Beloeil. Defendant pointed ou Uo P^L ff on the t '"" ^"'' ""^ lumber was laden a ouanfiH, J „ '''"'^."' °° ^^e barge on which the Jeek. and obJeleTto'Z^ VlaLt/ ' r'' '"" "* '^^^'"^ ^" *'^^ wo.od. "do the bes you can : th 'IhT " '^ '" l"'^"^^' ^°^- that a small nmount of lullr was 2. "''''• '''°"' "' '^^ ^^P'-^^^, total amount sold ■ bat 1.1 '^^f '"&'"«- quantity like the ."odify the contract or to . """""''^ '^"' ^' ^^^ refused to 386 ConHoliditU'd Sup])lemt"nt No. J— Art. l^S/f. Plaintiff did not justify tlio admission of parol evidence to sliow that tfie original contract, by which the lumber was to be accepttd at Be- loeil, had been abandoned, or varied, so as to entitle the Defendant to treat the entire eaij^'o as sold subject to inspection at New-York — C, \\.—CroHs VH. BuUis, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. :i21. 10. On ne pent piouver par t<^moins, et sans le proliminairo d'uiu inscription en faiix.contre ou outre le contenu du r^'^istre de delibera- tions dune fabriquo.— C. R. — Ckavqxmx vs. Paradin, R. J. Q., 2C. S., p. 419. 11. Que la preuve testimoniale n'est pas admissible pour demon- trer (|Ue, malyr6 renonciution erron^e quelle renf.ruiait, la quittance produite sajipiique reellement a la creance hypotli aire dont Taclif- teur .se plaint— Tascheueau, J.— la Fahrvfue de Notre-l/ume de Montreal, V8. Monarque, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 4G8. 12. Parol evidence is inadmissible, on the part of a person pre- tend in"- to be the real vendor and owner of the goods .sold, to contrad ict a receipt, signed by him, in which another person is declared to betiif own r of such goods— DAVIDSON, J. — Hall vs McBcan, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 242. 13. Even in commercial cases and under the English law of evidence, parol evidence cannot be admitted to vaiy the terms of ti valid written instrument, unless such variance result fiom a subse- quent oral agreement, based on a new consideration and which sub.sc- quent agreement would itself be susceptible of proof by pniol evidence.— DoiiEUiY, J.—Fortier vs Bnlard, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 78 14. That the prohibition of Art. 1234 C. C. against the aditiission of parol evidence to contradict or vary a written in.strument, is not d'ordre imhlic and that, if such evidence is admitted without objection at the trial, it cannot subsequently be set aside in a court of appeal. That parol evidence in commercial matters is admissible against a written document to prove error. (/Etna Insurance Co. v. Brodie, 5 Can. S. C. R. p. 1, followed).— Supreme CovRT. — Schwersenf^ky vk Vineberg, 19 S. C. R., p. 243.— Q. B.— M. L. R.. 7 Q. B.. p. 137. 15. Where a person is sued on a promissory note, the endorse- ment of which he admits to be in his handwriting, his own evidence in the cause, to the effect th«vt he wrote his name under the iniprcs ion that he was signing as witness to a receipt, cannot avail to exempt Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1^35. 337 !'hl?h"f'i'^'"'^-"" the note, in the absence of any testimony to show that he was incapable of unJerstan-ling what he was doinl- I AIT, ,).—Varlvng va AfcBurmy, R. J. Q., 6 C. S.. p. 357. 1385. 1. Decision number Hi. noted at this article (Singleton d hn^fht) wa^conhnned in the Privy Cou„cil.-U Q. L R, p.' 257 ; 11 L N., p. 401 ; 13 App. Cas., p. 788. 2. Que Ton peut prouver par t^moin. la reconnaissance d'un con.pto present et la promessede le payer, lorsque ce compte est uour une somme do moms de S50.0O qj, I'article 1235 du Code Civil ..est pas applicable au cas ac^aei, cet «Hicle ne se rapportant qu'au cas oi. la dette exckle la » ,n. e de - 50.00.-Cham?aone, D M - Girouard vs OagnS, 12 L. N., ^1. ■ H6. ' 3. As to what constitutes th . "acceptance " referred to in para- graph 4 of this article: see c. so of Treater va. Treafer, not^d in thin .Supplement at article 1242, decision number 6. 4. The acceptance or receipt of the goods, or part th.Teof, by the purchaser, may be proved by parol evidence. When th. Defendant ottered a price for goods, which was accepted, and the goods were then shipped, in his name, to an arldress indicated by him to the vendor possession of the goods was thereby vested in the Defendant and he' will bo deemed to have accepted and received the same — LvxcH J — Jhoth va Hntchina, 14 L. N., p. 82. ■ <' ■ 5. Lorsque, dans une vente par courtier, le billet d'achat est pro- -lu.t par lacheteur, auquel il ^tait adress^, on peut prouver par le trmoiguage du courtier la transmission du billet de vente au vendeur our prouver une semblable vonte, faite par Tentremise d'un courtier' .1 sutfira que ^cheteur produise le billet d'achat, et \e contmt sera teuu pour legalement prouv^, tant que la preuve qui r<5sultc de cette production ne sera pas contredite par la production du billet de vente -Jette. J.— Crane vs McB m, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 331. 6. La renonciation a la prescription acquise ne peut etre faite que par le d^biteur et doit renfermer les conditions dune obligation nou- velle, mais la reconnaissance de la dette, n'ayant que I'effet d'interrom- pre la prescription, peut etre faite par le debiteur ou par son repr^sen- taat.~Q. B.—Milliken & Booth, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 158. 7. La promesse et ia reconnaissance pour intorrompre la pr -scrip- !♦ 338 Consolidated Supplement No. l.~Art. 1S39. II 11 ;l lii'^ I^Hfl I ml :; tion d'une dette commerciale excedantSSO, doivent etre consign^s dans an dcrit sign6 par le debiteur. Le Code Civil a fait, k la legislation ant6- rieure, pour les dettes commerciales, un changeinent trop radical pour que les decisions fondees sur la loi pre-txistante puissant etre maiiite- nant invoquees. Une offre, meme par dcrit, f'aite sous condition et a titre de transaction, n'est pas une reconnaissance qui interrompt la prescription, si elle n'est pas accuptee. (This case is reported in full at article 2227, decision number ll).— C. B,.—McGreevy vs. McGreevy, 17 Q. L. R., p. 278. 8. Dans les matieres commerciales, ou la somme de deniers ou la Taleur dont il s'agit excede ciiiquante piastres, la preuve de paienients partiels, pour etablir I'lnterruption de la prescription de la dette a compte de laquelle ils ont ete fails, est inadmissible. Un commence- ment de preuve par ^crit complete par une preuve testimoniale, n'^qui- vaut pas i IVcrit signe par la partie exige par I'article 1235 pour soustraire une dette commerciale a I'etfet ues lois relatives k la pres- cription des actions.— Q. _B.—C'Aaresi <& Murphy, R. J. Q., 3 B. R, p 376. 9. Le d^fendeur, par ordre ^crit, a g.iranti le paiement de cer- taines niarchandises achetees des demandeurs par un tiers. Les dematidcurs ayant livre des etfets pour une valeur plus elevee que le montant de I'ordre, ont voulu prouver par temoins un engagenuiit verbal du defendeur de les payer.— Jug4 : Que la preuve testimoniale de I'engagement allegue etait illegale et inadmissible. — RoUTUlEU, J. — Piddington vs. Demers, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 396. 10. See remarks of Patterson, J., in the case of Ross & Hannan, noted in this Su[jplement at article 1474, decision number 1. 1339. 1. Que le creancier qui fait 6maner un capias contre la personne de son debit, ir, sans cause probable et sur des allegations fausses contenues dans la df^position, sera responsab e, envers .sou debiteur, des dommages resultant de cette arrest ition, la loi prt^sunmnt malice dans ce cas.— Q. B. —Drapeau & Dedaiiriers, 16 R. L., p. 433. 2. In an action brought by a married woman in this Province, it will be .v'^esumed she is common as to property with her husband, m the absence of proof of her matrimonial domicile, or of the law which regulates it.— T\it, J .—Sir.imonf vs Elliott. M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 182. Q.\— 20 R L., p. 666 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 386 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. im. Cotisoiidatecl Supplement iVo. l.—Art. 1339. 339 3. Que lor,s(,u'un statut donne k une corporation municipale la faculte de donner, dans un certain delai. unegarantiedeterniin^e.pour aassurer certains avanta^esmentionnes an statut, il antorise, par 1^ meme. la corporation k donner cette garantie.— Q. B.~ViUe de Livis *ur la meme cause et pour la r^ e u • ic se, prise par elle en quality de commune en biens, a ddja etc rea j ja.— Q. B -- Bernier & Oendron, 17 Q. L. R., p. 377. 17. Que le ces.sionnaire d'un jugoment, executoire contre le de- Consolidated Supplevient No. 1. — Art. 12Ii2. 343 Liteur c^d^, n'a pas d'nction centre ce dernier. Wwdele, 21 R. L. p. 326. ■ C. R. — MaiUeur va 1343. 1. In an action against a firm composed of Caldwell & H. J. Shaw, for the amount of loans, alleged by the Plaintitt' to have- been made by him to the Hi-m, but which were represented by noU-s signed by H. J. Shaw only, it was hel consignee must be much clearer and m 've posifivs thai, if the goc'^s had been consigned to order in the us'ial way. So, where two ca&«>3 of ftitario avd Quebec Ry., M. L. R, 5 S. C, p. 211.— Q. B,-M. L. R, 6 Q. B., p. 381 ; 34 L C. J., p. 299. 8. Qu'une lettre de change accept^e, sans que rien n'indique k quel endroit elle a ete acceptee, est censee Tetre au domicile de celui qui Taccepte.— Mathieu, J. — Lockerby vs. Weir, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 285. 9. Que dcs comptes courants, pour marchaiu^ '^ ; vendues et livrees k diverses intervalles, par le debiteur, et lesquels sont charges des int<'. 's et des paitments faits p co/ :^ du tout, ^ans protesation, cc uent une pieuv; de I'ohi ,v du di^biteur de piyer les interet- sur ee conpte.— Mathieu, i - JJoiovert vs. Sauretle dit Larosc, 19 R. L., p. ?. Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1^4^. 345 10. Que la dissolution d'une injonction ^fcabiit que cette injonction ^tait mal fondle, mais ne fait pas pr^sumer que cette injonction avait 6t^ ^manee sans cause probable.— Q. B.— Montreal City Pass. Ry Co & Ritrhie, 18 R. L., p. 12 ; M. L. R.,.5 Q B.. p. 77.- Supreme Court' —13 L. N., p. 34 ; 16 S. C. R., p. 622. 11. A chemist, who leaves his shop in charge of an apprentice, not qualified under the Quebec Pharmacy Act to mix prescriptions, is guilty of faute, and an explosion of chemicals occurring during his absence, the presumption is against him and he will be liable in dam-iges therefor, unless he rebuts the presumption.— Q. B.~Lyotis& Laskey, M. L. R., 5 Q. B.,p. 5; 33 L. C. J.,p. 80.-Davidson, J.— M L R., 4 S. C, p. 4. ■ ■ 12. Que des k-comptes donnas par le maitre h I'entrepreneur, sur le prix du marche, k I'origine des travaux on mgme des ^-com'ptes pay6s dans le courant du travail, sans imputation sur telle ou telle partie de I'ouvrage, ne doivent pas etve consid^r^s comme une pr^- somption de verification ou d'acceptation d'ouvrages, qui ne sont pas encore faits nitermin^s, ma.s ces sommes sont, plutat cens^es avancees k I'entrepreneur pour I'obliger d lui venir en aide.— Taschereau, J. — Therien vs Villiotte dit Latour, 20 R. L., p. 209. 12a. G., the maker of promissory note, was sued thereon by E., a bank. G. swore the note had no stamp on it, in accordance with an agreement with C, the former mana-er of E. C. made an affidavit to the contrary. The law of 1879 made all unstamped notes a nullity, but provided a remedy if stamps were omitte.l by error. Held : that, as the affidavits contradicted each other, there was no evidence that the stamps had been omitted by error.— Q. B.— Exchange Bank <£• Oilman, 34 L. C. J., p. 120. 13. Qu'un entrepreneur de chemin dn fer, qui achete en son nom les terrains sur lesquels il construit le chemin a ses frais et qui donne ensuite k la compagnie de chemin de fer, pour valeur reyue, une quit- tance sans reserve, de tons les materiaux et ouvra^es faits pour la compagnie, doit etre presume avoir et^ paye du prix des terrains et qu'i! ne pent les revendiquer, (iuoi(,u'il n'ait Jamais donne le titre forniel k la compagnie pour ces terrains. — Q. B. _ Roberqe vs. North Shore Ry. Co., 34 L. C. J., p. 315. 14. La banque qui esco.npte an billet endoss^ par une corporation o.r^,ie par un acte de la legislature de Quebec, " pour fonder des hopi- 111 i r ' i\ ' ; ! 1 , . ■ 1 ■ i ■[':' n 346 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1242. " taux, hospices et autres maisons mployeea. In order to be relieved from responsibility, it is for Defendant to show that every precaution had be n taken to prevent such accident. — Dohekty J,—Caron vti. Jatnes, It. J. Q , 4 C. S., p. 63. Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. 12^2. 347 19. Where the buyer pretended timt the sale was made with wurraiity, and the agent of the seller immediately wrote that, before the sale, he had read his principal's letter to the buyer, statinj; that there will be no warranty, thi-^ fact, in the absence of any immediate and positive denial by the buyer, furnishes a strong presumption of the truth of the agent's statement,— Tait, J.— FiywntZm Flndlay, M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 2-12. 20. Lorsque, dans une vente par courtier, le billet d'achat est produit par I'acheteur auquel il etait adress^, on peut prouver, par le temoignage du courtier, la transmission du billot de vente au vondeur. La partie qui re(;oit et garde un de ces ecrits suns protester est censee admettre que le courtier a agi en son nom, en vertu du pouvoir(|u'elle lni ava,td(mne, et la signature du courtier devient des lors, pour les fins du contrat, cclle de telle partie.— Jette, J. — Crane vs. McBean, R. J. Q.,4C. S., p. 331. ?1. Under contract with the city of Quebec, the Defendant opened ft trench for the introduction of water-pipes along certain streets, in the course of which operation a landslip occurred opposite PlaintifTs pr perty, whereby his house was seriously damaged. Held, that Defendant was not freed from liability by the fact of woiking under contract. The contractor, as the paity who personally does the act causing the damage, is more directly liable to the p-rsoninju ed,thaa is the party for whom he executes the contract ; and especially is this so if, as in the present case, the work might have been so done that no damage should result. The occurrence of such an accident is a prima facie presumption that all due and sufficient precautions and care to avert possible danger were not used, and alleged ignorance of special dangers existing at the locality only strengthens this presumption, for one who undertakes a work of the kind is bound to foresee and guard against all reasonable eventualities and, not doing so, cannot shelter him«elf under a plea of ms major. — Andrews, J. — St Jean V8 Peters, 17 Q. L. R., p. 252. ' -I 22. Le sens d' in mot ordinaire ne peut etre prouve par teiiioina, si Von n'allegue pas que tel mot a ^te employ^ dans un sens autre que celui qu'il port.> j liuairement. Lorsqu'une expression dont on se sett dansun plaid^ i : est susceptible de plusieurs interpretations, la cour adoptera celle qui est conforme a I'ensemble du plaidoyer.— Archibald, i.—Lamarche vs Bruch^si, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 62. ;{! m m ^ 348 Comnl'idated Supplement No. J.-— Art. 12^2, * 28. Art. 6040^ . > . ' lares that(in the absence of dctermiiiinjr circumstances) where, of tw o persons who perish by one and the samp accident, one is hot >\ ecu 16 and 60, and the other is over 60 years' of age, the fori..'')- is presumed to have survived, is limit' d in its ap])li- cation to abintestate succoss-ons vvhi'io several pt-rsons are respott- ively called to the succession of each other. In the present case, the depositions taken at the impipst n- ' other proof, pstablishiiifr that the husband, while nieni. .ly deraiigcJ, w;\; in possession of a razor; that he engaged in a struggle with racnibersof the family ; that he was seen hacking at his throat with a razor ; that their dwelling took fire a few minutes after, and was consumed, and that the bones of I' woman were found among the dehrw of the bed occupied by his wi:'e, were sufficient to create the presumption that the wife was MUed by her husband and predeceased him. — C. R. — Buahy vs. Ford, R. J. Q., 3 C. S , p. 270. 24. Defendant subscribed, on the stock subscription bookof a joint stock company, for ten shares, and wrote his signature as follows : " T. A. Trenholme in trust for TI. Tr nhohne, " but the words ' in tru.st for H. Treuholme " wore erased in the stock-book Held: In the absence of evidence as to the time when said words were erased, the presumption was that they were erased at the time Defendant sigmr! the stock-book, rather than that the book was subsequently falsiried; and it was for the party alleging that the erasure was made sub- sequently to prove it. — Doherty, J. — Alley vs. Trenholme, R. J. Q., W C S., p. 163. 25. In an R"'ion for f^'ais dc 'Hsine the Defendant admitted that he and the Plai,.il(f had passed a night alone together, on whicli occasion they shared the same bed; but in cross examination hedeiiitj that he had sexual 'v^^'course with the Plaintiff' then or at any other time. A child was born to the Pliautiff 177 or 178 days after the date referred to. It lived three or four Jays, but in Me ofiitiion of the majority of the court, it was nof . oved that the child w;is viali H Id. — Where two young adr' of opposite sex share the same beii. it will be presumed that st rcourse took place and ''.is presumption, in the present c» W( ot destroyed by the Defendant s doii'al, The Defendant not Having .sfiown that the Plaintiff had intercourse with any other man, he will be presumed to be tiie father of a chill? not shown to be v^^ble, though born on a date less than 180 days, viz. 177 or 178 days, afte the presumed connection — C. R. — Murray vs. Mathcaon, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 240. Co 1 1. soli dated Stipplvvient No. 1. — Art. 124.]. 349 Numerous cases rolatinp to the presumptions arising fron» facts proved beforo the Courts are to be tV.md at articles 1053, 1054. ia4». 1. Que I'aveu do la partie, en r^ponse a une question qui lui est posee, peut otre divis^, h.rsquo la partie contestee est in- vraisemblable.— Q. B.-Raymon>i dlt Lajeune.sr S Latraversi- 19 R li, p. 681. 2. Que I'avnu d'un d^fendour, poursuivi en recouvrement d'une somme exc^dant 850, dont il n'y a pas do preuve ecrite etqui.entendu comme t^moin. arl.net avoir re(?u partie du montant r^clam^ mais lavoirpaye depuis, sern divis(i, si son plaidoyer n'est pas conforme k .>|oa aveu ef s'il n'a pas pkide pai. nt.~0. ^.-Barre r,. Lniseau 20 K. L„ p. 326. 3. Que I'aveu contenu dans un plaidoyer, par un d^fondeur qui est poursuivi pour une sorame d argent, que le demandeur alle^'u,' lui avoir pr/3t("e, admettaiit lo pret, mais declarant que, lors du pret, il fut convenu que le capital no serait rembours^ qu'^ la mort du pret'eur et ajoutant qu'il a paye tous les interets ^chin avant I'institution 'de ction ,ie peut etro divise,pas memo pour former na commencement u, preuve pnr t'crit.— C. E.—Favret rf- Phaneuf.U.J. Q., X C. S.,p. 49. 4. In ail action for the price of transfer of a tavern license the I'ofendan' ing called us a witness, admitted that he had not paid Plamtiff tl, rice stipulated, but added that one C. was to do so In the deed of transtei- the Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the con- si I-ratio.i. Held ;-That the accessory statement, in the Defendant's answer, having relation to a fact wholly distinct (rom the principal fact mentioned in the first part of the answer, the answer wa=^ di- ,,ible (Johnson, C. J. diss. > The Defendant having admitted in hi. evidence that he had not paid the Plaintiff, it wa.^ for the Defendant ( , sf.uw that ••^omeono ol.so had, and he was not relieved From making this proof, by the Plaintiffs declaration, contained in the deed of transfer that he had received payment.- C. R.— St- Amour vs. Sf-Aonour r' J. Q., 2 C. .S., p. 243. ' ■ 5. In an action for the recovery of a loan, nhere the Defendant pleaded that he had borrowed the money, but with the stipulation that the principal was not to be payable until after the leader's death that the admission could not be 'ividedtoniake a commencement of proof —WijRTELE. J.— ^V7v-f •)•«. Pkancuf, hi. L. U. 7 S C p. 2H2. *!i< 1.1 860 Consolidated Supplement No. i.— /lr', K. J. Q- 3 C. S.. p. 'Mi. 7. L'a avou6 par une •u'.re, nest pas un aveu do I't-xisteuce de ce fait.— Q B.—Lu(jiicus Jc Lambert dlt Champiuine, 17 Q. L. R, p. 335. 8. See case of Murray vs. Matheson, noted in this Supplement iit article 1242, decision num»)er 24, in which the Court by its judgment divided the aveu of the Defendant. 1245. In their decl iration the Appellants alleged that the Res- pondents had been in possession of the property since 9th May 1876, and after the enquete they moved the court to amend the dechuMtion by substituting for the 9th May, 187G, tho words " 1st Dec, 188G." The motion was refused by the Superior court, which held that the admission amounted to a judicial avowal from which they could not recrde. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held, reversing the judgment of the court below, that the motion should have been allowed so as to make the allegation of possession conform with the facts as disclosed by the evidence. (Art. 1245 C.C.)-FouRNIEK.,dissenting- Supreme Court.— Baker & Metropolitan Baildinfj Society, 22 H. C. R.. p. 3G4. 1354. 1. Decisi(m number 7, noted at this article, Laslcpij vs. Lyons, was confirmed in Appeal— M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 5 ; 33 L. C. J., p. 80. 2. Dans une action sur compte pour divers items, le defendeur admettant un des items et niant les autres, lorsque le demandeur a d^ja prouv6 plusieurs des items nies par le defendeur, dans ce cas, 11 doit etre admis k prouver les autres items .lu compte par ses livres .le compte et son serment.— Champagne, D. M..— Hamilton V8. Gov r, 13 L. N., p. 68. 3. Que le serment supplementaire ne peut etre d^f^re, s'il n'y a aucune preuve de la demande on de I'exception— Taschereau, J- Beique vs. Citd de Montreal, 20 R. L., p. 306. 4. Lorsque Taction doit etre renvoy^e, pour un autre motif que I'insuffisance de la preuve, une motion par le demandeur pour otre entendue sur le serment suppletoire, sen -ejet^e comme inutde.-C. R. — Brousseau vs. Boulanger, R. J. Q., o U. S., p. < 5. CoiiHoliduted Supplement No. I. —Arts. Iii57-r:i0r). .'{51 ia57._Wliert', by the tcrma of u don viufud Uy nuuringe contract, a farm in the poss.'ssion of one of the sons of the hu>haii(l. under a .le.— R. J. Q., 5 0. S., p. 472. 12»0. 1. Une dette contractee par la femme, du conscntement de son mari, devient dette de la communaut6 et, par consequent, une dette personnelle du mari, et pent gtre poursuivie tant sur les biens de la communaut^ que sur ceux du mari. Que la femme commune en biens ne peut pas etre poursuivie pour une dette de la communaute pendant sa duree. — C. R. — Perreaidt vs. Charkbois, M L R 6 S C.p. 311. ■ " 2. This article was discussed in the following case.— Q. B.— Ouimet & Benoit, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 424.— Loranger, J — M L R 7 S. C, p. 187. ... n... 3. Le mari n'est pas responsable des frais de justice faits par sa femme, commune en biens avec lui, sans son autorisation mais avec I'autorisation d'un juge.— Mathieu, J.~Aitqd vs. Daoust R J O 4 C. S., p. 113. ^" 1303. 1. Que la femme, commune en biens avec son epoux, pout se joindre a lui pour intenter une action en doramages, pour des injures qui lui ont ^te faites.— Mathieu, J.— ^asrwe/; m Roy 18 R L, p. 294. 2. Le mari, comme chef de la communaute, n'est pas simplemeut I'administrateur des biens qui la composent ; il en est le maitre absolu et peut en disposer, comme bon lui semble, quelle que soit leur pro- venance, mSme s'ils ont ete acquis par I'industrie de la femme pendant son absence. La femme ne peut etre consideree comme un associ.^ ; taat que la communaut(^ subsistc son droit est informe, absorb^ dans la toute puissance du mari et surbordonnd a I'c^vfenement de son accep- tation apres la dissolution. Elle ne peut partant demander, m^me avec I'autorisation de la justice, la rescission de I'alienation des biens communs faite par le mari ; son seul recours, dans les cas de fraude est la demande en s.5paration de biens.— C. R.—Beruiervs Proulx 15 Q. L. R, p. 333. 358 Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Arts. t294-]'J96. 3. Une action prise par laf'einmejudiciaircinent separ^e debiens, ponr faire annuler une vente frauduleuse des biens comnmns, consentic par le mari, est une procedure pour obtenir le paieraent de ses droits, aux termes de I'article 1812 C. C, tout coninie le serait une sai.sie- arret entre les mains des debiteurs de la comuiunaut^ ; et dans la procedure faite par la femme, pour obtenir tel paiement, elle doit etrc consideret' coinnie separee de biens, etpeut prendre cette qualite. Dans I'espece, la vente des proprietes de la communaute consentie par If mari a I'appelant, est annulee comme frauduleuse et coUusoire.— Q. K—Bernier (f- Gendron, 17 Q. L. R., p. 377. 4. Held, following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Prince v.t Jones : — A saisie consermtoire may be contested by a petition in the same manner as a saisie-anxt before judgment.— . I. See case of Metropolitan Manufacturing Co., (w. Landgridije, noted in this Supplement, at article 1280 decision num- ber 4. 2. Dans I'espfece, la femme ayant fait commerce sans I'autoiisa- tion de son mari, en louant et tenant une maison de pension, ce dernier n'est pas responsable des dettes quelle a contractees k raison de ce commerce.— C. U.— Sheridan v^^. Hunter, R, J. Q., 6 C. S.. p. 258. Consolidated Supplement No. I — Avt>i. I1i98-li:i0u. 859 12tt». 1 . Tlie Plaintiff leased certain premises from one Annie El.zabeth Myler, who afterwards married James Main, and a cora- immity of property existed between them. The Plaintiff sued the wife in respect of the lease and made the husband a party, merely to au- thorize the wife to ester en justice. Held: that, as the suit affected not only the property itself, but the revenues thereof, the husband, as head of the community, should have been made a party to the suit.— LouANGEU, J. —Styles vs. Myler, 11 L. N., p 850 —Q B— M L H., 4Q. B„p. IKi. ■ • • . 2. A married woman, common as to property, may bring an ac- tion in her own name, authorized by her husband, for persomil inju- ries.— Tait, J. —Simmons vs. Elliott, M. L. R., 5 S C p 18->— Q B 20 R. L., p. 6(J6 : 84 L. C. J., p. 836 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B.,' p. SGs! 8. Que la femme, commune en biens avec son epoux, pent se join- dre a lui pour intenter une action en dommages pour des injures qui lui ont eke faites.— Mathieu, J.—Bazinet vs. Roy, 18 R. L., p. 294. 4. Sur le refus du mari d'autoriser sa femme a ester en justice, pour poursuivre un tiers qui I'a assail lie, le juge pent alors accorder cette autorisation— Andrews, J.—L'xjMirte Lemieux, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 404- 5. La femme, dont !e mari est aux Etats-Unis d'Amerique, dans un endroit inconnu, pent etre autorisee par le juge a ester en justice. L'absence pr^vue k I'article 180 C. C. n'est pas celle definie k I'article m et ne doit pas necessairement en reunir les conditions. La femme, commune en biens, autoris6e par le juge, en l'absence du mari, a ester en justice, pent porter en son nom Taction en recouvrement de dom- mages resultant de delits on quasi-delits commis ason 6gavd, quoique ces dommages soient, a proprement parler, une dette de la comraunaute. La courde revision ne reduit pas les dommages accord^s en premiere instance, s'ils ne sont pas manifestement excessifs. — C R — Turcotte vs. Nolet, R. J. Q., 4 C. S. p., 438. 6. La femme, commune en biens, assistee de son mari ou, sur son refus, par le juge, possede un droit d'action personnel pour proteger son honneur et peut intenter en son nom une action pour diffamation ; cette action n'appartient pas exclusivement au mari com me chef de la coinmunaut^.— Pagnuelo, J .—BrL'iehois vs. Simard, R J O 6 C S p. 381. ^" ' 1300. A lease for nine years, with the stipulation that the lessee shall have a renewal, on certain conditions, for nine years 'ii! 11 "., 860 Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. loOl. Ionp;er, is, in effect, a lease for eighteen years and an alienation whicli is ultra vires of trustees and administrators of public property, unless specially authorized by their act of incorporation. Administrators, who have entered into such a contract, are entitled to sue for the resiliation thereof, as regards the second term. — C. R. — President et Syndics de la Commune de Lajirairie vs. Bissonnette. M. L. R, 4 S, C, p. 414. 1301 . 1. The names of the parties in decision number 21, noted ,u this article, were Marfel cfc Prince. Decision number 31, noted at this article, was confirmed in tln^ Supreme Court, where it was held as follows : 2. Where the sale of real estate by the wife, duly separated as to property from her husband, to her husband's creditor is shewn to have been intended to operate as a security only for the payment of her husband's debts, such sale will be set aside as a contravention of C. C. 1301. — Supreme Coukt. — Klock & Chamberlin, 15 S. C. R., p. 325. 3. Where a husband and wife bind themselves,jointlyand severally, for a loan and it is proved that the husband got the money from tht- lender and used it himself, the obligation of the wife is null and void. Semhle : That it is incumbent on the party claiming to enforce the contract of a married woman in such a case, to show that it enured to her separate advantage. — Andrews, J. — Artisans' Permanent Build- ing Society vs Lemieux, 15 Q. L. R., p. 35. 4. Le creancier d'une obligation .souscrite par uue femme niariif et qui est attaquee pour d6faut de consideration et comme ayant ete consentie pour une dette du mari, doit etablir que I'acte est fomlee sur une consideration propre a la femme, surtout s'il sa pre.sente, comme dans I'espece, des circonstances a faire douter de son existence. Q. B.— Union Bank & Gagnon, 15 Q. L. R., p. 31 ; 17 R. L., p. US. 5. Qu'en vertu de I'article 1301 C. C, la femme mariee ne piut etre tenue des dettes qu'elle contracte avec son mari qu'en sa qualite de commune en biens, et que sa presence au contrat n'ajoute rien k I'obligation q ue le mari contracte pour la communaute. — Q. B. — Lecours <& Jobidon, 18 R. L., p. 95. 6. Quo ]'obb>ation d'nne femme mariee, sdparee de biens d'avec Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. ISO]. 3t{l son mari, resultant del -.:ossement, pour aval, fait conjointement avec son man, d'un billet promissoire, donn(5 pour les affaires d'uii tiers, est nulle.— Mathieu, J.—Leclerc va Ouimet, 19 R. L., p. 78. 7. Qu'une femme, commune en biens, ne peut valablement s'obli-rer avec son mari qu'en quality de commune. (This case is more fully noted m this Supplement at article 1280, decision number 3 ami article 1290, decision number U.~C. K—Perreault v.9. Clmrlehoi^ M. L. R., (5 S. C, p. 311. 8. Que celui qui fait un pret d argent au mari d'une femme s^par^e de biens, qui lui remet un billet de sa femme, qu'il sicme comme procureur, en vertu d'un mandat suffisant, ne pourra recou- vrer de la femme le montant pr^te. s'il est ^tablique cet argent ^tait a la connaissance du preteur, pour les affaires du mari.— Mathieu j' —Baxter vs. Ross, 19 R. L p. 654. 9. Qu'un billet, signe par une femme manee, s^par^e de biens en r^glcment d'une dette de son mari, est nul. — Taschereau, J — Thihaudeau vs. Burke, 20 R. L., p. 85. 10. Qu'une obligation consentie par une femme marine, separ^e de biens, pour payer une dette de son mari, est nulle ; et qu'en plai- dant cette nullity, il n'est pas necessaire de demander la nullite de I'acte dans les conclusions dui>MdoyeT.-C.K~Phialcosky vs. Gareau 34 L. C. J., p. 200. 11. A promissory note made by a married woman, separated as to property, in favour of a creditor of her husband, is absolutely null and no action can be maintained thereon by a Bank which has discounted the same, in good faith, before maturity, in ignorance of the cause of nullity .-Wurtele, J.—Banque Rationale vs. Guv M L. R., 7 S. G, p. 144. ^' ■ 12. Que la femme, s^paree de biens d'avec son mari, .jui achete du cessionnaire des biens de ce dernier, les biens qu'il a ced^s, peut sobhger I6galement 4payer les dettes du mari, ct que cette obligation de la femme, acceptee par le cr^ancier, constitue novation de la dette du man.— C. R—Warinington vs. Lapierre, R. J. Q., 1 C. S. p. 69. 13. Que I'immeuble acquis pendant le mariage par la femme commune en biens, avec I'autorisation d^ son mari, tombe dans la communaut^, et que I'obligation de la &muv. de paver le mix de cet pri 862 Gonmlidnted Supplement No. 1. — Ad. t?!]. It ml |i II itiimuuble est aussi k la charge de la coinmunaut^e et du mari, qui €ri sont tonus pour la totalite en vera lo vendeur ; quo la femine CuinmCine, en achetant un inuneulile et promettant dVr payer lo prix, n'agit quo pour K'S aHiiiroa de la ooinmunaut^ et de son chef, et nullement daus son interet personnel, et que lo inari paraissant au contrat, s'obligo lui-meuie, niais que lii fonnne no sy oblige qu'en qualito de commune ; (m'apros la dissolution de la communaute ot la renonciation do la iVmme, It; mari reste seul charge de payer le prix de cet immeuble, sans recours contre la i'ennne, et que la fomme, apres sa renonciation, no pent etre poursuivie pour co prix de vente, vu quelle no pout, I'otre que pour les dettes procedant de son chef ot qui ont pour objet son interet propro et personnel. — C. R. — Childs m Libby, R. J. Q., I C. S., p. 153. 14. Le billet a ordre, sign^ par la fomme, sans consideration et pour lo bdnetico de sou mari, qui en a eu le produit de I'escompte ot I'a employe pour son avantage personnel, est nul, et cette nullity, etant absolueet cVr^rdre public, pout etre invoqu6e contre le tiers porteur de CO billet M"S5'' valable consideration. — Q. B. — Ricard tfc La Banque National V^ -l Q., 3 B. R., 1(51.— Loranger, J.— R. J. Q., 2 C. S.. p. 152. 15. Le transfert, fait par le mari k sa fomme separee de biens, pendant le mariage, d'actions dans une banque, qui ont ete acquises par lui, en son propro nom, mais avec les deniers de sa femme et roellement pour elle, est legal. Les endossements de la femme sur des billets deja endosses par son mari sont nuls comme cautionnenient de la femme pour sou mari. II incombe a la banque, qui a oscompte ces billets et qui les oppose aux heritiers de la femme, d'etablir claireraent que cette derniere a beneficie de tel escompte. — Letat d'insolvabilite du mari et le fait qu'il n'avait pas de biens, ainsi que des declarations par la femme que diverses transactions faites par son mari etaient pour SOS affaires a elle, ne constituent pas une presomption qui puisse rendrc valables ces endossements, attendu que la femme ne peut assuiner d'une maniere generale les obligations de son mari. Dans I'espece, la procuration generale donn^e par la femme au mari, pour gerer et administrcr, etait insufBsante pour autoriser tels endossements. Dans le cas present, I'acquiescement, subsequent de la femme, non specialement autorisee k cet effet, k ce que la banque s'approprie des actions k elle appartenant, eu paiement d'une semblable creance, est nul ; un pareil acquiescement requerant I'autorisation speciale du mari. — Q. B. — OonHolidated Supplement No. I. — Art. 1,10^. 363 JodoinilkLn lianqiied'Hochelarfa.B. J. Q. :{ B. R,, p. 3(). — Pa(.nuelo, J— R.J. Q., 2C. S., p. 27«i. 1(). A married woinaii who is suod on lior proiuisHory note, in onler to profit by the disposition contained in Art. 1301 C. C, whicli says that u wife cannot hind her.v M' either with or for her husband, otherwise than as l)ein s ^^ ^^ «^ ///y. u ^ ^ :i64 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 1312-131S. 1312. 1. Que sous I'ancien droit, avant la mise en force du Code Civil, le defaut d'ex^cution d'une sentence de separation de bieiis, entre epoux, rendait la sentence nulla pour ie passe seulement, nmis que, nonobstant ce defaut d'ex^cution, il y avait separation de bicns pour I'avenir. Que cette execution pouvait se faire, d'une manierc efficace, par la saisie et vente du mobilier du mari, pour satisfaire aux frais sur la demande en separation de Liens. — Mathieu, J. — Duhonl vs. Aubin, 17 R. L., p. 414. 2. Que le defaut de publication et d'execution d'un jugement di' separation ne pent etre invoqu^e que par les cr^anciers du mari. La communaute est, par le seul fait du jugement de separation de biens. dissoute pour I'avenir.— Mathieu, J.—Gougeon vs. Descaries, 18 R. L. p. 255. 3. Une action prise par lat'emme, judiciairement separ^e de biens, pour faire annuler une vente frAuduleuse des biens communs con.sentie par le mari, est une procedure pour obtenir le paiement de ses droits. aux termes de I'articlc 1312 C. C, tout comme le serait une saisie- arret entre les mains des debiteurs de la communaut4 ; et dans la procedure faite par la femme, pour obtenir tel paiement, elle doit etre consid6rde comme separee de biens, et peut prendre cette qualite — Q. B.—Bernier c& Oendron, 17 Q. L. R., p. 377. 1313. Amendment. — Article 1313 should read as follows ; " 1313. Every judgment ordering separation of property must " be inscribed, without delay, by the prothonotary of the Couri which " rendered the judgment, upon a list kept for that purpose and posted " in his office ; and such inscription and the date thereof must be " mentioned at the end of each judgment, in the register in which it " is recorded." " The separation affects third parties, from the day only when " these formalities have been complied with " C. C, 1313 ; 43 V., C, e. 1.— R. S. Q., art. 6235. Que I'article 1313 du Code Civil, etant de droit nouveau, et I'article 1312 contenant aussi des modifications k I'ancien droit, les dispositions nouvelles de ces articles ne s'appliquent pas aux causes en separation de biens ant^rieures h, la mise en force du Code. — Mathieu. J, — Dubord vs. Aubin. 17 R. L.. p. 417. Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arta. 1317-1323. 365 15117. H. brought an action against F., wife separate as to property of A., to recover $100, value of use and occupation of a summer cottage, during the summer of 1888, alleging that A. was insolvent at the time and that his wife was liable for the rent under C. C. 1317. It was proved that F. did business under the name of A. & Co., and that A. had made a judicial abandonment about 1st May 1888. It also appeared, from the evidence, that the bargain for the lease of the house had been made with A. Held : confirming the judgment of the Court bplow, that the credit having been given to A. and there being nothing to show that F. had any knowledge of, or connection with, the agreement and that H. did not know at the time of the agreement, nor for a long time afterwards, that F. was separate as to property from A., and carrying on business under the name of A. & Co., that H. could not charge F. with the said rent, which was A.'s debt. That a wife, separate as to property, was not liable for necessaries furnished to the family, unless credit had been given to her.— C. R.—Harwood vs. Fowler, 34 L. C. J., p. 209; M. L, K, 7 S C p. 363. 1318. 1. The making of a reduction in the rate of interest, payable on an hypothecary claim, is not a mere act of administration of her property which a wife, separate as to property, nay do, alone, without the authorization of her husband, but is, in reality, a donation, which is null and void, unless the Insband becomes a party thereto or gives his consent in writing. (C. C. 177, 763.)— Q. B.— Hart & Joseph,M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 301 ; 20 R. L., pp. 515 and 550. 2. This article was discussed. In relation with article 177, by Jett6, .1. in the case of— C. R.—Lamontagne vs. Lamontagne, 35 L. C. J., p. 76 et seq. 1333. 1. Que le paiement fait au mari survivant du montant ilun billet promissoire, dont il est porteur, consenti depuis la mort de la femme, libere le debiteur, quand meme la somme pretee et repre- sentee par ce billet ferait partie des biens de la communaute. — C. R. —Favreau vs. Favreau, 18 R. L,., p. 260. 2. A community of property existed between husband and wife. There was one child issue of the marriage. The husband dying, the surviving consort failed to have an inventory made of the common property, and (the child being then a minor^, the surviving consort married a second time without marriage contract. Held : In the absence i ; -I 36() ConKotidated Supplement No. l.—Arts. hVi6-li'i6H. of any demand on the part of the minor for continuation of community, a tripartite community did not exist between the surviving consort, her second husband, and the child by the tirst marriage ; and fin option for continuation made by the child, 45 years after the disso- lution of the first community, had no effect. Where the consort eommun en hiens, who dies first, has bequeathed all his property to ;t person or persons other than his children, the latter, being without interest, cannot demand that an inventory be made, and default to make it cannot create any right in their favor. — Q. B. — PedVKon Spooner, R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 200.-0. R— R. J. Q. 7 C. S.. p. 815. 8. Under articles 1323 and 1325 C. C, continuation of com- munity between a surviving consort and minor children issue of tiie marriage is a faculty accorded to the minors, and docs not e.xist without a demand legally made on their part. Mere silence i>r acquiescence on the part of the minors will not make them responsihlo for debts incurred by the .surviving consort. — Archibald, J. — Hvr- (eau vs. Bourdssa, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 101. 13SO.— This article, as replaced by the R. S. Q., is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 748. 1!J{$S. Qua la dissolution de la communaute, la femme survivaiitr peut, sans une acceptation formelle de la communaute, poursuivir. pour le rucouvrement de la moitie des creances av- <^taient dues acetti' comnmnaute, lors de la dissolution, et (jue I'acee on, par la femnic, resulte suffisamnient du fait quelle reclame ces i,..>ances. — Mathiei, J. — Monnet vs. Brunei, 17 R. L., p. 081. 136H. 1. Le deuil de la veuve est du par la succession du iiiari. quel (jue soit le regime sous lequel le mariage a ete contracte. \/.\ femme separee de biens y a droit, aussi bien que la femme comnmm en biens ; et celle-ci, lorsqu'elle renonce k la communaute de meiiw que lorsqu'elle I'accepte. — Casault, J. — Dessaint vs. LadrUrv, K! (,t. L. R., p. 277. 2. La veuve ne peut reclamer, pour I'achat de son deuil, qu'uiie somme proportionnee k la fortune de son mari, et partant, lorsque la veuve, qui, dans I'espece, reclame une somme de $200, s'est achetee iiii deuil, quelle estime etre sufRsant, av^c les $100 que les defendeurs. repr^sentants legaux du mari, lui ont offertes avec leurs plaidoycis, son action sera renvoyee pour le surplus. — C. R. — Jodoin vs. Lan- vUre, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 345.— Tait, J.— R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 39. ConsolidaU'd Supplement No. l.—Arts. mO-h'iS^. 'MM 1S70. Que, meine en acceptant la coiniimnaute, la fenune iie pent etre tenue au paietnent d'une dette contractee avec son niari (|ue jusqu'a concurrence de son Emolument, c'ost-a-dire, de la valeur de ce (|ui lui echoit pour sa part des biens de la connnunaute, pourvu (ju'il y ait un inventaire et quelle rende conipte dece (|ui lui est ecliu d'apres I'inventaire et le partage. Que la dette contractee par le niari et la fenune, durant la coniniunaute, n'est ({u'une dette de la conimunaute, (lont la ferr.me n'est pas tenue personnellement, tant ([ue la commu- iiaute subsiste, a moins qu'il n'apparaisse que cette dette est pour les affaires personnelle? de la femme ; que la t'emnie nv. devient respon- sable d'une pareille dette (jue lorsqu'elle accepte la comniunaute et jusqu'a concurrence seulement de la nioitie d'icello, ou meme jusqu'a concurrence de ce (pii lui est provenu de sa part de la comniunaute, lorsqu'il y a un inventaire, et que sa part n'6quivant pas a la nioitie (le 1 1 dette.— Q. K—Lecourn <& Jobidon, 18 R. L, p. 95. 1374. 1. Que I'obligatinn (|ue la femme contracte, meme lors- qu'elle s'oblige solidairement avec son mari, n'est qu'une dette de la comniunaute, dont elle ne devient personnellement responsable que pour rtioitie, si elle accepte la comniunaute, et dont elle est nuUemeiit responsable, au cas de renonciation, et qu'elle ne pout etre poursuivic pendant la comniunaute pour une pareille dette.— Q. B. — Lpcuuvs ,(■ Johidon, 18 R. L., p. 05. 2. Husband and wife communs en hiens, and sued as such, may be condemned jointly and severally for the amount of an obligation contracted by the wife, foi- her personal afiairs, and for which her husband became personally liable, even where it is not expressly stated that he binds himself jointly and severally with her. Q. B.— Ouimet tl'; Bevoit, R.J. Q., I B. R.,p. 421.— Loranoek, J.— M L R 7 S. C, p. 187. ISH4. Decision number 2, noted at this article, was carried to Appeal, where it was held : 1. That the don mutuel d'umfruit between future consorts, bv their contract of marriage, in favor of the survivor, is subject to registration.— Q. B.—Mar*mr/ ck B„rre' 12 1 N., p. 203. 2. Qu a defaut de conventions, la fennne, memo s6paree de biens, (lui achete pour le.« besoins de sa famille et de la maison commune, est censeo le faire pour et au nom du mari. Que le maiohand, outre le credit donne k la lemme dans ses livres, doit etablir, au moinspar une preuve de circonstances, que la fenime s'est reiidue responsable per- sonnellement, lorsciu'alle n'a pas achete en son propre nom. Qu'en poursuivant une femme pour les choses necessaires a la vie, le demandeur doit alleguer et prouver que le mari est incapable' de satifaire a ces reclamations.— Tellieh, .).~/Agf/('tf vs. Hiwhand M I B., 4 S. C, p. 462. ' ' ' '■ :i. Que lorsque, pour les choses necessaires k la vie, le marchand ne pent pas etablir I'insolvabilite du mari et (jue le credit a ete donne a la femme, il n'a pas de recours contre elle, quand meme la femme aurait subsequemment promis de payer, cette promes,se etant nulle et sans effet.— Champagne, D. M..— Stuart vs. DuasauU, 12 L. N.,p.27«). 5. Que le marchand, qui vend a la fiunme separee de biens, des effets de la nature d'aliments et les lui charge dans ses livres, mais I'nsuite accepte, en reglement du compte, un billet du mari, qui n'est pas paye a echeance, peut, en remettant le billet, recouvrer de la femme le prix de ses marchaiidises. — Wurtele, J. — Hamilton r.s. LafrenUre, 20 R. L., p. 521. (). That in the absence of a special agreement, a wife, separate as to property, is not respon,sible foi^ the rent of a house occupied by the family during the insolvency of her husband. (This ca.se is noted ii.ore fully in this Supplement at article 1317).— C. R.— Harwood rs Fowler, M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 363 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 209. 7. By the contract of marriage between Defendant and her husband, work, in the nature of tenant's repairs to Defendant's house, was to be perforined at the cost of her husband alone. The marriai^e contract was not registered. The Plaintiff did certain work ?n Defendant's house, at the request of the Defendant's husband, and now claimed the value thereof from the Defendant. Held .-—The work done on Defendant's house, being merely such as was necessary for the lodging and habitation of the Defendant, her husband and their chil- 24 iif in ! U; !: ill 'mint lir 111 iiikittiii 870 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arts, H28-14.7'2. ilren, the Defendant was not liable therefor. The non-registration of the marriage contract did not make the priva e property of the wife responsible for a debt whicii, if there had been no marriage contract, would have been a debt of the community. Nor could the wife, as owner, be held responsible, on the ground that the value of the pro- perty was enhanced, for work such as tinting walls, etc., which requires to be done from time to time, and does not add to the permanent value of the immoveable. — Ar('HIBALD, J. — Beaulieu vs. Blache, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 192. 143S. La stipulation, dans un contrat de mariage, d'un doualic prolix en argent " k prendre sur les biens les plus apparents du futnr " epoux aussitOt apres son d^ces, " est en faveur de I'^pousc Elle ne signitie pas que la .soinmc ne sera pay^e qu'apres acquit des dettes de la succession du mari, mais que la femme la prendra sur \es biens dont I'existence sera la plus claire et la nioins sujette a discus- sion. — Casault, J. — Dessaint vs. Ladridre, 16 Q. L. R., p. 277. 143T. La femme, apres le d^ces de son mari, lorsqu'il y a cu survenance d'enfants, est propridtaire, a I'exclusion de ces derniers, du douaire prefix stipule, en son contrat de mariage, une fois pay d et miv.'< retour. — C. R.^ — Lacerte vs. Boisvert, 17 Q. L. R., p. 110. 1441. Que par I'article 1441 C. C, et par le droit ant^rieur au (.'ode, la demande en justice est n^cessaire, contre les tiers acquereurs de bonne foi, pour faire courir, a leur egard, les fruits des imineubhs sujets ou afiect^s au douaire, et que la femme n'est fondee a demander la restitution des fruits et revenus que depuis le jour de la demande en justice ; ceux per9us auparavant par les tiers detenteurs leur ayant et6 acquis en hur qualite de possesseurs de bonne foi. — Tascheheau, J. — Lamirande vs. Lalonde, 18 R. L.,p. 671. 144S. Que le douaire prefix consistant en deniers est, a toutes fins, repute mobilier et que la femme n'a pas d'hypotheque legale pour assurer le paiement d'un douaire prefix. Que I'hypotheque coii- ventionnelle, stipulee, au contrat de mariage, sans designation des biens •du mari, est absolument nulle. Que I'enregistrement subsequent d'un avis au registrateur designant certains immeubles comme etant affec- t6s par I'hypotheque stipulee en le dit contrat de mariage, ne valide pas la dite hypotheque et n'en cr6e pas une nouvelle sur les dits im- meubles. — Gagne, J. — Perreault vs. Garon, 14 L. N., p. 129. i4T2. 1. Qu'un acts sous seingprive.comportantetreun bail d'ob- Comoiidafcd Supplement No. l.~Art. I47S. 37] jets mobiliers, avec promesso de vente conditionollo, pour uii prix no- Jiiinal, apr^s que curtains paieinents stipul(5s par instaln.onts auront t^t^ faits, et suivi de la livraison des etfets, et une vente conditionolle. Que dans lespfece il n'y a pas lieu a la saisie en revendication, malgre tout<- clause de I'acte au contraire, et (jue le rccours de demandeur aurait dfi etre une demande en resiliation de I'acto de vente, au cas d'inex^cu- tion des conditions y stipul^es, pour ravoir la possession des eftets, on une action pour le recouvrement destcrraes de paiernent Melius.— WuR- TKLE, J. — Paquin vs. Laverdiere, 12 L. N., p. 2. 2. An aprreenient l.y which the title of the thinsj sold is to remain in the vendor until the promissory note representing the price Tpayable by instalments; shall have been fully paid, is valid and effective and in the event of the price not being fully paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the vendor may revendicate the thing sold.— Davidson, J.—Ooldie vs Rascony, M. L R, 4 S C p 813 'i2 L C J p. 308. ' ' f • ' 3. La location d'uu nieuble, avec promessc conditionnelle de vente n equivaut pas k la vente et ne prive pas le locateur du droit de la revendiquer.— Larue, J.— Spencer va. Lavigne, 15 Q. L. R., p. 101. 4. Que, pour qu'il y ait vente, il faut que les parties s'entendent et sur la chose et sur le prix.— DeLorimier, J.—Lafortune V8. Dude- maine, 18 R L., p. 218. / 5. Where the conditions of a sale of immoveable property have l)een settled, or practically settled, by pom^arkva bet -n the par- ties, but the interval between the pourparlers and the preparation of the deed of sale is so long as to change those conditions, there is no longer the consent necessary to complete the contract of sale. .Sf mhle : That a vendor of immoveable property, on the refu.sal of the buyer to carry out the contract, cannot sell the property at the folle enchere of the buyer and claim the difference of price from such buyer ,is dama- srcs.— DeLorimier, J.— Pepin vs. Siguin, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 216. 6. Qu'une convention, par laquelle un mecanicien emprunte I'ar- gent pour acheter des machineries et convient de donner des garanties au porteur sur ces machineries, et,apres les avoir achetees en son nom. fait une vente de ces machineries au preteur, avec droit de remeri dans un certain delai, mais reste en possession des machineries, qui sont placdes dans une bdtisse qui lui appartient, ue constitue pas une vente r^elle de ces machineries, Tobjet de cette vente n etant que de iii • \ ! 372 (JonHoliddtcd Sui>plcmfint No. J. — Art. 147!S. 11: l|i donner une garantio au creancier. — C. R. — Chevalier vh. Latraver^c, 18 R. L., p. GU.— OUIMET, J.— 17 R. L, p. 642 ; M. L. R., H S. C. p. .'{")(). 7. Que le vendeur d'uii lueiible, qui stipule qu'il restera propric- taire tie la chose vendue, tant que le prix n'en sera pas paye, n'a pas le droit, apres la cession de biens do I'aciieteur, d'etre coUoque, par privilege, sur tons les biens cedes pour le prix de vente de cet ohjct particulier. — Q. B. — McKenzie ifc Ckapleait, 1!) R. L., p. 402. (Tins case is reported, under the title oi Irviwf i(- (Viapleaa, in the M. L. H.. 6Q. B., p. 157.) 8. Que des effets mobiliers, qui ont ete vendus k terine, avcc in condition (ju'ils no deviendront la propriete de I'acheteur que lorsqii'll en aura paye integralenient le prix, pcuvent etre revendiques coatrt- un second achetcur de bonne t'oi, qui en aurait paye le prix, cettc seconde vente etant nulle coinine etantune vente de la chose d'autnii. — C. R — Cduadian Subscription Co. vs. Donnelly, 1!) R. L, p. 578 ; M. L R., G S. C, p. 348 ; M L. C. J., p. 191. 9. Que les effets mobiliers, vendus a la condition que la propriete n'en passera k I'acheteur (ju'apres le paiement integral du prix, peu- vent etre revendiques, par le vendeur, contre I'acheteur, ou le cura- teur nonmie k sa cession de biens, si partie du prix n'a pas ete payee. — Q. B. — Perk'ns d- Campbell Printinrj Press Mfy. Co., 19 R. L, p. 587. 10. Que la vente de moubles reelle et de bonne foi, par un ven- deur .solvable, peut se faire et etre part'aite, sans livraison, ni depla- cement des moubles, mais par le seul consentenient des parties, nieuic dans le cas ou le vendeur se reserve le droit de renere. — Bei.Anokk, 3.— Bury vs. Gagnov, M. L. R., G S. C, p. 275. 11. Que si, dans une vente a terme d'uu objet mobilier, rachfteur promet remettre cet objet k I'echeance du prix, s'il ne fait pas le paiement, le vendeur a droit, par une opposition, de reclamer la chose vendue, et qui est saisie sur I'acheteur. — C. R. — Oale vs. Lavt'rtae. K. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 271. 12. That an agreement by which the Defendant transferred to Plaintiff a barge for S300, whereof $50 were payable in July, $50 in September, and the balance in annual instalments of $50 and wliich stipulated that, in default of payment of the instalments as they became due, the Defendant would be at liberty to take back the barge, ikymulidated S apple, nent No. J.— Art. 147'J. 373 is a sale and „ot a lease. That a sai^u-.-gagerie seixinK the ha.w un. ,>r sue!. prcten 18 ,.t 24 mo.s, avec stipulation que la propri<^t6 resterait a la defendoresse M.s.|uaupartaitpaiementet.qu'a defaut de paiement dos termes K ecbeance, la totality du prix doviond.-ait exigible, et (,ue la def..nde- .•esse pourra.t reprend.-e possession des machines sans re.nboursen.ent d.-s paiement. laits. Kn aoftt LS89. la .lefenderesso. reclan.ant une halance ,le .%,S!, co.nme „on payee, a enleve les n.achines, ,p,i c^taient <■tabl.es et ennmraillees dans le .noulin du deman.l.^ur, .t do la action pa.- ce dernier pour SIO.OOO ,lo .lonnnajres. La defenderesse n a remis les billets qu avec ses plaidoyers. et la preuve a de.nontre qu'il n'etait ; , P"' « ^^an'l-"'-- lors de I'enleve.uent dea machines, quune alance de ..2 8S. ./„,«' .._Qu, ,,i ,„ Cour est obligee de reconnaitre des contratsde cette nature, qui sont peut-etre n^cessaire avec notre etat de societe et notre mode de transiger les affaires, elle doit les limiter a leurs stnctes dispositions : que, dans les circonstances de la pr^sente cause, a Cour ne pouvait faire autrement que de declarer abusive la condu.te de la defenderesse, et le juge.uent accordant .§17(30 de dmnmages (montant des argents payes en fi con.pte par le demandeur ct des dommages a ses hAtisses). est confirm^ avec depens.-Q B J Waterou>< Lnqme Works Co. d!: Collin, R. J. Q., i C. S., p. .511 * 14. Le 14 Octobre 1885, les intim4s vendirent, k un nomme Legns un cotfre-fort avec la stipulation expresse qu > la propriete n'en serait transmise k I'acq „, ,ur, qu'apres le paiement integral du prix et que les vendeurs pour -a-.ent revendiquer le coffre-fort a defaut de pa.ement de 1 un des versements. Legris paya une partie du prix de vente et donna des billets pour la difference. Subsequemment, il vendit ce coffre-tort a I'appelant. qui en prit possession. Legris ayant ..lanque a ses engagements envers les inti.nes. ces derniers revendi- querent le coffre-fort sur lappelant. JugS ;_Que la convention en •luestion na pas eu I'effet de transferer la propriete ItoiuK! i'oi dans uiic Foirc, iiiarclit', on a uiie vciito piibiiqui! on d'uii comim'r(,'ai>t IraHquant en .seiiiblalilt's mati«'rt's, on eii affairo dti copi- mcrce en yi'n^ral. CJepondaiit, dans I't'spijce, lea intitn^s ne pouvaient reveniliquur sur I'appelant lo coffrc-fort vendu ft, Lcgris, (pra la condi- tion d'avoir, au pn'>alal)le, nsniis a ce dornior Ics soniines d'arfjont t-t les billets qu'ils avaient revus rle lui. Semble, i\\w nialyre la gt'-n^m lit^' des termes do I'articlo 22G0, les transactions entre connner(;ant.s, .n dehors des affaires du leur cominerco, et ft, plus forte raison entn^ conuner(;ants et ceux qui ne lo soiit pas, ne sont pas coininerciales— t^. \i.—FUiatrault <& Goldie, R. J. Q., 2 H R, p. a(58.— C. R.-M. L. R., 7 S. C. p. 354 ; 35 L C. J., p. 83. 1% 15. Le d^fondeur, marchand d'harinoniurn.s, a " lou6 " au doinan- deur, qui a accepte, un liannoniuui pour viu<.;t et un mois, nioyennmit $5, arffent comptant et ensuite $15 tons ','s trois mois, avec condition que, si ces paieinents sont faits regulieremont, et aussit6t les vingt et un moia ecoules, le doinandeur deviendra proprietairo de riiarmoniuni ; mais si le deniandeur negligo de payer, le d^fendeur aura le droit san.s, en dandier avis ni en /aire la deviande, de prendre et enlever le d'lt instrument et pour ces Jins. entrer dans auciin appartement du demandenr uu pourrait se trouver V instrument, et cela sans iHre apprehends d'avoir commis un acte injuste, et sur cette prise de possission le dit terme et le droit du demandeur de retenir I' instru- ment cessera, sans prejudice aux droits du defendeur pour arrdm(fen de layer. Les vingt et un mois 6taient expires el lo demandeur rede- vait au det'endeur une balance do S25. Jiufe : — Tel contrat est validr et fait la loi des parties. Le defendeur n'avait pas le droit d'lc^or de violence, ou d'entrer ft. des litures indues dans la maison du denian- deur pour prendre cet instrument, ni de renlever dans des circonstaii- ces ou il en resulterait, sans n^cessite, une injure pour le demandeur. Mais, eu vertu de ce marche, le defendeur avait le droit d'entrer, dans le jour, chez le demandeur, et 1ft, en presence de la famille du deman- deur, colui-ci etant absent, apres avoir demande le paiement de la balance de $25, restant due, et celle-ci n'ayant pas 6te payee, et personne ne s'y objectant, de prendre et enlever le dit harmonium, apres avoir lu le marche, et en laissant 1ft, au domicile du demandeur. le billet promissoire ecliu pour cette balance de " loyer ;" et une action en dommages par le demandeur contre le defendeur, ft, raison de I'en- levement, sous ces circonstances, du dit harmonium, sera d^boutee ContioUdatfA SwppUment No. I. —Art. 1^7 >. 375 avec .l.'.pons. II n'y n p.s .a ru.vaticm .k- '. l^yer," par le fait rm. t c,-e taki„c. „r a,. o,-.ler to- ^ucnls l.y a c..>n>.,..r,.ial favellor c1,m.,s ru.t co,uph,to''th.. .onfact ot salo. so lo,.^. as tl.c .a.lor J.as not l,o..., acc.pte.! l.y }.is pn..e.pa An.l when- th. latter refuses to accept ti.e order an.i .j^.ves „ot,ce to the person from wl.om the orde.- was taken, l.e is not l.ahle .n .la.nages.-Q. B.-Brock A GoicrUj, M. L. R, 7 Q. R, p. ir,.s. 17. Par un acte pass('> ent.-e les deniandeurs et Ics defendeur I.- premiers ont protend,, louer. pour deux ans, au defendeur, un lot vacant a ra.sondun loyer de SI08. payable par ,,ua,-tier ; le d^fen.leur s",.- bhgea,t de payer toutes taxes, quelle que f„t leur nature, de faire a ses tra,8 les clotures roquises par la ...unicipalite. fendeur aux conditions susdites. Sur action .ntent^e par les .lemandeu,-s, sous les dispositions du Code ,le proce- dure cv.le relatives a la procedure so,n,nairc, pour obtenir la rkilia- t.or, de ce preten.lu bail.tl laquelle ledefen.leuropposait une exception a la forme, alleguant quo les .le.aandeurs ne pouvaient de.nander la re..l.at.on d.. cet acte par procedure so.n.naire.-J^^e'; rContirmant le ,|Uge,nent.le laCour Superieure, Montreal, CWo,^, J.) Que la convention .m .luestion constituait une promesse de vento et non un bail et que los de,nan. leurs ne pouvaient en demander la resiliation par procedu.-e som,ua,re, les rapports ,ies parties n'etant pas ceux de locateur a loca- taire.— L. K—Eoans ,t- Champacjnt, R. J. Q., 7 C. 8., p. 189. 18. See also case of Church & Bemie.r, noted in this Supplement at article 1474, decision number 5. i;r 'I I 'II ,11. 376 Consolidated Suirplement No. /. — Art. l.'tlJf. ■-hi' 14T4. Decision niunber 11, noted at this article, was reversed in Appeal, where it was )ield : 1. That the property in a thing sold by weight remains with tli.^ vendor and the thing is at his risk and peril, so long as it has, not been weighed.— Q. B— Havwm .1' Rom, 10 R. L, p. 390 ; M. L. H., (i q. B., p. 222. This latter judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court, whijh held as follows : . Per Ritchie C. J., Strong and Fournier J. J., (affirming the judo;- m.'ut of the court below) that where goods and merchandise are sold by weight, the contract of sale is not perfect and the property of the goods remains in the vendor and they are at his risk, until they are weighed, or until the vendor is in default to have them weiglifd ; and this is so, even where the buyer has made an exaniination of tlif goods and rejected such as were not to his s-tisf action. Held, also, per Ritchie, C. J., Fournier and Taschereau J. J., that where goods are sold by weight and the property remains in the possession of the vendor, the vendor becomes in law a depositary, and if the goods while in his possession are damaged through his fault or negligence, he cannot bring action for their value. Per Patterson J., dahitanfc, whether there was sufficient evidence of acceptance in this case to dispense with the writing necessary under art. 1235 C. C. to effect a perfect contract of sale.— SUPREME Court. — Ross & Hannan, 19 S. C. R., p. 227. 2. Qu'aux tennes de I'article 1474 C. C, lorsque les choses mohi- li^res sont vendues k la mesure et non en bloc, la vente n'est parfaite ([ue lorsqu'elles ont et6 mesurees et que, apres la cession de biens du vendeur, I'acheteur, avant ce mesurage, n'a pas le droit de les reven- diquer centre le curateur.— De Lorimier, J.— Villeneuve vs. Kent. 18R. L., p. 593. The judgment in the above case was confirmed in Appeal, where it was held as follows : When things moveable are sold by measure and not in the lump, the sale is not perfect until the things .sold have been measured and specifically determined. An approximate estimate or measure- ment of a bulk quantity, from which it is intended that the things sold shall be selected and an exact measurement made, does not make bS I'oversi^d loses iiu Consolidated Supplement No. I. —Art. 1/^7/,. 377 the sale perfect so as to pass the title. So. where a ,,uantity of lumber, was sold at so much per thousand feet, it was held that a mere marking cad setting apart of a certain number of piles of lumber, as those from which it was intended that the lumber to HU the contract should be selected and measured, was not sufficient to pass the title in the lumber to the purchaser. When the vendor becomes insolvent, before the final measurement has been completed the recourse of the purchaser, who has paid the price, a^rainst the' in.solvent estate, is merely for the recovery of dama, "s. Gagnon, M. L. R., (i S. C, p. 275. 4. Appellants advanced nies to M,, a manufacturer of bark extract, for the purchase of bark for them from time to time M also agreed to buy from Appellants the full supply of bark required tor his factory, not le.ss than (500 cor.ls per month, at $1 per cord advance on cost price. M. bought the bark in his own name, and it was piled on his land, where a certain quantity, in question in this suit, was measured and specially identified by Appellants. M liavin.^ afterwards become insolvent, Appellants claimed that they were entitled to the bark so measured and identified, and seized it in the possession of M.'s curator. Held .-That although M., acting as a^ent tor Appellants, purchased the bark in his own name, and it remained in his possession, yet the whole transaction being in good faith and there being no suspicion of M.'s insolvency at the time of the trans- actions in question, Appellants right of property in the bark so measured and identified was perfect without delivery, and Appellants were entitled to revendicate the same from the curator. Appellants also purchased at one time a particular lot of bark from M pavino- full value therefor. This bark remained in M.'s possession at tht nne of his assigment. Held .-That M's. curator was not entitled retain, on behalf of the estate, property acquired by Appellants from M. before, but not delivered to them at the time of the assi<.nment Appellants entered into a further agreement with M., that he° should n.anufacture extract from their bark piled on M's. premises M proceeded to do so, but used indiscriminately bark belonging to Appellants and other parties. Held .-That it being impossibfe to identify the extract manufactured from Appellants' bark they were ii[ >n ii 378 Consolidated Supplement No. I. — Art. II^IH. i not entitled to revendicate any portion of the extract from tlic curator. — Q. B. — Church &■ Bernier, R. J. Q., I B. R, p. 257. 5. The Plaintiffs' traveller obtained an order for certain coods from Defendant's employee, subject to the approval of Defendant, who was then absent. On Defendant's return, he iminediatel}' wrote to the Plaintiff's saying that the goods which had been selected by his employee might be sent on at once, and he added, " hopine you will give me good terms, as mj' tailor (Defendant's em- ployee) has made no engagement regarding terms." Subsetiuentiy. after the goods had been cut off from larger pieces and forwarded by rail, he refused to receive them unless he got six months credit, which Plaintiff's refused to grant. Six days later, the goods were destroyed by fire in the freight sheds of the railway com- pany by which they had been shipped to Defendant. Held : — The letter written by Defendant on his return was a confirmation of the order given by his employee and, the contract being then com- plete, the goods became his property when delivered to the railway company, and were at his risk at the time they were destroyed by fire — C. K— Fisher vs Matts, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 449. 6. Beliveau vendit au defendeur Michaud 50,000 briques a prendre sur une plus grande quantite, pres de la gare du chemin de fer ; il fut convenu d'apres le defendeur, qu'il irait prendre la brifjue a .son besoin, et en tiendrait compte. Beliveau fait ensuite ces->ion de biens. Jiuje .—Que cette convention n'a point pour eff'et de rendre le defendeur proprietaire de la bri()ue vendue .sans comptage ; (jue la vente n'est parfaite, quant aux tiers et nommement quant aux creaii- ciers du vendeur, representes par le curateur a la cession de bien> : que lorsque les choses sont devenues certaines et determinees par le comptage ; que le defendeur, ayant pris possession de la bfique apies la cession de biens, est tenu de la remettre ou d'en payer la Vfileur iui curateur. Que la compensation est inadmissible, la valeur de la bri- que doit etre distribuee au marc la livre entre tons les creanciers. C. R. — Archaoobaidt im. Michaud, 1 R. de J., p. 323. 1475. I. Une vente do machineries, faite a la condition qu'elies seront posees par le vendeur et mises en bon etatde fonctioiniement a la satisfaction de I'acheteur, est J i la nature d'une vente a I'essai, efc reste suspendue jusqu'a I'evenement de la condition, et si, apres essai. I'acheteur se declare non-satisfait et refu.se de les accepter, la vente n'est pas parfaite et ne transfere pas la propriete des machines a I'ache- teur. — RoUTHiEU, J. — Xess vs. Cowan, R. J. Q,, 5 C. S., p. 423. "ijli 0' !. ■iidatal Supplement No. J.— Art. lJf.76. -xis) 147«. 1. Thp Appellant, on the 28th July, by a writing, offered certain property to the Respondent for S50,000, 88,000 of which was to be paid in cash on passing deed :— " this offer shall remain open to "the 10th August next." The Respondent sent a letter to the Appellant, on the 10th August, stating that he accepted, but did not make any tender or put the Appellant en demeare to pass a «. *on. t t '"."f*' '""''' °'" ^ ^vueuLe less strong than the deed of sale and M III I'.!;: I , n n 884 (JotiHiiLiddtfd Supplement No. I . — ^77. lJf.H7. thB,t evon tlu' ailiuission by Keiffer tliat the sale was simulated (if such admission existed, which was not the case) could not affect the rights of the pnrcliaser in yood faith from Keiflor. — Q. B. — Wliilr head A- Keiffer, M. L. R., 4 Q. H., p. 2;U). 2. Que des efFcts mobiliers, qui ont ete vendus k terme, avec hi convention (ju'ils ne deviondront la propriete de I'achcteur (jue lois ([u'il en aura paye integralement le prix, peuvent etre revendiqui's. centre un second acheteur de bonne foi, (jui en aurait paye le prix. cette seconde vente etant nulle conune etant une vente de la chosr d'autrui. — C. R. — (kmadiaii Subscription Co. vw. Donnelly, 19 R. L,, p. 578 ; ;W L. C. J., p. 191 ; M. L. R, (i S. C, p. .'US. 3. Que I'echange est nul lorsque Tune des parties n'est pas pro prietaire de la chose qu'il s'est engage a donner en echange. Qiic neanmoins lorsque le demandeur, qui revendique la chose et roclainc des dommatjes pour non livraison, ignorait que cette chose ne fut pus la propriete du d^fendeur, et que sa demande de revendication doit, pour raison de ce fait etre rf-nvoyee, le defendeur sera ccnidamnt' u payer au deinandeur des dommages et en outre tons les frais i|c I'action. — Mathieu, J. — Cadieux os. Ratvlinson, R. J. Q., 2 C. S.. p 29(). 4. La corporation du comte de Compton, k la demande de l,i corporation du canton de Clifton, avait fait vendre, le 4 mars IMIS."), un immeuble pour des taxes municipales dues par un nomme Dnvis et cette vente avait ete confirmee, faute de rachat dans les deux tins, par un titre definitif en date du 15 juin 1888. Davis, cependant, phis de quinze mois avant la vente du 4 mars 1885, avait vendu rimmcu- ble en question, par acte dument enregistre, k un uomme Pierce, it lors de la vente municipale, Davis n'etait plus proprietaire ni cu possession de I'immeuble. Davis, apres sa vente k Pierce, avait continue a demeurer dans la municipalite, et il avait en sa possession des meubles suffisants pour defrayer le montant des taxes. Pierce et ceux dont il etait I'auteur, n'avait jamais ete mis en demeure de payer ces taxes, et aucun mandat de saisie n'avait ete emis contre le tier.s acquereur, ni contre Davis. Jiu/d : — Que dans les circonstanees it suivant le principe consacre par I'article 1487 du code civil, conceriiunt la vente de la chose d'autrui, la vente municipale du 4 mars INS") etait nulle, et qae Ton ne pouvait invoquer la prescription de I'articlf 1015 du code municipal pour couvrir cette nullite. — Q. B. — Lavell i(: leavitt, R. J. Q., 2 B. R, p. 324. Consolidated Sitpplement No. 1. — Artn. l4.8S-149ii. J85 5. The sale and transfer of instruments of no intrinsic value but evidence of value, as notes, bills of exchange, hank-hills, hills of ladinfT, warehouse receipts, bonds and debentures, is not subject to Arts 1487. 1488, 148!) and 14!)() C. C. Such instruments, when I«iyable to bearer, n..,uire ijo other ..vidence of pn>i.riet..rship than simple possession, against which the only practically eHectivc plea is had faith in the holder, and the b.inle,, „f proof is on th.- party who sets It up. In the absence of such allegation and proof, the owners ot debentures pledge.!, without authority, by their agent, as security tor tt loan to himself by a broker, cannot revendicate them in the Lands of the latter. The fact that, when they were pledge.l, the debentures had matured and were past-due, is immaterial and does not attect the right of ownership of tho.se who, as the parti.'s in this case, are not liable, either as n.akers or endorsers, for the payment thereof.— Q. B.— Maenider ,1' Yownq, R. J. Q., 3 B II n 589 _ Andrews. J.— R. J. Q.. 4 C. S., p. 20!>. (5. See also case of FillatmwU ,t GoUlie., noted in this Supplement at article 1472. decision number 14. 14H«. Que la remise au proprietaire dt- I'objet donne en gage (^teint le droit de gage.— Q. B.— il/o/.s«n',s Hank ,fc Rochelte 17 R L ' p. 139.— CA,sAUi/r, J._14 Q. L. R., p. 261. 14«». Quune personne (jui acquiert, a un encan public, une voiture.qui ne.st pas la propriete de cehii ,,ui faittel encan, en devient proprietaire comme I'ayant acquise hoim_tide, bien que le demandeur ait retenu son droit de propriete jusqu'au paiement de .ses billets — Flamondon, J.—Thurber vs. Bavtvl. I R. do J., p. 56. 14»3. 1. Qu'un architecte, qui s'est oblig^ k faire les plans dune batis.se dans un certain delai et ne livre pa.s ces plans dans le delai fixe, ne peut recouvrer le prix de ces plans, s'il ne les offre pas mSme Hvec son action.-Q. K~Restker ,('• Frhr., des Ecoles ChrMennes 19 R. L, p. 252 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 89. 2. Que le vendeur d'un immeuble, qui veut contraindre I'acqu^- reur a passer titre, doit, dans le delai lixe par la convention pour ter- miner la vente, offrir un titre parfait k la propriety vendue.- boUANGEU, J.— Greene vs. Mappin, 20 R. L , p. 213. a Les marchandises vendues, pendant qu'elles sont en entrepdt de douane, restent, tant qu'elles n'ont pas 6t6 transf^r^e.s suivant les I 1 if H I i; !i . 1 886 Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. l^OS. formes sp^cialea exig^es par les lois de douane, en la possession du vendeur et lour mise en gage pour avances k I'acheteur, par I'endosse- mcnt quo fait celui-ci des recjus du garde-magasin, propri<5taire d« l'entrep6t priv6 de douane, ou elles sont d^posdes, n'est effectif qu'a- pr^s ce transfert, ou leur acquit en douane par lo vendeur.— Casault, J. — McNider vs. Beaulieu, 16 Q. L. R., p. 295. 4. Quo I'entrepreneur d'un chernin de fer ne peut exiger d'etre paye de ses travaux avant d'avoir ex6cut6 lui-m6me aes obligations, conformement k son conti-at, et que, s'il neglige d'ex^cuter ses obliga- tions dans le temps fix6 par son contrat, la Compagnie peut t'aire entreprendre le chemin par un autre, sans encourir aucune responsa- bilit6 vis-k-vis du premier entrepreneur. Que, lorsqu'il est convonu qu'une compagnie de chemin de fer dmettra des debentures et les d^posera entre les mains d'un d^positaire, noram^ par I'entrepreneur pour la garantie de ce dernier, il ne pourra se nommer lui-nieme U; depositaire. — Q. B. — Stanton & Canada Atlantic Ry. Co., 21 R. L, p. 168. 5. K. in St. Louis, Mo., on the 22nd March sold one thousand barrels of flour to M., in Montreal, " shipment, 15th," meaning loth. April. The flour was shipped March 30th, and M, objected to this shipment as premature. The flour was held in Montreal and tendered again to M. on April 18. Held : That this was a good tender under the contract. The proper construction of contract was not that the flour must be shipned on the 15th. April, and on no other day, lait that the date of shipment was mentioned to fix approximately the time for delivery. — Q. B. — Magor <& Kehlor, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 23,— Davidson, J.— M. L. R., 7 S. C., p. 38V ; 35 L. C. J., p. 25. 6. Dans le cas de vente de meubles par un merae vendeur k deux personnes differentes, I'acheteur qui est en possession actuelle et de bonne foi doit etre pr^fer^e, meme si son titre d'acquisition est poste- rieur a celui de I'autre acheteur, et lors memo que ce dernier aurait eu tradition. — RouTHlEU, J. — Drouin vs. Lefrangois, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 128. 1493. The Plaintiffs' traveller obtained an order for certain goods from Defendant's employee, subject to the approval of Defendant, who was then absent. On Defendant's return, he immediately wrote to Plaintiffs, saying that the goods which had been selected by his ■employee might be sent on at once, and he added, " hoping you will > HI li I "I I I Consolidated Supplement No. J.~Arts. UOG-1^99. 387 •• pfive me good terms, as my tailor (Defendants employee) l.as made no arrangement rofjarding terms." Subsequently, after the goods had been cut offfrom larger pieces and forwarded by rail, he refused to receive them unless he got six months' credit, which Plaintiffs declined to grant Six days later, the goods were destroye.l by fin, in the rejght sheds of the railway company by which they had been shipped to Defendant. Held .--The letter written by Defendant on his return was a confirmation of the order given by his employee, and the contract being then complete, the goods became his property when delivered to the railway company, and were at his risk at the time thev were i 'pi>lnwitl Nik I. -Art. H9U. ift«t on taking posscwion of the sftfi>*>. also occupied ami uscil, without olijection on the piirt ol tlif lessor, duriuf,' noarly four year:, a sinail shod iu rear >'f the iea.se'H. M. L. 11, + Q. B., p. Iia -LouANdEK, J.— 11 L. N., p. ;{50. :]. That the words "builuiiij; materials," in a contract of sale of material to he removed from a certain lot of grouml, ilo not include Hxtures and appliances contained in the Imildinj,', for supplying he;\t,, for lighting hy gas, and for the distribution of water. — Wi'RTlCLE, .1. —LithU VM. FrimciH, M. L R., 7 S. C, p. :{():). 4. An unreserved sale of an immoveable conveys all mining rights on the same, subject to the provisions of the Quebec Mining Laws, and an action will lie to resiliate such sale, or for an indenmity, Ity the purchaser, who subse(piently discovers that a reserve of sucli minino' rights exists in favor of his vendor's riMic;trH. — C. R. — Ne-il I's. Proidx. R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. fiOS. 5. The Appellant purchased from Respondents, at public auction, two lots of land on a certain street, and signed a memorandum of sale, in which reference was made to the official plan, on which tin' street was marked as being 51 feet wide at that place. On the sur- veyor's plan prepared for the sale, the stnset was al.so traced as .")| feet in width, but, by inadvertence, on the lithographed copies distri- buted at the auction sale, the part of the street where the lots wov situated was represented as of uniform width with the upper part of the street, which was 60 feet wide. In the advertisements and at tiie auctioneer's announcement at the sale, the streoi htm also de'scribeil <'enerally as 60 feet wide. When the error \\i'.> dscovered t! Respondents (vendors) offered to cancel the ■■■■■'■'' '■". i-'i.' Appellant (purchaser) had been misled by the erro'- on the lithographed copies, but the Appellant refused and brought an action of damages. — Hdd : In an action of damages by the Appellant (purchaser) that he having 1 3f.eived the full number of square feet bargained for, having refused . ix iufj'"^' h the bargain, having signed the memorandum of sale in •,« . 'c' : • /erence was made to the homologated plan showing a street bl ■'^e; wide, ana moreover no specific damage being proved, an action ^B IhmnoUiUtted Supplement ^o. I.-Artx. InOQ.fnO.l. 389 r J^ J P hI: ^ ^^""'"^'^ ^ "-'^- '^ "•• ^ '^ f^ ■ P 4.K* , 33 ♦i. Tho sale of a,, i.nmovoahl.. includes that of itsacessori.-s oven w.thou specal n.,ntiun thereof. The vendor of a hou.sl hjl " hound to warrant the continuance of a water-supply furni'l ed S^!^ a.,»oduct lau Lefore the sale and exi.stin, at the ti.ne then . uLer A>fDUKWs, .l.—Dallaire vs. Dallaire, 17 Q. L. II., p. 121. I \ ' I"! ??' \^" .*''" "'''' "*' " '"'^''' P"^^*-'*-. '••>nvevod in a deed of sale of a lot detache.l fro.n the inunoveable on which' the wat .owe .•x.sts. ,s r.ot presun.ed to be acce.s.sory to the sale of such U a d n" pr.vdege on. twdl accrue to the seller for the rent stip.latd Ids favour, as the con.s.deration for the user in question. In d . au t o u pr.vde<,e. no hypothec to secure payn.ent of the rent hein. s pulat d UJ2,C.C.,that the sale under execution of the lot in question be Tt OQ S p 2;i ^•'^"^-^^^'--«' ^-^^UoUeo^u vs. I ,'Z, R l.WO. 1. Quo raciieteur des effets de commerce, k qui on ne l.vre qu uno parfe des effets achet.s. a le droit de refu.r ee part." — y. a.—Bdavger <£• Vxneherg, 20 R. L, p. 13f). 2. Que lorsquun heritage est d6signe dans un titre co.nn.e , -ant uneetendue approximative. .x,ais comme contenu dans I liniifce precses, on do.t p..endre 1 etendue qui se trouve dan ce In e MATHIEU. J.-Utremdt vs. Paqnette dit Lavallee, 21 R. L. p 62 • .K*'1®'' ]' ^^'"''^^^'''^'^'^tre'udt vs.Paquctto, dit LavalUe not, a ■" this Supplement at article 1500, decision number 2. 2. Que I'acheteur doit payer I'excedant de contenance ou le remettre au vendeur.— RouTHiEii T Pn^.n ■ "'^"'^nce ou le ^f_p^Qg ^^'^^aimi,d.~Gauthier vs. Gautkier, 14 L. noted'!rL'a.^lXt/.?r1'^''T ^--«"ber 2 against article 219a ^ '' ^"^^^' ^" "''"^'^'^ -'"b-' ^ -^ed 2. La demanderesse avait achete du defendeur un innneuble d^erit lit T^"^, 890 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1607. k I'acte de vcnte comme suit : " Un terrain connu et d^sign^ comrne " faisant partie ou etant Vextrdmite sud-est du lot deterre, No 401, du "cadastre officiel de la paroisse de la Longue-Pointe, nontenant " environ un arpent et quart de largeur sur environ quatre arpents-et " demi de profondeur, plus on moins, tenant par un bout au cote sud- " est, au tleuve St-Laurent, a I'autre bout, au cote nord-ouest, au " residu du susdit lot, No 401, appartenant maintenant k Pierre Ber- .' nard ; du c6t6 nord-est au lot de terre No 402, dont le terrain ci- " dessus vendu a la nieine profondeur ou largeur et appartenant a " John Hopkins, et du cot6 sud-ouest a une partie du lot No 400, " appartenant a Pame Veuve Louis Arclmmbault." Juge .—Que la vente de I'immeuble en question 6tait la vente d'un corps certain compris dans des limites certaines, d^termin^es et connues, et sans 6gard a la contenance, qui n etait indiquee que par surabondance, et qu'il n'y avait pas lieu t\ une action qiuinio minoris pour defaut de contenance.— C. R—Cummings vs. Laporte, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 56. — Taschereau, J.— R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 31. 1507. 1. Que le manui'acturier, k qui une pratique renvoie des marchandises, counne etant de mauvaise qualite, qui les re9oit sans protestation, est teuu de rembourser a cette pratique les frais de trans- port do cos marchandises.— Tellier, J.— Severn vs. Damphousse, 20 R. L., p. 134. 2. In a contract for the purchase of deals from A. by S. et at., mer- chants in London, it was stipulated inter alia, as follows :— " Quality " —Seller's guarantee quality to be equal to the usual Etchemin stock " and to be marked with the Beaver Brand," and the mode of delivery was f. o. b. vessels at Quebec and payment by drafts, payable in Lon- don, 120 days sight from date of shipment. The deals were shippeOS. iihI m !:S \r\ amounts uncUir protest, brought an action a<,'ain.st liis vendor, protend- ing tliat the assessment was inchuled in the warranty. Hdd .— Tln^ warranty of tlie vendor does not extend to charges imposed by com men law, and which are ai)parent, ami the special assessment above mentioned falls within that category. Taxes due before tin; transfci- of a property are payable by the vendor, and those which becoiiic due after the sale are payable by the purchaser. J^ut a tax is lu.l, d from fuliilment of his obligation by force-majeure. The fact that its fulfilment diminishes or extin- ■luishes a supply of power upon which he had depended for his own use, or which, by a subsequent title, he had sold to another party, is no excuse for non-performance of the contract— Q. B. — liannerraan ror, a warranty is implied that the maker IS not insolvent to the knowledge of the transferor. If it be proved that the maker of the note was insolvent, to the knowh^dgc of the transferor, the party who received it is entitiisd to olhn- it back and ciann the amount from the transferor, without ..sking for the reeision of the contract in toto. Art. 15:{0 does not apply to such a case and there being no tii.u, fixed by law for ofn-ring back such note, it is in the discretion of the Court to det.;rinine whether there was lachen and whether the transferor was prejudiced by the delay.— Q \\—LwiH vith the farmers, for the bulk sum of $7,000. Then G. D. assigned to B. the factory and the same rights, but excluding warranty, sa7is garantie aucune, for $7,500. A Company was subsequently formed, to whom B. assigned the factory and the rights and one of the far- mers, a party to the original agreement, having sold milk to another cheese factory, the company sued him, but the action was dismissed on the ground that N. D. could not validly assign personal rights he had against the farmers. Thereupon G. D. brought an action against N. D. to recover the price paid by him for rights, which ho had no right to assign. At the trial it was proved that, although the price mentioned in the deed and paid was a bulk sum for the factory and the rights, the parties at the time valued the rights and agreement with the farmers at $5,000. G. D. also admitted that the action was taken for the benefit of the present owners of the factory. Held, affir- ming the judgment of the Court below (Strong and Fournier, JJ. dissenting^ that, inasmuch as the Appellant, by the sale he had made to B., had received full benefit of all that he had bought from Respon- dent and had no interest in the suit, he could not claim to be reimbur- sed a portion of the price paid. — Per Taschereau, J. — If any action lay at all, it could only hav(3 been to set the sale aside, the parties being restored to the status quo ante if it were maintained. — Supremk Court.— Demurs <& Duhaime, 12 L. N„ p. 179 ; 16 S. C. R., p. 366. 2. Que I'acquereur d'un immeuble, sous la garantie contre le.s faits et promesses seulement du vendeur, ne pent reclamer de ce der- nier, le montant qu'il a paye pour acquitter un droit de commutation ouvert lors de la vente. Que plusieurs mutations de I'immeuble en question ayant eu lieu avant le titre de cet acquereur, et la commuta- Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arta. 1511-151D. 395 tion devenant exigible lors de la premiere mutation, I'acqu^reur est presume avoir-connu cette cause d eviction et ne peut I'opposer k son vendeur qui ne I'a garanti que contre ses faits et proraesses >3eulement. — C. ^.—Gu4rin vs. Craig, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 167. 1511. 1. Le garanti qui n'a pas mis son garant en cause, qui a d^fendu seul et a ete condamnd, peut se faire rembourser, par son garant, sur action directe, les frais faits jusqu'au moment ou il a pu mettre ce dernier en cause, mais il ne peut recouvrer ceux encourus apres cette date.— Q. B.~Gagn4 dit Bellavance ^- Hall, 15 Q. L R p. 179; 20 R. L, p. 149. 2. Le vendeur d'un immeuble est tenu d'indemniser I'acheteur de ce qu'il en a coiite a ce dernier pour rendre son titre part'ait. Dans I'cspece les Defendeurs. achcteurs de la part du Demandeur dans des lots de terra et des constructions faites surces lots, ayantobtenu, fi des conditions favorable, le transport des droits de la couronne a ces lots, grace k la longue possession du Demandeur f vendeur) ses associes et ses auteurs, et grace aux constructions ct ameliorations que ces derniers avaient faites sur les lots en question, et ne se trouvant plus, a raison de ce transport, exposes a I'eviction. ils ne pouvaient opposer, en com- pensation a la creance du Demandeur, pour balance du prix de vente, d'autre somme que celle qu'ils avaient payee pour I'acquisition des droits de la couronne.— Malhiot, J.— Thompson vs. Hurdman R J Q., 4 C. S., p. 219. 1512. Que, dans le cas de stipulation df garantie de la part du cedant, la connaissance par I'acquereur d'une cause de trouble, n'em- peche pas ce dernier d'exercer son recours contre le cedant.— C. R— Forbes vs. Burns, 21 R. L., p. 203— Jetti5, J.— 21 R. L., p. 163. 1518. See case of Thompson vs. Hurdman noted, in this Sup- plement, at article 1511, decision number 2. 151». 1. Decision number 2, noted at this article, was confirmed by the Court of Review, where it was held as follows : Que lorsqu'un immeuble, situe dans la cite de Montreal, est vendu, avec indication d'une contenance d^terminee, sans laquelle I'acquereur n'aurait pas achete, ce dernier a le droit de demander la r^siliation de la vente, avec dommages interets contre le vendeur, en y comprenant la valeur des constructions par lui commencees sur cet immeuble, s'il constate, apr^s la vente, qu'k la date d'iccUe, una rue passant sur une 'il I ) ilill Hill w Il r ^i ^1 : fij IB i •v\f 396 Vonaolidated tfupplement No. /. — Art. 16^^. etendue considerable de ce terrain, avait 6te trac^e sur les plans de In cite de Montreal, dftnient hoinologuos par la Cour, ct qu'il est sujet a expropriation, sans indetnnite pour Ics constructions qu'il pourrait fairc sur cet imineuble, et qu'il n'est pas tenu d'attondre I'expfopria tion pour proc^dor contre son vendeur. — C. R. — Mhuird v«. Rambmu, 82 L. C. J., p. 240 ; 20 R. U, p. 448. 2. An unreserved sale of an iiniuovoablo conveys all mining rights on the same, subject to the provisions of the Quebec Mining Laws, and an action will lie to resiliate such sale, or for an indemnity, hy the purchaser who subsecjucntly discovers that a reserve of such mininc rierhts exists in favour of his vendor's aibtcwrs. — C. R. — Neill '/).s. ProuU, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 5G5 —(See particularly page 5G7). a. Que I'acheteur a, contre son vendeur, Taction en diminution du prix ct en donunages, a cause d'une servitude non declaree ni apparente au moment de son achat, et qu'il a trouvee consignee dans le titre de son vendeur, sous forme de reserve en faveur d'un tier.-s, proprietaire du terrain voisin, meme si celui-ci n'y ^tait pas partic, et quand bien meme la servitude n'est pas assez importante pour auto- riser la r^scision de la vente. Que c'est au vendeur, si ce tiers n'y a pas droit, k faire disparaitre la servitude, et non k I'acheteur a plaider i\ ce sujet avec ce tiers. Que la clause d'un acte de vente, disant : " Tacqu^rour declare connaitre le susdit emplacement et si's " accessoires et n'en pas exiger plus ample designation," est de pur style et ne porte que sur I'^tat apparent de I'emplaceinent a cr raoment-lk. Un tuyau pose dans la terre, pour conduire I'eau, lors- qu'il est recouvert de terre, et, surtout, le 9 avril, alors que la terre est recouverte de neige, etant non apparent, la servitude qui pourrait exister k son sujet est, aussi, k ce moment non apparente. — Qu'un paits sur un emplacement, s'il n'y a aucun signc apparent pour domon- trer le contraire, est cense appartenir exelusivement au propritHaire «le cet emplacement, et il ne raontre pas etre une servitude sur cet emplacement. Quand bien meme une servitude a ete apparente anterieurement, si elle ne Test pas au temps de la vente et n'a pas ete declaree k I'acheteur, celui-ci aura Taction en diminution du prix et en dommages. -CiMON, J.—Lebel vs. Bilanger, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 331. 1*533. 1. Decision number 13, noted at this article (Houle & C6te) is also reported in the 19 R. L., p. 566. 2. Marche convenn entra les parties pour le creusement d'un sement d'un Consolidated SapjAfmcnt No. I. —Art. tfj'M 397 puits. La ^rarantie que 1,, puits fournirait do IWn existo-t-elle d.- droit ? Preuve contradicfcoiro dans lespiice.— (1 U.—Ouy m Ohmettr 'Mi L. C, J., p. 151. ' ' •■i. The seller of seed, who delivers a different kind, which hein- sown, does not come to umti-rity. is liable in .kniajres for the value ot the crop which the seed sold was intended to yield.— Andhfws .[ -CiWvH. L( troche, Hi Q. L. R., p. 15. 4. Que ]or.s<,u'un n,(5canicien sobliyo .le faire et livrer u.ie machine sur un plan determine et livre cette machine incomplete et detectuease. il est re.sponsahle de la difference de valeur .le la dite inaeh.ne et les dointnages eprouvos par I'acquereur, meme si cette machine a et6 vendue en justice dans une poursuite contre lacheteur — Q. B.— Carrier ((■ Bender, 1!) R. L, p. 203. 5. Que celui (jui conviont de vendre une chcse, qui doit etre em- ployee pour certaines fins qu'il connait, ne pourra recouvrer le prix de cette chose, si elle est impropre k Tusa^e auquel elle (Hait destinee - Q. B.—VonnuU;/ ,1' HMard, If) R. L., p. 304. (). Que le marchand de graines de semence, qui vend a un jar.li- m, being given m payment of ^oods purchased, and the note is ) i iiifi nnrfiii 400 CoTiHolidated SupplemeiU No. /.—Art. JS.iSi. not endorsed by the transferor, a warranty is implied that the maker is not insolvent, to the knowledge of the transferor. If it be proved that the maker of the note was insolvent, to the knowledge of the transferor, the party who received it is entitled to offer it back aii. 446. Consolidated Supptevmit No. i.-Arf,. /r,.i4./r„{f, ^^l 3. Quo sous reffot ,1. Particle 1023 du Code C.vil, „„ aohcL. ,r d un immeuble ne pout poursuivre on douunagos un socond m-hotour du .nfime immeublo. parcoquo colui-ci uuruit on aohotunt do.u.o wno eontro lettre au v.-ndonr sen^.a^oant k rospecter la prondoro vonto ot i^aranfssan lu vcndour oontre l« recours .|o Hon pro.nior acheteur aucun hon do droit n oxistunt entro los .loux acl,eto„rs -WVktk, f I -Ifoute VH. Melan^on, M. L. R, 7 S. (\, p. OTT). """ 1»»4. 1 Qm, la cnvntion, ,lans i,n act., do vont-, par l..,,uollo lacq«6rour sobhjro do payor le prix, ,lans un dolai dotonnino ..*«..«<«..< non.pocho pas les interets do courir apros roxpiration' dn t.vme.~Q. B.--Hogan .(■ Clancu 17 R. L, p. 44; 15 (/ L r 2 Que Ic proprietairo a droit aux intorets, sur le nmntant do Tin- dcmuite a lui accord^o par les arhitres, sous Tacte des clu n.ins do i' m depms la date do la prise do possession par la co.npasnie, et que les arh.tres no pouvent con.prendro cos int.5rots dans lo .nontant de I'in" dernn.t6. vuque la question dos intorets comprond une question do dro-t qui nest pas do la competence des arbitres.-MATHlEU T- «""; r'u r'..''"' "■"■ '"■ *"■"'•'""'" "' "" ^™'"»" '■'■ 3. Wlioro ,1 Railway Company obtained possession of land o„ umkmg a depositand the arbitrators, subsoc,uontly, made an award of a sum ot money for the value of the land and " in full payment an.l satisfaction ot a damages resulting from the taking and using of the said piece ot land for the purposes of said railway," thecompLy IS hah e for interest on the amount of the award only from the date ereo and not from the date when the company obtained possession of the land. I. will be presumed that the arbitrators included in their award compensation for the company's occupation of tlie land prior to he award.-TA.T, J.-R.Murn vs. Ontario A Quebec Ry. Co., M L 1 5 8. C. p. 211.-Q. B.-34 L.C. J., p. 299 ; M. L. R., (i Q. B., p ^Sl. 4. Que des comptes courants pour marchandises vendues et M vreos re<;us^ diverses intervalles par le debiteur et dans lesquels sont charges des mterets et des paiements faits 4 compte du tout san protos ation. constituent une preuve de I'obligation du debiteur de payer les int^re^ts sur ce compte-MATHiEU, J.~Bouvert vs. Sauretfe dit Larose, 19 R L., p. 2. 1535. 1. Decision number 50 noted at this article (Gre^.n. ,w Mappm) was taken to the Court of Queen's Bench, where the Jappeal 40S Consoliddttui i.^applevienl No. I. — Art. ISSf). m wjis (iismisHi'tl, as the Plaintiff had boon intenlictiMl sinco the original judgment was rondcrutl and his curator intorvenod to assist in the? appeal instead of himself taking the appeal. ("The case is reported in this Snpplenient at article HH4, decision number H). 2. When the vendor's agent wrote to the purchaser as follows : " I can offer you the house :\t ^4,;i00 on the following terms : $1,000 "cash; Si, 000 in about two years; balance S2,;iOO, mortgage on ■' ground, can remain as long as buyer requires" — it was Iwlil that this was equivalent to the clause ol. franc vt quitla, with the exception of the hypothec mentioned in the letter, and that the vendor thendiy promised and was lunnid to give a clear title, with the i.-xception only of the 82,300.— Q. D.—Oauthierl- Ritchie, M. L. R., 4 Q. H., p. 422. 8. The failure of the seller to deliver an essentially im])ortaiit portion of the property sold, and to intervene, to protect the title given by him, in suits pending to his knowledge between the purchuser and third parties attacking it, is a sufficient ground of refusal by the purchaser to pay the price, until delivery be perfected \nd the trouble, as to the title, arising from the suits, be made to cease. — Andrews, J. — Queen vs. Atkinnon, 15 Q. L. II., p. 171. 4. Que I'acheteur d'immeuble, qui a rai.son de craindre d'etre trouble dans sa possession, par suite d'une hypotheque qu'il decouvrc sur la propriet6 par lui achet^e.a droit de retenir le capital dA justiu'f'i ce que la cause de trouble disparaisse, niais il ne peut se refuser de payer les int6rets qui deviennent echus sur le capital non paye.-- Champagne, M. U. — Brlen dit Daruckervs. Dufresne, 13 L. N. p. 123. 5. Que le vendeur d'immeuble, qui a laiss6 entre les mains de I'acquereur une partiedu prix de vente, ju.squa ce qu'il ait fait radier une hypotheque aH'ectant I'immeuble vendu, doit, avant de toucher cette balance du prix, payer le montant de I'hypotheque et les frais n^cessitds parsa radiation. — Q. B. — Gihsoyie & Tessier, 19 R. L., p 495 6. Que I'acheteur d'un i.nmeuble sujet k une substitution, inai.s dent le greve a, par I'acte errant la substitution, le droit de vendre, en faisant le remploi du prix de vente pour les fins de la substitution, a droit de retenir le prix de vente, jusqu'kcc que le vendeur se soit con- form^ aux conditions de I'acte en faisant le remploi. Qu'il ne sutlit pas qu'il ^tablisse avoir achete une autre propriety, laquelle il entend payer avec I'argcnt proveuaut des bicns substitues ; il faut de plus (JonNolidated Hupplement No. I.— Art. t^M. 40g (|u'il lassc les diiclarations rK^ceasaiivH pour (|uoIc.s titresaux nouvello.s propriot^H linsi achotk-s uonstitiient un roinploi en fuvcur des uppoli'-.s k la substitution. Qu.i la .lito substitution, avoc faeultu do vent.- aux conditions do romploi, con.^tituo pour I'achotMir un justo mijot do crainto d oviction ou do trouble pour ravonir.— Olij., J. — Dexjanlinn va. DanenaiH, M. L. U., (J S. C, p. 280. 7. L'acquc'Tour d'nn imineublo, tant qu'il n'ost pas trouble do fait na pas d'action contre le vendour, son f,.aiant " contro tons troubles' " dons, douaircs. dottos et tous uutres oinpi,".toinontsgoneralo.nont(iucl- '' conques," pour le contraindro ^ faire radior uno hypotlio(|Uo, inscrito avant la vente, au bureau d'enro<,M".streinont, contro rimnioublo vendu- 11 t'u serait autreuient si le vendour avait vondu7Hi//'cei!^i/>redo toute hypothfequo.— C. 11— Jicaudette vx. Cormier, IG Q. L. R., p. (JO. 8. L'aclietour d'un imnieuble, (|ui a juste .sujct do eraindro d'etre trouble aup^titoire. pout diHerorlopuicniontdu prix jasquVi ce que le vendour lui foumisso caution de lo rombourser, k nioins .I'une stipulation contraire. II pent invoquer co moyen par une defense au londsk uno action intontee pour le prix et, sur des conclu.sions sim- pleinent au renvoi do Taction, le tribunal pout pennottro au Doinandcur (le fournir le cautionneniont. Lachetour, quoiqu'il puisse difiorer lo paien mi du prix pour cause de peril d eviction, est n^aninoins tenu d'cn servir les int^ret.s.-C. K-De.,scTt <■«. Rohidonx, 16 Q L R p. 1 18. ^' ' 9. Que lo debiteur, poursuivi on recouvroment du prix do vente IK. pout plaidor crainto do trouble ou d'^viction quo par exception (lilatoire.— RouTiiiER, ,l—Gauthier m Gauthier, 14 L. N., p. 100. 10. Quo I'article 1.535 C. C. s'applique aux ventes du shorifet (|ue I'adjudicataire, qui a juste sujot de craindre d'etre troubI(' peut refuser do payer lo prix d'adjuuication, si on no fait cesser ce trouble ouneluifournitcaution.-MATHrEU, J.- jl/orr/an vs. Normandeau 20 R. L, p. 523. ' 11. Que I'acquerour d'un immeuble, qui a justo sajet de craindre (ietre evince de cet immeuble, a droit de refuser le pai'ement du prix de vente, k inoins que le vendeur ne lui fournisse bonne ot suffi- ■srtnte caution, avec hypothequo, (lu'il ne sera pas ti-ouble a I'avenir dans la possession de I'immeuble.-Q. B.-Hastie tfc Hastie, 20 R L ' i> .'i.^^ '' (;■■ ■ 404 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art 15o6. 12. Qu'il incombe au vendeur, sous la clause de " franc et (luitfce," qui reclame la balance du prix de vente, de faire voir qu'une hypo- theque, qui parait exister contre I'immeuble vendu, a 6t6 reellenient radiee, et qu'il ne remplit pas son obligation en produisant une quit- tance enregistree, qui rnentionne, erronement, une autre obligation ct ne decharge pas I'inimeuble en question. Que dans ces circonstanccs le vendeur doit lui-meme faire radier inscription avant d'exiger la balance du prix de vente.— Tascheueau, J.—Fabrique de Notre-Davv de Montreal vs. Monarque, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 468. 13. The buyer renounces to the benefit of art. 1535 of the Civil Code and cannot delay the payment of the pri^e, when he takes his deed with full knowledp-e of the nature of the title ; e. g., where he buys, knowing, as shown by the deed, that the property belonged to an unopened substitution, and that there was possibility of trouble in the event of other children being born to the institutes.— Davidson, J.— Perreault vs. Bissonnette, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 401. 14. Where real estate is sold free and clear of incumbrances, the purchaser to pay the price in cash to the vendor and it appears that the property is charged with hypothecs, the purchaser is not bound to execute a deed, unless the vendor, within the time fixed for com- pleting the contract, has caused the hypothecs to be discharged.— Q. B.—Dandu,rand ., p. \0>i. 4 Que I'acquereur d'une maison, a laquelle ont <5t6 faits des tra- vaux de menuiserie pendant le terme accorde par le croancier au de- biteur pour a md.eter, n'est pas responsable du prix de tols travaux par le seul tait qu ds ont augments la valeur de la n.aison et, ,,u'a defaut dun .-narche entro le eontracteur et I'acquereur de la mai on que ce dern,er pa,era tels travaux, le eontracteur doit etre deboutc^ de^sa dernanda-PLAMONOON 3.-Ga^ahier vs. Salvas, 1 R. de J., p. 154«. Dans lespece, oh il sVis«ait d'une vente avec faculte de .-.'mere pendant un certain temps, la cour a accepte, cornme commen- cement de preuve pa.- ecrit de la prolongation du delai stipuKi pour exercise de la faculte de r^m^re, les quittances d'interets donneespar e repr^sentant du creancier, acheteur do I'immeublo en (juestion. apres 1 expiration dudelai hxe pour I'exercice de cette faculte. -Q B _ Waiters & Cassidy, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 270. ' 154». Decisionnumber4,notedatthisarticle.(Ze7er,fe/^ot,rn-er) Ks also reported in the 14 S.C.R., p. 314. ^^Kourn.er) 1561a. and 15616. These articles, relating to lands aban.loned by a buyer^ wereaddei by the R. S. Q., and are"noted in full in Vol. 1563. Where two parties carried on the business of manufactur- .ng cheese in partnership and, for the purposes of the bu^ness a ac tory was erected on the land of one of the partners, fo wl ih nd a rent wa.s paid by the firm, it was keld that on the dissolution Z ri.^' ] ^ "'' buildings, in the opinion of experts, were not ^ceptible of convenient partition) to have them sold l^ lie tat' onTo the highes bidder, with obligation on the purchaser to remove ihe ame, and the price divided between the partners.-Q. B.^^SZst ;ii Ilii^ia! 410 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—ArtK 1665-1671. 1565. This article, m replaced by the R. S. Q., is noted in full in Vol. I, p. 744. Amendment.- The Act. Q. 53 Vict., ch. 16, modifies this articl.' by specifying certain properties which need not, or which must W. sold by auctioneers. 156T. Que le decret d'immeubles est nul lorsqu'il y a dol et .u- tifices, a la connaissance de I'adjudicataire. pour 6carter les encheres.— Taschereau. 3.— Bank of Hochelaga vs. Eastern Townships BanL 20 R. L., p- 99. 1570. As to the voluntary sale, assignment and transfer ..I constituted rents replacing seigniorial dues— See Vol. II, p. 616. Claims against the Crown may be transferred, without the express consent of the latter; and such transfers are legal and binding. the intent of arts. 880 et seq., C. C. P., being to place the Proviiur generally on a similar footing with private individuals as to the recovery of claims against it.— Andrews, J.—Jacques-CartiifV Bank vs. Government of the Province of Quebec, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 360. 15T1. Decision number 44, noted at this article, was reversed in Appeal, were it was held as follows : 1. Que le cessionnaire n'a pas droit d'action contre le debiteut . tant que le transport ne lui a pas dte signifie, ou qu'il ne I'a pas acceptc. — Q. B.—Prowse & Nicholson, 17 R. L., p. 284 ; 33 L. C. J., p. 74 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 151. 2. Que le fait que le cessionnaire d'une creance aurait, apres la signification du transport au d6biteur, re9u du cedant partie de la crlance cedee, et se serait adress6 k lui pour demander la balance, n.- constitue pas, en faveur du cedant, uu mandat tacite I'autorisant a recevoir du debiteur transports le montant de la creance. Que, dans I'appreciation des faits dont on veut faire resulter le mandat tacite, il y a une question d'intention et que le tribunal ne d^at admettre, comme faisant prSsumerle mandat, que des faits impliquant nScessairement I'idee du mandat - Q. B. - Gihh & Macadam, 16 R. L., p. 425. 3. The assignment of any hypothecary claim, must be served upon the original debtor before the assignee can bring an hypothecary Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1571. 411 action against a third party, who has acquired the hypothecated immoveable, even though such third party has undertaken, by liis deed of purchase, to pay the debt.— Andrews, J.—Grenier vs. Gim- oreau, 14 Q. L. R., p. 357. 4. Que I'acquereur d'un immeuble loue, et en menie temps ces- sionnaire des droits du locateur resultant du bail, n'a pas d'action centre le locataire, s'ii ne lui a pas fait signifier son acte d'acquisition. — C. 'R.—D'Anglars vs. Lochead, 33 L. C. J., p. 34. 5. The claim for costs of the attorney distrayant, due by the adverse party, is subject to the same laws as apply to ordinary debts with regard to transfer, service and subrogation. — Q. B. — Milette & Gibson, M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 240 ; 17 R. L., p. 600. 6. Qu'il n'y a pas lien de droit, entre le demandeur et le defen- deur, si le transport n'a pas dte signifie avant Taction et que la signi- fication de Taction ne tient pas lieu de signification du transport. — Champagne, D. 'M.—Turgeon vs. Delorme, 13 L. N., p. 307. 7. Qu'au cas de cession d'une creance, due par plusieurs d^biteurs solidaires, la signification faite a Tun d'eux, ou son acceptation, opere saisine en faveur du ces.sionnaire, sous cette restriction toutefois, que les paiements effectues de bonne foi, par les autres debiteurs, entre les mains, soit du cedant, soit d'un second cessionnaire, devraient etre maintenus. Que le cedant d'une creance, merae si le transport n'a pas 6t6 signifie au debiteur, n'a pas d'action contra ce dernier, mais que, 3'il le poursuit en recouvrement de cette creance son action sera main- tenue, si le cessionnaire intervient pour declarer qu'il n'a pas d'objection a ce que ce jugement soit rendu en faveur du cedant.— Tellier, J.— Stein vs. Bourassa, 20 R. L., p. 81. 8. Que le cessionnaire d'une creance, en vcrtu d'un transport qui n'a pas et6 signifie au debiteur, n'a pas d'action contre ce dernier. Tellier, J.—Cie. de Pret et de Credit Fancier vs. Nelson 20 R L p, 231. !). Where moneys are claimed under the transfer of a debt, the party claiming must allege that such transfer was duly signified to the debtor. Where such signification is not alleged, a demurrer will lie. So long as such transfer has not been signified to the debtor, it cannot affect the right of a third party, holding a judgment against I I ! ! ( I I i'. i' 412 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1571. the Defendant, to seize the money due the Defendant by the debtor. — C. K— Cashing vs. Ross, 34 L. C. J., p. 257 ; 20 R. L., p. 346. 10. Where a sale of a debt is made, in duplicate, under private .sifrnature and one of the duplicates is delivered to the debtor, tlic transfer is sufficiently signified and the buyer is entitled to bring suit for the debt.— Q. B.—Moodic (t Jones, M. L. R., (5 Q- B., p. 355 ; 15) 11. L.. p. 51().— SupRKME Court.— 19 S. C. R., p. 206. U. Que le cessionnaire d'un jugenient executoire contre le d6bi- teur cede n'a pas d'action contre ce dernier. — C. R. — Meillear vs. Wartde, 21 R. L, p. 320. 12. An order in writing, addressed by a creditor to his debtor, tlirecting him to pay a certain sum out of the monies due to the retains the rest of the land, to do a particular thing, as, for example, to ereut a fence on the part acquired by him, near the river whieli separates their respective portions, does not constitute a servitude on the purchaser's property, but merely imposes on the purchaser ii personal obligation to construct a fence.— Although the vendor's right to compel the purchaser to conform to his obligation may be trans- ferred by the vendor to any one who acquires the portion of the huul retained by him, the transferee has no right of action against the purchaser, until a copy of the transfer has been duly served upon the latter.— DOHERTY, d.—MoCwaig vs. Chenier, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 107. 14. Lorsqu'une vente de creance a ete faite par un curateur a une cession de biens, avec I'autorisation du juge, il n'est pas neces- saire, aux terraes de I'article 1571c, du code civil, de dcposer an Consolidated Supplement No. I. —Art. 1571. 41;^ feTcffe uno copic de cette autorisation. mais le (k.p6t de lacte .k- vente suffit. Quand dos billets »\ or.lre ont 6to vondu8 par le curatcur il nest pas necessairo do .Idposer au greffe copie do I'acte do vonte et do taire Ics annoncos requisos par rartieie 1571c pour operor si-mifica- t,on au debiteur de ces billots. L'endosso.nont du cu.-.,teur suffit pour op^rer le transport dos billots ot il suffit k Fachotour d Vxhibor cot endossemont au dobiteur pour lo notitior .lo la vonto en question -Pagnuei-o, J.—Ijastien vs. Lnbrie, R. .]. Q., 4 C. S., p. 20. 15. II no suffit pas que Ic ces,ssionnaire d'un cieancier liypothe- caire, qui poursuit en d6clamtion d'hypothequo le tiers detentcur do I iinmeuble liypoth^que, ait signifie son transport a ce tiers detentour rnais i\ faut encore ,|ue ce transport ait eto signifi^ au dobiteur prin- cipal.— Pagnuelo, J.~Be.rtrand vs. Barrd, R. J. Q., 5 C. S.,p. 40. 16. Que I'associe dans une societe en nom collectif, qui lors de sa dis.solution, devient le cessionnaire dune creance de la societe contre un tiers, n'est pas tenu do faire signifier son transport a ce tiers avant de le poursuivre.-DE Louimier, J.-Molver vs. Coulson 85 L. C. J., p. 117. 17. La poursuite intentee, au nom du creancier d'une oblif^ation contre celui qui a et^ del^guee par le dobiteur pour payer cette obli- gation, est une acceptation suffisante de la delegation de paien^ent — C. R.— Bedel vs. Smart, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 336. 18. Where a lessor transfers to a creditor rents to fall due and the lessee appears in the transfer, accepts signification, and promises unconditionally to pay to the transferee, he is bound by such under- taking to the third party, although circumstances may afterwards occur which would release him as respects his landlord.-AKCHiUALD 'i—Landot vs. Beaulieu, R.J. q.,HC,S., p. ii4,4,.. 19. The institution of an action, by the creditor of an oblio-ation against the person delegated by the debtor to pay the obligation and who covenanted with the debtor to pay the same, is a sufficient accep- tance of the delegation of payment. An acceptance of a delegation ot payment is not void on the ground that tlie notary before whom the acceptance was made, was the husband of one of the parties ante- cedently liable for the debt and who sold to the Defendant the pro- perty hypothecated therefor.— C. R— Moore 7«, Smart R to fin S.,p. 432. ~ " " " "-•' "■• ,;ti '■'1 I!'| 414 Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Avt^. 1571a-1671c. 20 La signification au debiteur principal du transport .lun. crJce. assurfepar un cautionno.ont. suffit pour her lo^canUons ,nalgr6 que le transport ne lev.r ait jamais et6 s.g.ah^.-C. ^.-LU.j.l va. Mair, R. J. Q- 7 C. S., p. lU. 21 Sic^nification o^" a transfer of a debt due by the City of Mon- treal must be nmde upon the city clerk. Service upon the cty treas- unri insufficient, and payn.ent by the city under such service ot Lns r. will not relieve it from responsibility to ajudgmont creditor Uhe transferor, upon an atUchment after jiu^n.ii^ duly serve upon the city subsequently.-AucuiBALD J.-Dalbec vs. T^udel, R .1. Q., 7 C. S., p. 205. 1571a. This article was added by the R. S, Q., and is noted u. full in Vol. I, p. 745. AMENDMENT.- Article 1571a of the Civil Code, as added hy article 5814 of the Revised Statutes of the Province of Quebec, us amended by replacing the last paragraph thereof by the ioUowmg : « The delivery of a copy of the deed of sale, required by article " 1571 may be effected by leavi . such copy for tl^e debtor in the .•hand; of the prothonotary or the district in which the debt was " contracted, or of the district in which the action may be orought. — Q. 54 Vict, cap. 40, sec. 1. Semhle : La signiHcation d'un transport k un absent, en lais.sant une copie a son procureur. est insuffisante, la loi en prescnvant un autre mode k I'art 5814 S. R. Q.-C. U.-Dessert vs. RoHdoux, 10 Q. L. R., p. 118. I57\b. This article was added by the R. S. Q., and is noted in full in Vol. 1, p. 745. 1571c. This article was added by the R. S. Q., and is noted in full in Vol. 1, p. 746. Lorsquune vente de cr^ance a ete faite par un curateur a une cession debiens,avec Vautorisation dujuge.il n=est pas necessaire, aux 1 de I'article 1571c du code civil, de deposer au g-ffe une cop e de cette autorisution, mais le dep6t de I'acte de vente suffit, Quand des billets k orcire ont ete vendus par le curateur. ^ " -^ ?- f ; • saire de deposer au gretfe copie ue lacte dc vente et de faire le. Gomoli'lated Siipplern'rit No. l.—Arts. ir>7S-1676. 415 annonces rcquises par Tarticle 1571c pour op^rer signification au .icbiteur de cos billets. Lem'ossement .In curutt>ur suflit pour op^rer V: transport des billets et il suffit k I'acheteur (roxhiber cet endosse- nient au d^biteur pour le notifier de la vente en question.— Paonuelo .] —Bantien va. Labrie, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 20. 1573. 1. Qu'un boa au porteur, pour une somme dargent payable aussitflt que le signataire aura collecto deux billets qui lui sont mis en mains, peut etre transports, sans transport regulier, et uue le porteur do ce bon peut en recouvrer le montant du signataire malgre qu'une saisie-arrgt lui ait ete signitiSo, avant Taction prise par le porteur de co bon et que ce n est pas k lui k faire disparaitre ectte saisie.— C. R.~Lamoureux vs. Roy, 18 R. L., p. 680. 2. The sale and transfer of instruments of no intrinsic value but evidence of value, as notes, bills of exchange, bank bills, bills of lading waichouse receipts, bonds and debentures, is not subject to Art 1487* 1488. 1489 and 1490 C. C. Such instruments, when payable to bear- er, require no other evidence of proprietorship than simple possession agamst which the only practically effective plea is bad faith in the holder, and the burden of proof is on the party who .sets it up. In the absence of such allegation and proof, the owners of debentures pledged, without authority, by their agent, as security for a loan to luniself by a broker, cannot revendicate them in the hands of the latter. The fact that, when they were pledged, the debentures had matured and were past due is immaterial and does not affect the right of ownership of those who, as the parties in this case, are not hable either as makers or endorsers for the payment thereof — Q B -McNider & Young, R. J. Q., 3 B. R.. p. 539. 1574. La signification au debiteur principal du transport d'une eieance, assurt^e par un cautionnement, suffit pour Her les cautions, malgre que le transport ne leur ait jamais Ste signifie.— C R — Llovd m. Muir, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 114. ' " 1576. 1. Le demandeur avait vendu une jument et un harnais au defendeur, pour le prix de $100, et avait reyu de ce dernier en paiement, un billet du m^me montant, signe en 1890 par un nommd Joseph A. Rowe, et payable au defendeur et non k Tordre de ce 'ie.nier. Jug^: ;— (Infirmant le jugement de la Cour de Circuit pour le comte de Huntington, Belavger, J.) Que le paiement de la crSance du demandeur par ce billet coustituait une vente de ce billet, et cette •!lf 4,16 Oonfiolvlntcd Suppl&tncnt No. I.— Art. 1577. vento etaiit faitc sans ^^amntic, lo (l/'tciidcur riV-Uit pas respons.U)!.! <1.- I'insolval.ilite du si<,niatain' dc cc Lillet. Quo la vonto di- ce billot, qui u'lHait pas un bill.-t a urdro, iiV-tait pas un« trariMactii.t. commrr- cialo mais un simple transport civil, ot (lue I'apposition, par U- iMtu- deur! de son ncni sur W. d«a du billet ne pouvait avoir I'etfot q...' d'autoriscr lo porti'ur a en retirer Ic niontant connnc procureur.— ( ' R._/i,MW' m Coivan, 11. .1. Q., (5 C. S., p. Kil 2 Qu'une personnc qui a deja achetc^ a renchere publiquc, d'lin curateur a une faillit.-. les livres et creances du faiUi, et qui fail revendn^ ces nioines creances a I'encan public par un enc-anteur, apr.N avoir fait dans les livres do fausses entrees ot avoir prepare une hstr faussc y incluant des coniptes (lui n'ont jamais cxiste on (pii avaient (ite paves sur laquelle liste la vente publique aurait eu lieu, counn.t «n dol surtisant i.our entacher la vente do nullit<^ et que cette vente seraannult.e.quand memeil sera prouve quelle a eu lieu sans -arant>. aucune.pas nuMuede rcxistence descr^ancos. -MArHIEU,.f.-Z>r,v(«/^ 7.8. Temler, M. L. H., 5 S. C, p. 102. 1577 1. Dans un acte de transport «runo creaneo, la clause, avcc !^onen'garantie simple, parce que Taction principale no cont.ont CoHHulldaU'.^i Siipfdeincnf Nd. /. — Art. /.ISH. 417 aucutio chose (lout If (l.''f(!nr a jomt action against the same Defendant, being recormized bv the civil law.-PAGNUi >,J.~McDonald vs. Rankm, M. L R. 7 S C p. 44. 4. Une convention en vertu de laquelle le defendeur s'^tait .■ngage k payer la somme de $500 si un tableau, attribue au Corr^o-, -lont il avait acquis la propriety pour un tiers d'interet, 6tait prou"ve' anthentique, cree une cr^ance d'une nature litigieuse, et lacquisition -le cette creance par le demandeur, huissier de la Cour Superieure est Mulle.-MATHIEU, J.~Eeed vs. Helhronner, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 363. 5. A right, though non-litigious in itself, may, if purchased with a view to obtain a standing for a contestation, become a litigious right which an advocate may not purchase.-ANDREWS S -In re (hmy, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 25. 15S4. 1. The exception in C. C. 1584 § 4, only applies to the par- ticular demand in litigation, which has been conlirmed by a iudar les tribunaux, un droit litigieax au sens des articles 1582 et suivants du Code Civil.-C. R.-Cha.rtrand vs. City of Sorel R J g ' 0. ,S., p. 337. . ' ' ■ • ^ qui les avait ordonnt^s, en echange d'efTets que I'insolvable lui avait hvres, anterieurement a la cession de biens, et qui ne lui convenaient pas, n'a pas d'action centre cette personne, pour le prix de cos etfets ainsi livres en execution de I'ordro donn6 a I'insolvable, mais n'a droit qu'aux marchandises que ces etfets remplacent— Q. B—Atuius (f- Watson, 17 R. L., p. 664. 1608, Quo le contrat en vertu duquel un propri^taire pormet h upp r,t , ,onne d'occuper un i.nmeuble a charge d'exercer une surveillance mi c t immeuble, d'administrer les mor'ins qui s'y trouvent et de :-- ;onneretloger ce proprietaire et sa familL. de temps a autre, constitue un contrat innome qui se rapproche plus du bail que de tout autre contrat et que les regies du louage s'y applique. Que dans ces circonstances, I'occupant a droit k un conge de trois mois avant de pouvoir etre expuls*^ de cette proprit^te.— Jette, J.—Bninet v.^ Berthiaume, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 416. 160». 1. That where a lease in writing is continued by tacit reconduction, the notice necessary to terminate it must be in writincr. -Q. B.—Lacroix cfc Fauteux, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 40. ° 2. Dans I'espfece les parties etaient sous I'impression qu'un bail consenti par le demindeur au defen.lour, se continuait de lui-mnne pour cinq ans k compter du ler mai 1893, tandis que cette contiaua- tion n'avait lieu que si le locataire en donnait un avis de trois mois aulocateur.cequiln'avait pas fait. Sous I'e.npire de cette erreur comtnune, le demandeur ne chercha pas un autre locataire et laissa memele D^fendeur sous-louer une partie de I'immeuble qu'il lui avait \onk-Jiigi, rconfirmant le jugement de la Cour Supdrieuro, Mathieu, J.) Que du silence du Demandeur avant I'expiration du bail on ne pouvait infdrer la tacite reconduction du bail consenti en faveur du defendeur.— C. R.—HicJcey vs. Eivan, R. J, Q., 6 C. S., p. 29. 1GI3. 1. Que le locataire qui prefere met fin au bail que dattendro que les premisses louees et qui auraient dfl lui etre livr^eg « une date fixe, soient terminees, n'a droit qu'aux dommages qu'il a IS '. i rfi-; a. IF 422 Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. IGl"^. pn soufFrir, pour pertes subies, par suite de preparatifs pour installa- t m et par la privation chvs lieux, qui faisaicnt lobjet du bail, quf pour I'espace do temps qui ' s'est ecoule cntro la date lixoe pour la livraison et I'institution de son action en resiliation du bail. — Q. B.— Evans & Moore, 1(5 11. L., p 008. 2. Where the lessee leased buildings in course of construction and, on taking possession of the same, also occupied and used, without o\ ejection on the part of the lessor, during nearly four years, a small shed, in rear of the leased premises, the shed, although not inentioned in the lease or shown in the architect's plans of the buildings, must b'i considered as an accessory of the premises leased and the lessor, by acquiescing in the lessee's occupation for so long a period, without claiming rent, had placed that construction upon the contract.— Q. B. —Myler A Styles, M. L. R., 4 Q. B., p. 113. 3. Where the lease stipulated that the lessee should have the us.- of a portion of the yard in rear of the building leased, which portion should be determined by the lessor, with right to the lessee to fence the same at his option, the lessor was not entitled, after the lessee had been four years in possession with the yard open, to erect a fence across the yard, more especially as the fence deprived the lessee (f light and air.— Q. B.— Myler & Styles, M. L. R., 4 Q. B., p. IKJ. 4. Where a house in course of erection is leased with promise of possession at a particular date, and the premises are not ready fi i occupation at the time stipulated, the lessee is justitied in refu.Mng to take possession, and is not liable for rent under the contiact. The presence of the lessee in the house leased, after the beginning of the terms of the lease, as a contractor employed to do certain work on the premi.ses, will not be considered an occupation or possession of the premises under the contract of hase.—C. R.— Riopd vn. St- Amour, R J. Q., 1 C. S.. p. 238. 5. Que malgre la stipulation que le locateur ne sera pas tenu de faire aucunes reparations, pas meme celles que la loi impose au pro- prietaire, la maison louee doit etre habitable et salubre, sinon, le locateur a le droit d'exiger les reparations necessaires pour rendre cette maison habitable, et, k defaut de reparations la faculte de lai.sser les lieux. Que. cependant, lorsqu'avant Taction le locateur a oil'ert de resilier le bail. Taction du locataire pour dommages et les frais sera renvoyee. — C. K — Bagg vs. Dachesneau, R. J. Q., 2 C. »..., p. '350. Consolid tted Supplement No. l.~AH. 1G13. 429 6 Under a plea of general issue, to an action by a lessee to resihate a lease, on the groumlthat the lessor leased [ho n!- .-uperieui.— 0. K-llemurd m. CM, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 82. « p m °" ■" ' "-''■ "^ - *"""" •" ^*-. «■ A! 5 a a Bion qu'un locatairo, qm !„„„ „„e conslmctio,, pour y cxercer nnprud.nnnent places au pren.ier etage de ..tte bAtir a L e n"ta pas assez totte pour les v suonorh..- W^^ t ^^^. 'aqueiu, n etait Allan, K J. Q, 5 C. S., I Til " ^'' ^"^^'^^"^«' '^.~lmreau vs. 161S. 1. Le fait que la maison avait besoin de certaines reoara M hat on du d>t bad, s. ces reparations a faire n'etaient pas connues du locateuret s, ensu.fce elles ont etc faites avec diligence -CR 'Scpnour vs. Smith, 83 L. C. J., p. lUS "'n„tnce. L.. K.— .n.^i::;:^^:r:dir:::f:r;^^^^^^ re'ou se tot r 'r' ^"^ ^' ^^^^ "^^^^P^"^^^' ^'^'-'^t HrsI R., 4 S. C... n. 210. ^^^^^^"N. J— i^/6•C'(/.^t; m Barrington, M. L I lil ■I i iii'^ i^; tt M 424 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1613. The above case was confirmed in the Court of Review by the following judgment. : — Que le locataire, qui a fait aux lieux loues des reparations n^ces. saires, a droit au reinbouraement des depenses qu'ulles lui ont coutei^s- quand merne il n'aurait pas ete autoris^ k les faire par un jugcmeiit de la Cour et qu'il a aussi droit k une diminution du loyer represcn- tant le dommage qu'il a souffort parccqu'il n'a pu jouir des lieux hmos au temps sp6cifie au bail, vu leur mauvais 6tat de reparations.— C. R. — McCaiv vfi. Barnvgton, 34 L. C. J., p. 78. 3. Que les toits.dans ce pays, doivent etre sufRsants pour suppor- ter une certaine quantite de neige, vu que les proprietaires ne peuvtnt esp^rer que les locataires tiendront toujours ces toits absoluineiit libres de neige pendant les grandes tempetes d'hiver.— C. U.— Evans vs. Straubenzie, 18 R. L., p.; 216. 4. Que le locataire n'a pas le droit de poursuivre pour reparations faites k la maison, avant d'avoir mis le proprietaire en demeure de faire les dites reparations.— RouTHlER, J.—Ginchereau vs. Lachanur, 16 Q. L. R., p. 117. 5. Que le locateur n'est responsable des dommages, envers Ic locataire, encourus par le mauvais etet des lieux, qu'apres avoir et(^ r^gulierement mis en demeure d'y faire les reparations n^cessaires. Que cette mise en demeure peut etre verbal, meme dans le cas d'un bail ecrit, pourvu qu'elle puisse etre prouvee legalement, soit par un commencement de preuve par ecrit, ou par aveu.— Champagne. D. M —Dicary vs. Laflmr, 13 L. N., p. 314. 6. Where leased premises are in such an unsanitary condition as to expose the lessee and his family to danger of disease, the lessee may abandon the premises, without an antecedent judgment of the Court. Where a complaint about the unhealthy condition of the premises is well founded, it becomes a landlord's clear and iinine- diate duty to relieve his tenant of danger to life and health, and lie cannot shelter himself behind a demand for a Sanitary Inspector's report. David.son, J. — Palmer vs. Barrett, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 446. 7. Que malgre la stipulation que le Mcateur ne sera tenu de faire aucunes reparations, pas meme celles que la loi impose au proprietaire, la maison lou^e doit etre habitable et salubre ; sinon, le locataire a le droit d'exiger les reparations uficessaires pour rcudru cette maison • Consolidated Supplement No. I. — Art. IGlJf.. 425 habitable, ot a dt-faut de reparations, la facnlto de laissor ies lieux. Que, cepondant, lors(ju'avant Taction, le locatonr a ottei-fc de resilier Ic bail. Taction du locataire pour dornrnages et Ies f'rais sera renvoyee. C. K—Bagg vs. Duchesneau, R. J. Q., 2 C. S„ p. 350. 8. See also case of Deatdt vs. Ledoux, noted in this Supplement, at article 1612, decision number 8. 1614. 1. Qu'en droit le locateur est tenu de la garantie, envers le locataire, a raison de tous Ies vices et defauts de la chose louee (jui en empechent ou diminuent Tusage, soit que le locateur Ies connaisse ou non. Que cette obligation donne au locataire uno action, (jui a pour but d'obtenir la r^.^iiiation du bail et la decharge du prix, mais qu'elle n'astreint le locateur aux dommages-interets soufferts par le locataire que si le locateur a connu Ies vices de la chose. Que, dans tous los cas, le locateur n'est pas tenu des vices apparents et dont le locataire a pu lui meme connaitre Texistence.— Tellier, J.— Pea<77i«7i vs. Lapierre, 18 R. L, p. 35. 2. The owner of a building is responsible for damages caused hy the falling or giving way of a portion of it, when the accident occurs, either from want of repairs or from a defect in the construction. The obligation of the lessor towards the lessee is similar to that of an owner. The wife of the lessee is entitled to invoke the conditions of the lease and the obligations arising from the relations of lessor and lessee, in an action for personal injuries suffered by her from the defective conditions of the lased pi-emises.— Tait, J. — Simmons vs. Elliott, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 182— Q. B.— 20 R. L., p. 666 ; 34 L. C. J p. 336 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B, p. 368. 3. Que bien que le locateur soit garant envers le locataire de tous Ies vices de la chose lou^e qui en empechent ou diminueritTusage, soit que le locateur Ies connaisse ou non, cela s'entend de la diminu- tion du loyer ou de la resiliation du bail, mais que le locateur ne doit des dommages au locataire que lorsqu'il connaissait le vice de la chose louee.— Pagnuelo, J.—Jideau vs.Magor, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 428. 4. Le locateur eat garant, non seulement des vices existants au moment du bail, mais aussi de ceux qui surviennent pendant la jouis- sance, et ce, lors meme qu'il n'aurait pas connu Its defauts caches des premisses louees. Le proprietaire est tenu de procurer la jouissance d'un logement sain et salubre et s'il ne le fait pas, celui-ci a droit de rc'iilier le bail, et d'abandonner Ies premisses louees, pourvu qu'il ait 1,1 hi. iMi ii \i{.. 426 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — ■Art. tdW. inforino le proprietaire ties defauts et I'ait mis en demeuro d'y leine- dicr, et (juo lo proprietaire ait refuse, ou nejrlige, do reparor.- Mais I'obligation de garantie ne setend pas au delt'i, et le proprietaire lu- pcut pas etre tenu responsablo des doiuinages soutferts par le loca- taire, par suite des defauts (ju'il a ignores lors du hail, (ju'cn ne lui n pas deuonces depuis, et qu'on ne I'a pas mi-, en (hiU'.ure do roparer. — RouTHiEU, J.— Benson vs. VuUiires, R. J. Q., G C. S., p. 245. 5. While, under article 1614 of the Civil Code, the lessor is obliged to warrant the lessee against .Jl defects and faults in the thing leased, which prevent or diminish its use whether known to the lessor or not, the effect of the obligation of warranty imposed on the lessor by this article is not to render him responsible to the lessee for damages resulting from the existence of such defects, where the same are un- known to the lessor, or where he is not, by reason of his profession or trade, bound to know their existence. In such case the recourse of tlie lessee is limited to a demand for resiliation of the lease, or for n diminution of rent proportionate to the diminution of the use of the premises leased, resulting from the existence of such defects. A stipulation in the lease, that the lessee shall suffer such large repairs to be made to the premises as may be deemed necessary, without demanding reduction of rent, only applies to repairs which may be- come necessary during the lease, and not to works necessary for the remedying of defects actually existing in the leased premises at the ail, et non en dominates. Lorsi|ui' le \ oisin aliiiMo de son droit do deinolir le inur uiitoyeu, le locataire |)riit reclanier des donimacres contre co voisin, etnon contre son locateur, cet abus constitnant une simple voie d(! fait. Les mois " le locataire est " obli*or f or the unexpired period of the lease extends to the effects of the lessee and also includes the effects of the under-tenant, in so far as he is indebted to the lessee, and so long as the sub-tenant has sufficient effects upon the premises to secure the rent payable by him to the tenant and the tenant leaves sufficient efTects to secure the difference, the principal lessor has no riirht to issue a saisie-gagerie for rent not due and exigible. Even where the under-tenant has bound himself to pay the tenant monthly in advance, it is sufficient if there are enough moveables upon the premises, including those of the under-tenant, to the extent of his obligation to the lessee, to secure VonHolidiUed Supplement No. I. —Art. 10 IH. 429 tlie whole rent for tho reinaiiuler of tho Imsu. — C R — Vinette m hmnetmi, M. L. R, 5 0. S.. p. ;U8; 1« R. L., p. «04 ; ;J5 L. C. J. p. 94.' 4. Tlio privilege of tho lessor subsists, so long as tliore has l.een no displacoment of the moveable effects sui)joct to it, or im r...„oval of tli".a out of his poss.-ssion and for eight days after such displacement or removal. It subsists on effects which the lessor, with the consent of an out-going t-nant, takes into his own possessi.,n as security f„r the amount of rent .hie— Wuutelk, J.- Will lavia Mfy. Co. w. WUlock I'! fj. N., p. 145. 6. Les ustensiles ot etfets saisis sur une personne pour fraudes et u.tractions aux lois du revenu de I'inte.ieur, et sujets couune tels a totitiscation, deviennent, du n.omentque la confi.scation est prononcio la propriete absolue de la couronne, qui jn-ut en .lispo.ser comu.e bon iu. seuible, nonobstant tout lien, droit ou privilege que les tiers peu- vent pr^tendre sur ieeux. Lorsqu'une saisie preventive a t^te faite sur im indivulu accuse de violation des lois du revenu. la couronne peut d.Muander, par opposition, qu'il .soit sursis a la saisie subsequento pra- tiquee k la poursuite du locateur des meubles (U\k saisis par les offi- ciers du revenu, jusqu'a ce qu'il soit adjuge sur la plainte de. -.fficiers 'iu revenu, et jusqu'k ce que la confiscation soit prononcee, le droit de la couronne, dans ce cas, priumnt le privilege du locateur —Q B — novipson <& Basconi, R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 483. -Mathiku J_R J y., 1 C. S., p. 307. , '■ ti.o. G. The Defendant, Plaintiff's tenant, became insolvent and assi- iimd to the Opposant, who took no po.ssession. Later, the Plaintiff sei- zed and sold Defendants effects, under a writ of attachment f<,r rent and on the proceeds the Opposant sought to be pair que, lors ilo la saisio, il no (it!vait rion au locataiic principal.— Maiiiieu, .i.—Aiinouif rs. Camidij, UJ K \,., \^. 454. 2. Senihlc : That whnro then* is a writton lease, witli proliiliitio'i to sub-lot, and the lossi-o remains in the premises after the term of tin original lease, the parties agreeing verbally to certain moditications the stipulation against sub-letting applies, and the effects of a suli tenant, who enters in contravention of such stipulation, becomes sub Ject to the principal lessor's privilege in the same manner as those ot any other third person. (This case is more fully noted in this Sup plement at article IGli), decision number '! )— C. R.— Vinette vs. Panneton, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. :U8 ; 18 K. I., p. «04 ; Sf. L. C. J., p. 94 3. Quo les effets d'un pensioiuiaire, dans une maison de pension ne sent pas sujets au privilege du locateur. — Champaone, D. M Bruneiiu v.-i. Berthlawttie, 18 L. N., p. 822. 14iS3. 1. Plaintiti" lea.sed a sewing machine to H., who was n tenant of the :)efendant. When H. left the premises leased by him from the Defendant, he left the sewing machine behind as security for the balance of I'ent then due. Held, that the privilege of the Df^fendant still subsisted un the machine.— WuHTELE, J.— Fi^^ian-s Mfy. Co. V.S. Willook, 18 L. N., p. 145. 2. Que le privilege du locataire, etanc base sur la presomption, in faveur du proprietaire, du droit de propri(^te du locataire sui' les meubles qui meublent la maison, ce privilege cesse d'exister, (juaiiil le proprietaire est informe que certains meuble.« qui garnissent la maison, n'appartionnent pas au locateur, Que les efFets d'un peii- sionnaiie, dans une maison de pension, ne sont pas sujets au privilege du locateur.— Champagne, D. M.—Briivcau vs. Berlhiawmc, 18 L. N.. p. 322. 3. Qu'une personne qui pensionne chez le locataire d'une niaisun et qui a notifie le locateur de cette maison qu'elle etait proprietaire de certains effets qui la garnissaient, peut faire distraire ces effets de la saisie-gagerie pratiqu^e par le locateur, ces effets etant censes n'etre sur les lieux qu'en passant, aux termes de I'article 1622 C. C. — 'I'as- CHEREAU, J. — Clarke vs. State, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 433. 4. Le proprietaire, qui renonce k son privilege de locateur en II' locateur eu Conmlldati'd Stipptement No. I. —Art. J6M:l 431 considomtion .lu hail d'un piunc. cnsmiti k son K,eatuir. ,.ar „„ ti.-rs pcut.klosp.mtion.lntmnostipuloen c« bail, reprcndr.. ,.fc ,.x.reor so,, pr,v,I....Ml.' l..cat.n.- snv c. piano, .fc sa renonciatic.n no s'^tondm pas ii la mnt,n«ati.,n do CO bail, on .l',,,, nonvoau bail du niano on .)uost,on.-()u,MKT, .l-Shmn vs. Mes.si,rr, R. J. (^., r, c. s., p. 4«i«. 5. Muvoabl.vs. bolongin. to a thinl party, plucod with his consent u, tho p,-o,n,ses loasod. hocon.o suljo. tto the lossor's p,.iviloKo fV.,-,-ont or the vvholo pe.-lod of tho lease, and such p,-ivile.e cannot bo dostroyod by the .>wno,-s dvin^. dn,-ing the pendency of tho lease, a Mot.ce to the lessor thaf 'n. c.nts aro not the propoi-ty of tho lesst.e A reply ,,, these wor is : " You ■ notice may pe,-haps avail for the luture bu not tor re;., duo t,, to date." cannot bo con.st,-,ied as « waiver by the lessor 01 h;,nghr upon such moveables for rent for th..' unexp,red portion o! he term. Where tho lease has more than one year to run, the fact that the lessor fakes his sai.ie.^a,n-i. for .xne years rent only and limits the conclusions of his declaration to t /T:."?T'*''.^° '■''^"'* '"' f^'''""^'^'« to that period upon tho effects of tlurd parties which, nay be on th., premises. The Ie.sso,-8 p,-,v,loge upon n.oveables garni.shing the lea.sed promises is .superior t<. that of the unpaid v.m.lor of such moveables. So, the latto,- who .s also le.s,sor, cannot apply to the payn.ont of his unpai.l clain'> the proceeds ot sale of sue), moveables, to the detriment of a third partv whoso effects a,-e also upon the pre.nises leased and would in case of ..on-payment of the ,-ent. become liable the,'.>fo,-. The lessor's consent to allow his debtor's effects to be sold by private auction, rather than h- a judical sale, will not pivjudice his claim upon the effects of third parties, also garnishing the premis..s, where it is not shown that the result was less favorable than would have b.6.ts et que le locateur n'est pas tenu de faire la recherche des etiets recel<3S, pour en operer la saisie-gagerie par droit de suite, mais qu'il es^ ("onde a exercer son recours par voie de capias du moment que le locataire ne lui divulgue pas I'endroit ou se trouvent les dits meubles. Jette. 1 —Mitcheaon vs. Burnett, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 260. Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 16^4. 433 5. Where the lessee is removing, or has removed, his effects from the leased premises, the lessor has a right to issue a saisie-gagerie to preserve his gage, whether any rent be actually due at the time or not. Davidson. J. — Dufaux vs. Morris, R. J. Q., 2 C. S,, p. 500. (). Lorsqu'un locateur a fait saisir-gager les meubles de son loca- taire, pendant que ce dernier ^tait dans sa maison, le nouveau locateur n'acquiert aucun privilege sur ces meubles, au prejudice du saisissant, ineme si ce dernier ne I'a pas notifie ; en consequence, un bref de sai- sie-gagerie par droit de suite est inutile et doit '',re casse, avec depens. — DoHERTY, J.—Chaussde vs. Christin dit ^t-Amour, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 40. 7. Lorsque les huit jours accordes par la loi pour pratiquer la saisie-gagerie par droit du suite expirent le ■ n-hV' . 434 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1634. une semblable action, sera renvoyee avec d^pens.— Q. B. — Lusifjnuu & Rielle, 16 R. L., p. 094 ; 32 L. C. J., p. 323 ; M. L. R., 4 Q. B., p. 2(54. 2. Que, depuis la inise en force du C. P. C, toutes los actions resultant des rapports entre locateur et locataire peuvent etre inten- t6es et jugees sous les dispositions des articles 887 et dusuivants C. R C — Mathieu, J. — Great North Western Telegraph Go. & Montreal Telegraph Co., 17 R. L., p. 203 ; M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 68.-Q. B.-20 11. L., p. 412 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 257.— Supreme Court.— 20 S. C. R., p. 170. 3. Que sous un contract de louage, oil le bail est authentique.fait pour cinq ans, le loyer payable $25 chaque mois, le locataire n'est tenu de garantir les lieux loues que pour les termes echus et le terino a 6cheoir.— C. B..— Lynch vs Reeves, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 23. 4. Que dans le cas d'un bail authentique, pour deux annees et neuf mois, payable $25 par mois, lorsque le locataire enlfeve les meu- bles garnissant les lieux lou6s, et qu'une saisie-gagerie est prise, par droit de suite, le 26 octobre, le locataire sera tenu de gamir les premisses jusqu'au mois de mai suivant. (This judgment was confirmed in Review— See note at foot of page 28 loc. cit.) — Bourgeois, J. — Longpri vs. Cardinal, M. L. R.. 5 S. C, p. 28. 5. Le locateur peut demander la r^siliation du bail, pour defaut de remboursement d'avances faites en vertu d'une clause du bail et ci- par recours k la juridiction sommaire du tribunal, comme pour defaut de paiement du loyer. — C. R. — Tessier vs Rousseau, 15 Q. L. R., p. 807. 6. Qu'un locateur ne peut demander en meme temps la resiliation du bail et les loyers k venir.— Champagne, D. M.— Vogelvs.Pelhim: 13 L. N., p. 107." 7. Qu'un locataire n'a pas le droit de laisser la maison, qu'il a lou6e, ferm^e et non chauffee et que, s'il le fait, c'est une cause (!>■ resiliation du bail. — Champagne, D. M.— Vincent vs. Samson, 13 h. N., p. 339. 8. An action under C. C. 1624, to recover possession of the pre- mises leased, when the lesseecontinues inpossession after the expiration of the lease, may be brought by the lessor under the provisions of C. C P. 887 et seq. Where, in an action to recover the possession of the I! Consolidated Suiyplenmit No. J.— Art. lb'2(J. 4,35 premises, a .lemand is joined for the value of tl.e use and occupation since the expiration of the lease, the action must be brou rht in tli(^ Superior, or the Circuit Court, according to the amount claimed — Q. B.—MeBean tt Blackford, M. L. U., (J Q. B., p. 27.3 ; 20 11 L p 397 —Supreme Couut— 20 S. C. R., p. 260. 9. Where pi-emises were leased " to be used and occupied only " for the purposes of conceits, lectures, fairs, bazaars, clubs, societies ■' public exhibitions and meetings in accordance with law," and the lessee sublet to parties, who used the premises for the' religious meetings of the Salvation Army, an organisation which wasobnoxi'us to a large portion of the inhabitants of the locality, and windows were broken and other damage was done to the property in conse- quence, and insurance was refused by the insurance companies on account of the increased risk, it was held, that there had been a chancre of destination sufficient to entitle the lessor to ol>tain the rescission of the lease.— Q. B.—Pignolet & Brosseau, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 77 ; 21 R. L, p. 1. 10, That where a lease contains a prohibition to sublet, the privilege of the lessor extends to all the effects of the sub-tenant which may be found on the premises. That where the lessee has furnished the leased premises sufficiently to secure the rent of the same, the lessor caunot prevent the lessee from making such disposition of' the remainder of his effects as he may see fit.— C. R.— Vinette vs. Panneton •My L. C. J., p. 94 ; M. L. R. 5 C. S., p. 318 ; 18 R. L., p. 604. 1636. 1. Decision number 6, noted at this article, (Hubert vs. Dorion), was confirmed in Appeal— 16 L. C. J., p. 53. 2. Que le loyer est qu^rable et qu'une saisie pratiquf^e, sans que ul, vu leur mauvais etat de reparations. — C. R.— McOav -• Barrngton, 34 L. C. J., p. 78. 3. See also case of Jacot^l vs. Gait, noted in this Supplement at C C 1041, decision number 4. 4. Premises leased for manufacturing purposes were damaged by lire. Subsequently the lessee visited the premises daily, during two (,r three weeks, while repairs were in progress, and t!ie repairs were fully completed about a month after the fire. The lessee did not protest for resiliation of the lease until fourteen days after the fire. Held, that the lessee was not entitled to obtain the dissolution of the lease, more especially as the legal presumption stood against him that the fire was due to his fault, or the carelessness of his watchman, who was proved to have been drunk at the time it occurred.— Davidson, J.— Pinsonneaidt vs. Hood, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 473. 5. Le locateur d'un Edifice elev^ renfermant des bureaux, qui communiquent a la rue au moyen d'un escalier et d'un ascenseur, n'engage pas sa responsabilite, vis-k-vis de ses locataires, pour avoir, pendant quelques jours, arrete le fonctionnement de cet ascenseur, —qui etait devenu en mauvais etat, — pour y substituer I'electricite, comme force motrice, a I'eau dont on se servait auparavant, si les travaux ont ^te executes avec toute diligence po;isible.— Cakon, J.— (hoke vs. Royal Insce. Co., R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. '»'«;. 6. Le n . ours du locataire contre '">n \ proprietaii •" isin a demoli le mur nv construction nouvelle et a, par la, rendu icur, lorsque le ])ro- pour y appuyer une :iaison inhabitable, est on ;hampagnk. Coasolidated Supplement A'o. l.—Avts. 1685-1G38. 439 .iiminution de loyer. ou en r^siliation du bail, et non en doir.mages Lorsque Ic vo.sin abuse de son droit de d^molir le mur mitoyen le loca aire peut reclamer des dommages contre ce voisin. et non contre son locateur, cet abus eonstituant une simple voio de fait-C R~ limsell vs. Clay, R. J. Q., 6 Q. S., p. (J2. • • • See also cases noted in this Supplement at C. C. 1613. 1635. 1. Que le propri^taire qui, au refus de son locataire d'en- ever la neige sur le toit de la maison lou^e, conune il est oblig^ par la lo,, fa.t enlever cette neige. pourra recouvrer du locataire les frais par lui faits pour cet enlevement.- Gill, 3.- Hudson vs. Bavnes 18 K. L., p. 81. 2. Que lobligation d'enlever la neige du toit des batisses louees lorsque, pour une cause quelconque, il devient ndcessaire de le faire' mcorabe au locataire, comme suite de ce qu'il doit jouir en bon pere de tannlle, et qu il est responsable des domn.ages qui resultent dc sa ne- gligence d accomplir cette obligation.-GiLL, J._ Hudson vs. Russell 18 K. L., p. 134. 3. Que le locataire est tenu de faire enlever la neige du toit de la maison lou^e et que.s; par sa negligence de le faire, le toit s'effrondre .1 e^st^responsable des dommages.- C. R.-Par^m Coghlin, 20 R. L.] 4. The proprietor of a house, fronting on a public street, is re-sponsible for accidents to the public, caused by snow and ice falling trom the roof, whether the house be tenanted or not. The injury caused by such a snowfall, being in the nature of a cjnasi-delit one co-propnetor may be sued alone for the damage, he having the right H 'f p"t n ''JT'''r^ '^ '" disposed.- C. R- Rancour vs. Hunt, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 74. 163S. 1 Que la prohibition de ceder le bail ou de sous-louer j).ut, .suivant les circonstances, s'interpreter comme ne prohibant que a cession totale du bail, comme, par exemple, lorsqu'il est admis que, ors du bail le locataire tenait, k la connaissance du locateur, maison d. pension dans les lieux loues et qu'il entendait les occuper apres le bail, pour les memes fin^.-MATHiEU, J.-Aimong rs. Cassidy 16 R. 2. 2. Que la f.aculte do sous-louer, avec le consentement ou lap- Hllli m 1^1 440 Consolidated Supplement No. t.—Art. W^O. probation du bailleur, est une ckuse ditf^rentc de I'interdiction do souslouer ou de c6der son droit au bail et que, si I'intera.ction^ d.. sous-louer doit ^tre interpr^t<5e rigoureusemcnt, il n'en est pas do menic de la clause accordant la faculte de sous-louer, avec le consenten.ent expres et par ^crit du bailleur ; que s'il en 6tait autrement, d aerait loisible au bailleur d'annuler le benefice de cette clause, en refusant, expresseinent et sans motif avouable, son consenteinent exprfes. Qui le locataire poursuivi en resiliation de bail, pour violation de cettf clause, pent, apres I'institution de Taction, et avant jugement, deu.an- der I'approbation du locateur, en payant les frais.— C. R.— Charbon- neau vs. Houle, K J. Q.. 1 C. S., p. 41. 3. Un locateur, sous un bail interdisant la sous location, sans son consenteinent expres et par dcrit, qui accepte des loyers d'un sous- locataire, et remet k ce dernier des quittances portant qu'il a reyu de lui des loyers en question, donne, par la, un consenteraent par ecnt a la sous-location.— C. K— Prdfontainc vs. Fortin, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 518. 4. Un sous-locataire, qui a lou6 malgre la prohibition de sous- louer, ne peutr^clamer I'exemption de saisie accordee par I'article 55(i du code de procedure civile, cette exemption n'etant etablie quVn faveur du debiteur.— De LoRiMiER, J.—Bartel vs. Desroches, K J. q., 4 C. S., p. 60. 5 Where the lease prohibits subletting, the acceptance of rtiit by the lessor from the sub-tenant and giving the la:ter receipts their- for in his own name, constitutes an acquiescence on the part of the lessor in the sub-lease, but does not discharge the original lessee from his obligation under the lease.-ARCHlBALD,J.-Josep/i vs. St-Oermnm- R. J. q" 5 C. S., p. 61. 1640. 1. La creance du locataire, pour cout des reparations ur-T^ntes et necessaires k la chose loude, faites du consentement du loclteur n'est que personnelle contre ce dernier ; elle ne confere aucuii privileo-e et ne donne, partant, pas le droit de retenir la chose apres I'expirltion du bail.-CASAULT, 3.— Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Andrews, 16 Q. L R, p. 378. ^ Des crlaces, plac^es par un locataire dune boutique, pour refl^cliir les marchandises et de maniere a etre deplacees, quoique tixees au moyen de vis, ne sont pas des ameliorations ou, additions quo le Consolidated Sitpplevient No. J.— Art. J64I. 441 locateur peut retenir, en vertu de I'article 1640 C. C, ou d'une clause du bail, ou il est stipuM que toutes los amolioratlons faites par le pre- neur resteront ia proprit^te du bailleur.— C. K— Parent vs. GaiUhier 17 Q. L. R., p. GO. 3. Le droit accord^ au locataire, par I'articlo 1640 du Code Civil, d'enlever.avant I'expiration du bail, los ameliorations et additions (lu'il a faites k I'immouble par lui loue, peut etre exerc6, non seuleniont centre son locateur, mais meme contre un tiers auquel ce locateur vend Timmeuble. Ce droit peut etre ainsi opposd k I'acquereur, sans avoir et6 enr^gistr^. Celui qui achete un inimeuble, sur lequel un locataire a construit une batisse, doit lui permettre d'enlever cette batisse, quand meme le droit de ce faire no lui aurait pas et6 reserve par I'acte de vente.— C. R.—Les Frirea des Ecoles Chretiennes vh Hough, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 471. 4. Le droit accord^ au preneur et k ses ayant cause, dans un bail k vie d'un terrain, d'enlever, k la fin du bail, ou pendant sa duree, les batisses que le preneur y aura construites, est un droit exclusivenient mobilier ; et par consequent, un creancier qui veut faire s! -sir et vendre telles batisses doit y proceder comme pourlasaisie et vente du bail meme, par voie de saisio mobiliero. L'enregistremont de titres a '" propri^te n'a pas besoin d'etre renouvel^.— C. K—Duchesneau > . Bleau, 17 Q. L. R., p. 349. 1641. 1. Que le d^fendeur peut lai-sser les lieux loues, par bail authentique, apres avoir p'otest^ le deinandeur, par acte authenticjue, d'avoir a y faire les reparations nece.ssaires, vu leur etat d'insalubrite,' lorsqu'il y a danger imm^diat pour la vie de la femine du locataire, et sans qu'il soit necessaire de poursuivre prealablement le proprietaire pour obtenir la permission de faire les reparations a sa place. Que, dans ce cas, le locataire a droit k des dommages et peut men; : oi.i- penser les dommagcs reels qu'il a .soufferts avec le loyer eclm^a.squa son depart.— Champagne, D. M.—Fyfe vs. Lavalliere, 12 L. N.,"'p. 147. 2. Le fait que la maison avait besoin de certaines reparations, an moment du bail, n'autorise pas le locata-re k demander la resiliation du dit bail, si ces reparations k faire n'^taient pas connues du locateur et si en.r75te elles ont ete faites avec diligence.— C. K—Seymour vs Smith, 33 L. C. J., p. 165. ^\\\ 3. Le locataire, qui est trouble dans la jouissance de la chose ill iMif ,J:- M.T(Si; f pi ;■ ; i ■ N '' ' ' ! 1. ,,1 ^ ^:M Hi .;1:;v; -^ ii> 'frSr «# : l-i' ' ! « 1 ' 442 CovHolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. IG^J. lou^e, par des acto'? hVitimes du gouverneuujtit, inais qui n'en est pan al)solunH*nt r Kf : ''f. 'Ii> f qu'a unc ,iidition as to expose the lessee and his family to danger of disease, the lessee may abandon the premises, without an antecedent judgment of the Court. The landloi'd, before the institution of the action to resiliate the ii ase, which was in notarial form, had been verbally notified of the highly unsanitary condition of the premises and liad n'ceived too Sanitary Inspector's written i otice to put the premises in order, but refused to consent to the cancellation if the lea.-iC and took no steps to repair the defect; • drains durin' the three months which intervened between the service of the writ and the trial of the case. — IlelK that, under the circumstances, the landlord could not complain of the absence of a r t,)\,;al or other written proto-^-t, putting him in default to repair the premises. — Davidson, J. — Paimer vs Barrett, M. L. R., 6S. C.,p. 446. 7. Que lorsiju'une m^i' ^.on louee est insalubre, par suite de Ihunii- dite causee par un draii. ii -ffisant et est, (• ^nnse de c<'lu, jugee inhabitable par les med is, a lieu a la resiliation du buil a la demande du locataire. — Lorangek, J. — Brennan vs. Idler, 35 L. C. J., p. 120. 8. Lorsqu'une maison est devenue inhabitable, par suite d'un vice de construction,— dans I'cspfece pareequ'il n'y avait pas de connexion e de I'humi- ! c<'lti, jugee Consolidated Supplement No. l.—A.ia. l6Jf'2-tr>eO. 443 onfcre les 6viers et I'dgoftt de la rue,— ot (lu'aprfes avoir i5t6 averti, 1« t-ailleur n^glifro de faire les travaux n(''cossaires pour rendre cette inaifwn habitable, le locatain- peut abandonner les lieux louos et, pour- suivre le locateur en r^ailiation de bail et en donimagea.— Q. 15,— Thibault & Pari, R. .F. Q., 3 R, R., p. 48. 9. Quand une maison, sana etre inhabitable, est insalubre, le loca- tiire ne peut pas doinander lar(''siliation du bail, niaisseulnuentque le Idcateur soit condamn^ a faire lea reparations necessairea pour rendre la maison aalubre.— C. K~Belanger V8. De Montiuny R. J O G (J S., p. 523. ■ ^■' lO-ia. Article 1642 of the Civil Code doea not apply to the lease and hire of personal s. ices.— Wurtkle, J.—Paquin ca. City of thdl. 11 L. N., p. 355. "^ -^ Quun bail verbal, fait pour un temps inddtermin^, a tant par iiiois, est presume mensuel, et qu'un avis d'un raois snffit pour per- mettre au locataire de laisser les lieux loues.— C. \i.~~Mathieu. vs. >iilver8tone, \H R. L,, p. 26(). 1655. Where a renewal of a lease for a second term was condi- tional on the proper discharge by the lessee of certain duties and obli- irations during the; first term, it was competent to the lessors, at the expiration of the first term, to invoke the lessee's neglect of such duties PS a ground for terminating the contract, without having made formal ' '.laint previously. -C. R.~ -PrMdent d- Syndics de la Commune iprairie vs. Bissonnctte, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 414. 1657. Que le conge donne, par un locataire, apres le premier I'evrier pour le premier mai, est tardif et sans effet. Que la preuve t'fstimoniale d'un cong^ de deloger verbal ne peut valoir pour mettre iin h la ta(;ite reconduction d'un bail.— Q. B.—Lu R. L, p. 19. tix cv; Fnuteax, 21 1658. That where a lease in writing is continued uy tacit r"Conduc;tion, the notice necessary to terminate it must be in writing. Q. B.—Lacroix & Fauteux, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 40. 16({0. Que le locataire d'une bfttisse, detruite pour partie par un incendie, peut, sans faire prononcer la resiliation du bail, obtenir une reduction complete d'ur certain temps dn loyer, pour I'indemniser des pertes qu'il eprouve— LouANGEu, J.— Tardif V8. Balmoral Hotel Co 20 R. L., p. 224. m I i^P y ■ ■ Mf!l,?hn - HH IHIH Effi|]' ^^^^^H HH ^H H^P 1 1 444 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — ArU. I(i6.i-1668. 100:t. I. Quo I'acquereur d'un immoublo louo et en ineine temps COflsioniiairo des droit du locateur resultant dii bail, n'a pa-s d'actii'ii contra le locataire, s'il ne lui a pas fait sii,MuHer son acto d'acquisition — C. K—D'AvnlavH m Lochead, 'Y.\ L. C. J., p. 34. 2. Le ii'ssionnairo d'un locataire principal, >|ui a sous-loue xww partio des lieux loues, inali(r6 une prohibition do sous-loner dans ii bail, et qui a ensuite acquis du locateur principal la propriety de cos lieux, n'a pn8 d'action contre le sous-locataire pour le faire evinccr avant I'expiration tin sou3-bail.— Q. B.—Hoatjh tfe Cowan, R. J. Q. 2 B. R., p. 1.— Casault, J.— R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 90. 3. L'acquereur j\ titro sinfruHer d'une propri6t<^ lou6c, pour plus d'un an,t\, un loc.itaire, qui n'a pas enregistre son bail.n'est pas obli<,a'. dans notre droit, de signifier conge k celui-ci. — C. R. — McGee rs. Laroehelle, 17 Q. L. R.. p. 212. 166G. As to masters and servants— See Vol. p. II, p. 618. 166S. 1. Decision number 22, noted at this article, (Dick rs. Canada date Co.) was confirmed in Appeal.— 34 L. C. J., p. 73 ; IH R. L., p. 555. 2. Where the time of the engagement of an employee is inde- terminate, neither the employer nor the employee has the right ti. terminate it without giving notice to the other, with the delay fixol by law for the locality, or, when none is fixed, with a reasonabl.' delay, and, in default of such notice, the party breaking the contract is liable in damages to the other, unless the conduct of the other gavi- reason for an immediate resiliation of the contract. While this ml.' of law does not apply to the public officers or functionaries of a municipal corporation, it applies to their ordinary employees.— WUHTELE, J.—Paquui vs. City of Hidl, 11 L. N., p. 355. 3. Qu'un domestique, paye au mois ou a la semaine, qui laisse le service de son maitre, sans lui donner I'avis voulu par la loi et sans raison suffisante, perd ses gages dus au moment de son depart. Qui- si, d'un autre c6t6, il ne quitte son service que du consentement de son maitre, ce dernier doit lui payer ce qui est dii et echu.— Champa- gne, D. M. — McPherson vs. Stevens, 12 L. N., p. 203. 4. Que I'avis requis par le Statut de Quebec, 35 Vict., ch. 12, sec. 7, pour terminer I'engagement d'un v tituteur. doit etre donne par le Conmliiinted Supplement No. l.~Art. KiOS. 445 secr^tairo cc.nfor,„e,nont a uno resolution des conuni.ssaires. et, qu'4 ■ lekut do telle resolution et do la preuve que I'avis donn6 a ^t6 sLe par le sucretaire. I'engujronient sera consich^r^ continue -Q B_C'ow- vimmren d'Eeole ,k tit-Dominique .(■ Deameub, 17 K L n 84 • K, Q. L. R. p. 226 ; 20 R. L., p. 243. ^" ' 5. Qu'une disposition contenue dans rengap.nient d'un institu- teur. hut dans le cours de lannee scolaire, pendant laquelle il ensei-ne- q.. 1 larssera 1 6coh a la fin de I'annee. sans qu'il soit n^cessaire" de. m dormer I avis de deux ujois requis par le Statut do Quebec 35 ' , ";■•,'• !.^' ""''• ''" ^''^' """^' ^'t q"« «i los Cominissaires le renvoiont i la hn de 1 ann6e, sans lui avoir donne lavis requis par la loi, ils sunt responsa hies des domnmges soufferts par Tinstituteur et consistant dans Ja difference entre le salaire annuel de I'instituteur et le salaire qu.l aurait pu gagner.s'ilprouve qu'il aurait pu avoir une autre ^cole Hilleurs^Q B.-~Covimissaires dEcole pour la Uunicipalitd du VomU de Ttngwick db Walsh, 16 R. L. p 34. ^ u 6. Que I'agent salari6, qui est renvoy6 sans raison, a droit k sa c..mini8S,on pour le temps convenu.--Q. B.-Bell Telephone Co. & Shnner, 17 R. L., p. 350. 7. Que le p^re d'un apprenti mineur est justifiable de rompre I .-ngagement do son fils. lorsque le nmitre transports sa boutique dans u.ie autre locahte, enlevant ainsi au p^>re toute surveillance sur son .ntant-TASCHEUEAU, J. -Gravel vs. Malo, 33 L. C. J., p. 115. 8. Qu'un employe (louago de service) dont l'engag..nK,nt est k Ia.m6«, niais payable chaque mois, a droit k uno ann^e de ga-e lors- quil est renvoye de ses fonctions, sans cause ndcessairc-Q* B 1 dmm. des chnnns ^ Barri^res de Montreal & Ridle 34 L T 1 n 107 ; M. L. R, 6 Q. B., p. 53._Ou.met, J._M. L. R. 5 k C. p. 1 9. Qu'un instituteur, qui n'a pas re9u i'avis de deux mois exia^ 'T info'; ^^ ^" ^*''*"^ '^" <^"^^^« d^ 1871. 35 Vict. (S. R Q nrt. 2028) et qui est renvoy^ a I'expiration de son engagement a droit k son salaire pour I'annee suivante et les commissaires ne peuvent so decharger de cetto obligation en lui ofFrant un autre ecole 7^" 7if?r^ r^"''' ''^ ^'^ P'*''^^''' ^' St-Oeorges de Clarenceville d: (.anfield, 18 R. L., p. 297. 10 Que le fait, par un commis, de declarer, en plusieur circons- tonces, i ses creanciera qn'il up 1p« pnxroU ^^^^ „„_^..„ . ., 1 — -__ |..._^.,..^. j^a^, parccque sou maitre mm 446 Consolidated Supplement No. J. —Art. 1668. 6tait gene et ne lui payait pas son salaire— ce qui etait faux— consti- tue une violation de son engagement et le rend passible de renvo,.-^ 0. n.—Ro!jer vs. Roy, 20 K L, p. 323. 11 Qu'un ouvrier, engage pour un teuips Hxe et a prix fait, qui est deelmrge, sans raison suffisante. avant I'expiration de son engagc- Tuent a une action en donimages contre son patron et que la mesur des dommaaes, dans ce cas. est le montant du salaire convenu pour tout le ternTe de rengagement a partir de la date du renvoi.-LoHAN- ,,Eu J —Bonneau vs. Montreal Watch Case Co., M. L. R. b h. L., ]<. 426.'-Q. B.-R. J- Q- 1 B. R., p. 433. 12 That a journeyman shoemaker, engaged to make boots and shoes at so much per dozen, falls within the provisions of 14-15 Vict. ch 128 and the by-law of the City of Montreal, passed in accordance therewith, and may be punished for desertion fr;om the service of h.s employer as therein provided.-PAGNEULO, .}.-Gagmsr vs. DeMontt- 15 Dans une defense k une action pour renvoi de service, il ne suffit pas de dire que ce renvoi a ete motive par la ne^gligence gn.s- siere et coupable du demandeur dans I'administration de sa charge et particulierement en rapport avec les recettes et les depenses d argent, ainsi que le fait voir une audition des livres du detendeur, depms la cessation des services du demandeur, mais que la defense do.t an ' i I 'I I • i I! II Consollidated Supplement No. /.-Arts. WU9-W7U. 447 moins alleguer que cette audition a ete consi^mee par ecrit et en offrir le rapport, ou expliquer en quoi eonaistent les actea de ne-licrence grossiere e coupable purtes a la charge du denmndeur.-LoaA^OEH ■^.-benecalvs. Ike Montreal Turnpike Trust, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. l(ii.' 16. Le demandeur avait et6 renvoye, par la compagnie defenrle- resse pour avoir refuse, a la denmnde du g^rant, de certifier, apres un incendie, qu une assurance avait ete transportee dun endroit a un autre alors .jue de fait aucun transport n'avait ete fait, et pour avoir donn6 ^ la compagnie avis de ces Mi..-Jucje, (confirmant le juge- ment de la Cour Superieure, /e«.V.)-Que ce renvoi ^tait injustilx- ble et que le demandeur, qui avait eprouv^ des dommages par suite de son renvo, ^tait bien fonde k r^clamer, a titre d'indtmnit^ trois moKs de salaire.-C. K~Cl4n,ent vs. Pluenix Insce. Co., R. J Q 6 C S., p. 502. ^ ' ^' 17. ^^^'^^o case otLabergc vs. The Equitable afeAs.surance Go notea m this Supplement, at article 1670, decision number 10. A Z-?®?' ^"'"" ^"g^g^'^ent verbal, en vertu de I'article 5617 S R Q.. doit etre fait en presence de temoin, autre que le maitre ou son epouse. Ces dernierssonttemoinscompetents pour prouver le d^lit -le desertion mais ne le sont pas pour prouver lengagement. Le conditions de 1 engagement, mais seulement dans le cas daction pour .mlaireparlesdomestiques ou serviteurs de ferme.- Desnoyeu. J b. P.— Major vs. Lahelle, 12 L. N., p. 399, 1670. 1. Qu'un ouvrier, travaillant k Theure, qui quitte sans raison suffisante, le service de son patron, n'a pas droij de reclamer le pa™t de ce qui lui est dft imm^diatemtnt en partant, mais qu'il doit attendre lejour ordinaire de la paye. -Champagne, D. M-Ld v^. Tremblai/, 12 L N., p. 203. 2. Que I'ouvrier pent etre tenu responsable des dommages causes son patron dans lexecution des ouvrages qui lui sont ordonnes de taire, lorsque ces dommages sont causes par sa faute, sa negligence ou par son incompetence: mais pour le rondre ainsi responsable il n. taut pas que ces dommages aient ete causes par une cp use im- putable au patron. Que lorsqu'il est prouv^ que I'instrument fourni u demandeur, par la defendoicsse, etaii. impropre a louvrage en q.estion et que d autres ouvriers avaient ^galement travaiU^ au if ■■ ; 1 !M1 448 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1070. meme ouvrage, le patron n'a pas d'action en dommage.— Champagnk. \) M.—Gremore vs. City Printing Co., 13 L. N., p. 68. 3. Qu'ime pcrsonne (lui cinploio des ouvriers k I'hauie et lour donno un billet, marquant le nonibre d'heures faites, au lieu de tenir des livres et ensuite les paic le samedi suivant les billets present^s, no pent pas refuser le paienient du temps fait, parce que I'ouvner aurait perdu ses billets ; il en serait autrement, si Ton prouvait une conven- tion fornielle entre le patron et I'ouvrier que le paiement ne se ferait que sur prfeentation des billets ; une entente tacite, ou une coutume. n'est pas suffisante.-CHAMPAGNE, D. M.-ValUe vs. Cannon, 13 L. N., p. 85. 4. Qu'un manufacturier, qui eniploie des ouvriers, a le droit de faire pour la r^^ie de sa manufacture, des r^glements qui lient le,s ouvriers qui les connaissent, entr'autres, d'imposer des amendes a ceux qui arrivent tard a Touvrage.— CHAMPAGNE, D. M.—Boyer vs. Slater, 13 L. N., p. 274. 5 Le mineur pent valablement sengager comme apprenti, sans lassistance de son tuteur ; son contrat n'est pas nul de plein dn.it, mais seulement annulable pour lesion.— Desnoyers, J. S. P.- Major vs. Lahelle, 12 L. N., p. 399. G. Que les patrons ont le droit de faire des reorlements pour la re<'ie de leurs employes et que ceux-ci doivent s'y souraettre ; nean- moins ces reglements ne tient les employes que lorsqu'il est prouv6 qu'ils en ont eu counaissance et s'y sont soumis. Cettepreuve incombe aux patrons.-CHAMPAGNE, D. M.-Sigouin vs. Montreal Woollen Mills Co., 14 L. N., p. 2. 7. The Plaintiff, who had been in Defendant's employemcnt for several years as a traveller, at an annual salary and commission, took a trip to England with his employer's permission. He carried no samples with him and effected no sales while absent. Ho also paid his own expenses, which were allowed him when he travelled on liis employer's business. After his return, he claimed salary for the six weeks during which he was shsent-Held : It was for the Plaintiff to prove that he was entitled to his usual salary during an absence of sucli length, and such proof not being made, the action was dismissed. C U.—Dwyer vs. Barrington, R. J. Q.,4 C. S., p. 138. 8. Une commission de constable, accord^e par un juge de paix k ;hampagne. Cunsolidated (Supplement No. J.— Art. JC7J. 449 une personne, aux tormes de I'articlo 2587 dcs statuts refontlua de Quebec, ne conffere a cette personpo le droit d'ox^cuter que les ordres du juge de paix menie (|ui accorde telle commission. Dans respece Ic demandeur ayant fait des debourses, pas et d(5marches, a la requi- sition speciale du dei'endeur lui-memo, a droit k une compensation raisonnable comme valeur de tels debourses et pas et demarelies.— De Lorimier, J.—Normavdeau vs. Desjurdivs, K J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 9. In an action of damages, by an employee against his employer for .. 20 R. L., p. 321. 4 L'appelant avait pris place sur un des chars de la compagni.. intim6c Ce char etait ouvert et il y avait de chaque c6te une rampe ou marchepied. L'appelant s'etait d'abord inis sur le P—r siege en avaut, mais. s'y trouvant incommode par le soleil, il descendit su le marchepied et se dirigea vers I'arrierede la voiture. en saccrochant des mains aux poteaux du char. Pendant qu'il se trouvait ainsi ,sur le marchepied.il fut frappe par un char de i intimee^ venant avec arande vitesse. en sens contraire, et blesse gnevement. I n y avait a f endroit de I'accident qu'une distance de trois pieds et trois pouces entre les deux voies, ce ciui ne laissait entre les marchepieds des d.ux char, qu'une espace de sept pouces. La compagnie plaida que le .nar- chepie^ etait reserve a ses employes et que le public n avait pas le droit de s'y placer, mais on n'avait pas averti l'appelant de ne pas se tenir sur ce marchepied. aucune afiiche surla voiture ne mettut le public en garde contre le danger de s'y mettre, et il tut demont e, a, contraire, que la compagnie permettait aux voyageurs de sy teni . W -Qu'il y avait la faute de la compagnie detenderesse qui enga- 2 isarespon'sabilite civile. Que iarticl. 1675 du code civil sap- ;Uque au transport des voyageurs, comma au voiturage des jn^-eliai. dises.— Q. B.—Carriere & Montreal Street Railway Co., K. J. Q., - ^■ K., p. 399. t alongside the port of needs it, in ,!• sailing of )ad of deals i would he de, and the fternoon, at ird, to coni- the carrier —Taylor ry. idement mis pu, de suite, , droit a des conducteur lifie Ry. Co.. I coinpagnie e une ranipe remier siege lescendit sur s'accrochaiit /ait ainsi sur , venant avec [1 n'y aviiit k trois po'u•e^■ eds des deux la que le niar- 'avait pas le de ne pas se le niett^iit !c demontre, au de s'y teiiir. 3sse qui enga- de civil s'ap- des marchaii- R. J. Q.. -2 1^. Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1676 . 4,51 See also cases noted at article 1053, under the heading of Railway Accidents. leys. 1. Que le voiturier est responsable des domraages causes aux choses transport^es, par sa faute, ou celle de ses employes.— Q. B —Ommet & Canadian Express Co., 17 R L n 995 . -m t r l r> .S19;M.LR,5Q. B.,p 292. ' " ""' " - '^- ' ' ^- P" 2. A railway company is not liable for damages caused to the owner of baggage, lost or delayed on the railway, nor for expenses incurred by him in looking after the baggage, the measure of damao-e bemg the value of goods lost. When baggage has been found, after suit has been issued and has been accepted by the owner, the railway company is only responsible for the taxable costs incurred up to date of delivery.— WuRTELE. J.- Prot'enc/tcr vs. Canadian Pacific Ry M.L. R, 5 S. C, p. 9. • •'" 3. Que le voiturier, qui transporte des objets perissables, est tenu d user d'une grande diligence pour la livraison et que, sur le defaut par le consignataire, de les recevoir, il doit, si la cliose est possible' donner avis k I'expediteur, sans delai, et que son defaut de ce faire le rend responsable des dommages.-PAGNUELO, J.-Gauvrmu vs. Domi- nion Express Co., 18 R L, p. 301. 4. It is sufficient for the shipper to prove the reception of the goods by the carrier and that they have not been delivered to the consignee, to place upon the carrier the burden of proving that the loss was caused by a fortuitous event or irresistible foree, or has arisen from a defect in the goods or things itself. The fact tliat the l)ill of lading contained a clause exempting the carrier from responsi- Ulity for " the acts of God, the Queen's enemies, fire and all and " every the dangers and accidents of the .seas, rivers and navigation • of whatsoever nature and kind," does not necessarily cast the burden uf proof on the Plaintiff, .so far, at least, as to oblige him to make proof of the carrier's negligence by his evidence in chief. The exception " dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation of whatsoever nature and kind," covers only such losses as are of an o\traordinary nature, or arise from some irresistible force, which cannot be guarded against by the ordinary exertion of human skill and prudence. The sinking of a steamer, at the entrance to a canal on a calm, clear night, was not such an accident.— Q. B.— Richelieu (i- Ontario Navigation Co. ,t- Fortier, M. L. R., 5 Q. B p 224. • 18 R L p. 83 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 9. llihjli! 452 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1675. 5 Qu'une compagnie de bateaux transatlantiques qui, apres Varriv^e du vaisseaa au port, dans la province, consent a garder les offets du voyageur jusqu'a ce qu'ils aient 6t6 examines par les officiers deladouaneetmetceseffets dans ses hangars, en demeure respon- .able comme voiturier et corame d^positaire n^cessaire. (fins deci- «ion was confirmed in Appeal and is noted as decision number 11 at this article).-PAGNUELO, i.— Davidson vs. Canada Slapinng Co., 19 R. L., p. 58 ; M. L. R, 6 S. C, p. 388. 6 Que le consignataire de marchandises n'a pas droit de refuser de les recevoir du voiturier, qui s'est oblig6 > L«r I'art. 1676 C. C, et par I'acte des chennns de ter, sec. 24(., par ;'. » r les avaries aux marchandises ayant et6 caus^. . avant leur T^cev'^on par Tintimee a Prescott, elle nen est pas responsable.-Q. H. —Gauthier & Canadian PaciAc Ry. Co., R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 13b. 1677 Que les effets d'un voyageur, dont le voiturier est respon- sable, peuvent comprendre les articles de peu de valeur que le voya- geur apporte avec lui, comma presents k ses amis et les hardes de sa femme voyageant avec IuL-Pagneulo, J.-Damd«on vs. Canada Shipping Co., 19 R. L., p. 558 ; M. L R., 6 S. C, p. 388. 167» 1 Que le voiturier, qui tranporte par eau une certaine quantite du bois de sciage, a droit de retenir le bois transportejns- qu'au paiement du fret et do pratiquer sur ce bois, apres quil la de- Lque sur le quai, une saisle-conservatoire, pour assurer ««" Prjvilege. —Mathieu, J.-Varieur vs. Bascony, 17 R. L., p. 105 ; M. L. K., o b- C, p. 123. 2 A carrier, who has put the thing transported in the pu,'- ticular place specified in the contract of carriage, is not consulere. o have'thereby disposessed himself of it, and his nght ot retentu ,, under Art 1679 C. C, until he is paid for the carnage, still ex,.st. and may be asserted by conservatory seizure a|--^parties clai,,nng title by purchase.-C. U.-Groulx vs. W^Lson, R. J. Q., 1 O. b., p. ^^^ Connolu Idled Supplemevf No. l.—Artn. 1686-1688. 457 3. Lo voihirior no pout reclam e: C'^ <.>!. r Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \ iV ^ :\ \ •<* <^ 458 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 1G90-1C91. Mtt' the rebuilding, the cost of which is claimed by the principal action, became necessary through defects in the architect's plans and specifi- cations and not otherwise. — Davidson, J. — Royal Electric Co., va. Wavd A Walbunk, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 383. 4. Le constructeur ne pout se d^fendre contre I'acHon dirig^e contre lui, par le proprietaire d'un edifice construit contraireraent aux regies de I'art, en alleguant que les vicea de construction de I'edifice eii question provenaient de defauts du plan de I'architecte, sur lequcl plan I'edifice avait etc construit, le constructeur et I'architecte etant responsables de ces vices de construction conjointeniGnt et solidai- rement. — C. R. — The Royal Electric Co. vs. Wavd, K. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 398.— De Lorimieh, J.— 1 R. de J. p. 372. 1690. 1. Decision number 5, noted at this article, was rendered in the case of Roy vs. Huot. 2. La preuve, par les voies ordinaires, d'augmentation reclamees par un entrepreneur est admise, et I'cxception de I'article 1690 du Code Civil n'a pas lieu, si I'entreprise de construction ne reunit pas lea conditions d'etre a forfait et suivant plans et devis. — C. R. — Corriveaii vs. Roy, 15 Q. L R., p. 90. 3. Art. 1690 C. C, which requires an authorization in writing to eistablish a claim arising from any change in plan, or increase in labor and materials, applies only between the proprietor and his architect or contractor . and not between a contractor and his sub-contractor. — DoHERTY, J. — Robert vs. Ckartrand, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 339. 4. Un contrat pour la construction d'un edifice, qui stipule que les travaux scront faits suivant les plans et devis " et aussi en " conformity avec telle description et details qui pourront etre soumis " aux entrepreneui's par I'architecte au cours des ouvrages," constitue un veritable forfait et tombe sous I'op^ration de I'article 1690 ducode civil. — jETTifi, J. — Barsalouvs. Mainvllle, R, J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 346. 1601. 1. Qu'un partie a un contrat de louage d'ouvrage ne peut mcttre fin au contrat, sans le consentement de I'autre, et sans I'indern- niser.— Q. B.—Longtin «,/Vesjie d- Pr^fontaine, noted in this Sup- plement, at article 2013, decision number 1. 2. The privilege of a person, who has a lien upon an article for re- pairs, e. (J., a carriage maker for repairing a carriage, is lost, if he voluntarily gives the possession of the thing, without exacting pay- ment of his del.t— DoHEKTV, J .—Carbonneau vs. iMachabee, R J O 6 C. S., p. 92. 1696. 1. Que lorsqu'unouvrier, employed la journee, pour faire (les reparations a une batisse, a le controle et la direction absolue do tons les ouvra,ges faits par lui k cette batisse et du choix des mate- riaux qui y sont employes, il est responsable des travaux vicieux qui peuvent txister, ceux qui exercent un metier devant le connaitre et etant tenus du travail vicieux qui est I'effet, soit de leur negligence, soit de leur ignorance.— Q. B.—Tousignant ifc Boiteau. 20 R. L., p. 28o! 2. L'entrepreneur ne pent se liberer de la responsabilit^, pour la mauvaise execution de I'ouvrage, en plaidant qu'il I'a fait d'apres les' ordres et la direction du proprietaii e. Les mots " qui se chargent de • quelque ouvrage " de I'article 1696 du code civil, indiquent que le l^gislateur n'a pas seulement determine la responsabilite de l'entre- preneur lorsque ce dernier construit un " edifice," mais aussi lorsqu'it entreprend d'autres ouvrages, v. g. un aqueduc— RoUTHlEU, J -- Ro- herge vs. Talbot, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 451. 1697. Note :- This article is modified very substantially by the hens given to workingmen and others, under what is known as the "Auge law," and which amended articles 1994, 2009, 2013 and 2103 of the Civil Code. These amendments are noted in full in this Sup- [jlement at those articles. 1701. A person who sells goods, in reality for himself, but appar- ently as agent for another person, whom the agent, on the receipt signed by him. declares to be the owner and vendor, is not entitled to sue on the contract as principal.-DAvmsoN, J.-Hall vs. McBean, R. J. Q.. 3 G. S., p. 242, : I :i: g);? 'i ijillifli i .1 ! i .;l 460 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 170-2-1709. 1703. 1. Que la charge du Regisseur, 6tant une charge publiquc, est gratuite. Que la somme reclames pour la surveillance k la repa- ration d'une maison d'^cole n'est pas payable. Que la somme recjanu'c pour avoir prepare les specifications et la repartition est payable, pa'-ceque ce n'est pas des devoirs du Rdsjisseur. — Tellier, J. — Fournier vs. Gomviissaires d'Ecole de Ste. Marie du, Manoir, 32 1.. C. J, p. 326. 2. Dans I'espece, le demandeur ayant fait des debours^s. pas ot d-marches, a la requisition sp^ciale du defendeur lui-meme, a droit a une compensation raiso' .nable, conime valeur de tels debonrses et pas et demarches. — De Lohimier, J. — Normandeau vs. Desjardins, R. .1. Q., 5 C. S., p. 354 1T04. A power of attorney " to draw, accept and endorse bills " of exchange, px-omissory notes, bills of lading, delivery orders, dock " warrants, bought and sold notes, contract notes, charter parties. '• etc.", includes the power to make and .sign promissory notes, more particularly when the whole tenor of the document shows the intention to confer powers of general agency. — Andrews, J. — Qv£h('e Bank vs. Bryant, 17 Q. L. R., p. 78. (The above case was confirmed in Appeal, by the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 6th October 1891, but the case does not appear to h ivc been reported). iTOS. Lorsque le connaissemeuo, >igne par le capitaine du vais- seau, comporte paiement du fret " et autres conditions d'apres la " charte-partie," et qu'il est stipule dans celle-ci un privilege sur la cargaison, pour le paiement du fret et de la sitrestarie, en faveur des propri^taires et du capitaine, ce dernier peut constituer un procureur pour recouvrer et la surestarie et le fret, au nom des proprietaires, meme s'il n'a pas le droit d'cn poursuivre le recouvrement en son propre nom. — Casault, J. C. — Duvford vs. Webster, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 362. 170». 1. Que le mandataire, qui revolt du mandant une certaiiic somme d'argent pour etre employee a une transaction d^termineo it qui ne I'emploie pas pour cette fin, niais pour un autre objet, est tenu de rembourser au mandano cette somme, quand meme il etablirait qiu- la transaction qu'il a faite etait preferable a I'autre.—Q. B. — Mooilir d- Jones ; 19 R. L, p. 516; M. L. R., 6 Q. B.. p. 3-54. Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Avt. 17 W. 461 The above case was confirmed by the Supreme Court which lif Id as roUows : H. having funds belonging to one T. J. C. for investment, agreed tomvest them w.th M. of Winnipeg in a certain land speculation and alter correspondence, accepted and paid M's draft for $2,375 mention ' m,. in the letter notifying M. of the acceptance of the draft, the understanding H. had as to the share he was to get and addin.. • " I • also assume that the lands are properly conveyed, and the full c°ondi- • t.ons of the prospectus carried out, and if not, that money will be at • once re unded." The lands were never properly conveyed In^ the con .i.t.ons ot the prospectus never carried out. T. C. J. transfered sous ^,HJ pr,ve tlus claim to the Plaintiff, who brought .n action a-.ainst M. tor the amount of the draft. Held, (affirming the judgment ^f the courts below) 1. That the action being for the%ecover; of a su . ■noney entrusted to the Defendant for a special purpose, the prescrip- tion of two years did not apply. (2261 C. C.) 2. That the conditions upon which the money had been advanced were conditions preced n and not having been fulfilled. M. was bound to refund the Loney 3 That the transfer sons sexn^ prive of the claim to Plaintiff had been admitted by M and the Plaintiff, even if considered a.s a jyre^e-nZ had a sufficient legal interest to bring the present action.-lscrPUETE' Court.— 71/oorfie & Jones, 19 S. C. R, p. 2G6. 2. Le cessionnaire d'une creance, avec garantie de fournir etfaire valoir. devient le mandataire du cedant pour le recouvrement do a somme tra: sport^e, et comme tel, est tenu de proteger les interets du edant et est responsable envers lui des fautes qui p"euvent mctt se droits en p^ril. Ainsi, lorsque le cessionnaire a fait vendre les i.nmeubl ypo n^ques en faveur de la creance cedee et a ^carte les oncl^r s . ans le but dacheter lui-meme ces immeubles a vil prix, il n'aura p^ e recours contre le cedant, s'il est d^montr^ qu'il a'plus tard r alfsT par la vente des immeubles ainsi achetes k vil prix, nne sonmu plus que suffisante pour ^teindre la creance en question._C. R - ^1", "«. CorieiMe, R J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 267. 1710. 1 Que Taction qu'ont les actionnaires d'une comparmie in orpor^e contre les directeurs, pour mauvaise administration des affaires de la corporation, est une action commune rdsultant des rap orts de mandant k mandataires. (This case is more fully no ed fn his Supplement at article 360. decision number 3, and article 1889 tx 7:£:l^-j:i7iT''-''^' andmst2ti:z * ''^''«««s. ^- -L. R., 6 S. C, p. 243 ; 19 R. L., p. 684. , ( , ■ I 462 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1711. '7 The action against the .Urectors of a Bank for mal-administra- tion appertdns to the corporation, but. in default of suit by the cor- poration it is competent to a shareholder to institute it. >uch directors are bound to exercise the care of a prudent administratur in the management of its business and the acts complained ot in th.. present case were acts of gross mismanagement, amounting to rf<*/ and rendered the directors personally liable, jointly and severally, tor losses sustained by the shareholders by reason thereof.- Pagnuelo. i.-McDonald vs. Rankin, M. L. R, 7 S. C, p. 44. 1711 1 Under our municipal law, a secretary treasurer, the custodian of corporation moneys, cannot legally divest himself of the same except in the manner provided by the code an.l, in the present case although he had paid the same over to the mayor for sale keep- ing he was not thereby relieved from the liability to account to thr corporation.-BRO(>Ks, 3 .-GoTporation of Melbourne and Broviptov- Gore vs. Main, 11 L. N., p. 394. 2 The executrix could not escape liability for the misappropria •tion committed by her agent, by simply establishing that such agent was not notoriously unfit, at the time of his appointment, and th- nii.nunity granted to the mandatary empowere«. W^lcox, ¥ L. R., 4 S. C.,p. 238. I't as follows ; Consolvlated Supplemnit No. I. —Art. 171^. 4^3 4. Whilst director, of a bank are at libc-ty to e.nploy sucl. assistants as n.ay bo required to cany on .ts business, tliey Ire never- theless responsible for the fault and n.isconduct of the employees appointed by them, unless the injurious acts con.plained of be such as could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable diligence on their part-PAONUELo, i.-McI)ovald v. Rankin, M. L K..; S. ., /'''*^/^^^^^'"»""n^'^"-«. noted at this article, (GMr.spir ^ Stephens), is also reported in the 14 S. C. R., p. 709. 2. Qu'une action en reddition de compte peut etre intent^e, contra un niandataire pour certaines sommes dc^ter„,in^es, quun inandatairo aurait revues etqu'iln'est pas necessairc que Taction en reddition de compte soit pour cornpte g<5neral de I'administration.-Q B- Borwn & Dorion, 18 R. L, p. 645. The decision in the above case was reversed in the Supreme Court, which held as follows : ' f , . ^ ^; \?' ^.'"P^"^^"*' '^^ t-epresenting the institutes and substi- tutes under the wil of the late J. D., brought an action against J. B. T. ). (Appellant) who was one of the institutes and had acted as curator and administrator of the estate for a certain time, for rendition of an account of three particular sums, which the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant had received while he was curator. Held, (r;versin. the judgment of the court below,) that an action did not li^ agains he Appellant for the particular sums apart from ad tinct from an action for an acount of his administration of he rest of the estate. The Plaintiff in his action alleged that l.e i-epresented S. D., one of the substitutes, in virtue of a deed release and subrogation, by which it appeared he had paid to S D l^fctorney tor and on behalf of the Defendant, a sum of j:447.7s UUl" the Defendants having, in an action of rendition of account, settled'bv notarial deea of settlement with the. said S. D. for the sum of ^4 000 uluch heagreed topay andfor which amount the Plaintiff b'ecame urety Held that as the notarial deed of settlement gave the Defendant a fu 1 and complete discharge of all rendition of account as curator or administrator of the estate, the Plaintiff could not claim a further rendition of account of these particular sums. The Plaintiff also canned that he represented F. D. and E. D, two other institutes under the will, in virtue of two assignments made to him by them on the 21st of January 18(59. and 15t,h November 1869 respectively i4 ■■ \'A;,i l ' .tea "•i . . 'iiV IHiiitlS 464 CoTisolidated Stipplement No. l.—Art. 17 IS. In 1865 after the Defendant liad been sued in an action of rendition of account, by a deed of settlement, the said F. D. and E. D agreed to accept as their share in the estate the sum of $4,000 each, and ga^e the Defendant a full and complete discharge of all further renditions o account. Held, (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen s Bench) that the Defendant could not be sued for a new account, but cou d only be sued for the speciHc performance of the obligations he had contracted under the deed of settlement. In 1871, C. Z. D., anotluM- of the insti- tutes died without issue, and by his will made the Detendan h.s universal legatee. Plaintiff claimed his share in the e-tat^ under a ,leod of assignment made by Defendant to Plaintifi, in 1862, o al ri.ht title and interest in the estate. Held, that the Plamtift did not acmiire by the deed of 1862, the Defendants title or interest in any poi tion ol C. Z. D.'s share under the will of 1871. Held further, that und.>r the will of the late J. D,, C. Z. D.'s share reverted either to the survivin.^ institutes or to the substitutes and that all Defendant took under th"e will of C. Z. D., was the accrued interest on the capital o the shrre at the time of his death. By the judgment appeale.l from the Defendant was condemned to render an account of his own share in the estate, which he transferred to Plaintiff by notarial deed in 1862 and aUo an account of C. D.'s share, another institute, who, in 1892 transferred his rights to the Plaintiff The transfer made by the Defendant was in his capacity of co-legatee of such rights and interests as he had at the time of the transfer, and he had at that time received the sixth of the sum for which he was sued to account^ Held, (reversing the judgn.ent of the court below.) that the Plaintiff took nothing as regards these sums under the transfer and, even it he was entitled to anything, the Defendant would not be liable in action, to account as the mandatory or nec,eiiornm yestor of the P aintitt. That F. D. and E. D., having acquired an interest m 0. A ^^-^ «'^^!^ after they had transferred their share to Plaintiff in 1869, the PlauiWf could not maintain his action without making them parties to the suit (Art. 920 C. P. C.) Per TascJtereau, J.-Qumre: Were not thl transfers made by the institutes E. D.. F. D. and C. D^to he Plaintiff, while he was curator to the substitution, null and void und.r Art. 1484 C. C — Supreme Co\^m. — Dorion & Dor%on, 20 b. U. K., p. 430. 3 Ou'un notaire, agissant comme mandataire d'une partic et qui recoit' pour elle, un chfeque, a droit d'etre pay6 de ses honoraires et des ^libours^s par lui faits pour son mandat. avant d^.tre tenu de lui remettre ce cheque. -Q- B.-Gihss inspectaurs. se rend personnellement responsabie d.s frais.— M.aaiEU, J.~Polrier vs. Fulton, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 347. 1720. Quun creancier, qui donne sa creance a collecter k un agent collecteur, avec instruction de ne pas poursuivre et de lui faire encourir aucun frais, mais qui. lorsqu il acquiert la connaissance que agent a fait poursuivre et a obtenu un jugement en sa faveur contre le debiteur, pour le montant de sa creance. conserve le benefice du jugement, ratifie, par \k, I'acte de son raandataire. Que pour eviter la responsabihte des frais du jugement que I'agent lui avait fait encourir le creancer devaitrenoncer au jugement et desavouer I'avocat qui avait obtenu lejugement-CHAMPAONE, D. ^.-Bernard vs. Lalonde. li Ll N., p. 275. 468 Comolkhited Stipplement No. l.—Artit. mH-mO. 1722 1. Wlu'ic tho owner of iwil property lias authorizod «i. agent be sell the .same on his account for a stipulated coinn.i.ssicii within a specifi.-il period. an, Villenenve, R. J. Q., « C. S.. p. 219. ;} Where real estate agents etiect a sale of the property pUue.l in their hands, but the sale is not carried out, owin^r to a defect u, the fitle, they are nevertheless entitled to tlu, u.sual commiss.o,,.- ARCHlBALU,J.-ii7W.n w«. McDonald, R. J. Q.. « C. S., p. 41)1 See also cases noted at C C. 1 7K(J. IT^o 1 Les clients defendus par uu avocat. dans une ineme cau.se, par uneleule et memo defense, sont tenus solidairement ^u paien.ent des honoraires de cet avocat.-RoUTH.Eii, ^.-FrenMe vs. Hedard, \1 L. N , p. 3G2 ; Vi L. N.. p. 26(5. 2 Que des personnes qui permettent que Ton se serve d.^ lei.rs noms comme dirocteurs provisoires d'une coinpagnie projet^e, aux bus .I'obtenir du parlcment un acte coustituant cette compagnie en corpo- ration, et quisignent les requetes a cet effet, sont responsab es .lu paiement des honoraires du procureur, dont les services onUt6 rete- nus par le promoteur de cette compagnie.-Q. B -Auger £-Comellu>. R.J.Q.,2B.R.,p.293. 3 Where an award been rendered against one of the parties to ai. arbitration underthe Railway Act. which would have the etiect ..t Fiuthori/A'd an C(ymoli(latK(l Supplement No. I,—Arf. 1737. 4({j{ •riakiiiK him lial)le. by law. for the costs of the arl>ritation. and tho award has hecii cnfinnrd hy th,. Superior (^ourt, l.ut he has appealed from Huch jud^'iiiciit. the arl.itrator appointed l.y the other p..rty has no action ajrainst tho Appellant for his taxed fees, at all ev.'nts until the appeal has heen determined. — Domehtv, J.— yirotZie vs. The Montreal di Ottawa Hi/. Co., R. J. Q., :{ C. S., p. 4(JG. 4. Un arbitro est le mandataire de rhacune ties parties (|ui ont ivrouru k I'arhitrafre, et non pas aeulenient de la pa-tie (|ui I'a nonnn6. a a, partunt, un recours solidaire pour ses lionoraires et frais contre toutes les parties ([ui ont consenti I'acte d'arhitrajre. — OuiME'r, J - Molo vs. The Land & Loan Go., R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 488. 5. Les arbitres nomnK^s pour I'expropriation en niati( .■ de eons- truction de chemin de fer, sous \ Acte den chemiuH de fer 1888 (Canada; peuvent retonir les services d'un greffier pour les assister dans leurs procedures et ce greffier a un recours solidaire pour ses honoraires et depenses centre la cornpagnie et la partio expropriee. Cependant, lorsque ce greffier est notaire et qu'il a donnc^. des avis et notifications par acte notarie, il ne peut charger ces avis et notifications suivant le tnnf des notaires. mais on ne lui accordera que les honoraires pour redaction d'avis et notifications par acte sous seing priv^. — C. R — hmdvu. St Lawrence cfe Adirondac Ry. Co., R. J. Q., {] C. S., p. 801. 1727. 1. Vente d'un effet par son agent sous condition. La condition n'arrivant pas, le vendeur ne peut rplement No. l.—Art. J7'^7. remet k ce dernier la marchandise livree, il devra en payer le coGt quand meme au nmrchand.— Champagne, D. U.—Marcotte vs. Guil- bault, 12 L. N., p. 2G7. 4. Qu'un marchand qui re^'oit, par I'entremise d'un agent, uue somme d'argent a laquelle le coirimettant a indiqu6 un objet special, par exeniple, pour remplir un ordre de marchandises, ne pent refuser de remplir cet ordre et appliquer I'argent re(,'U au paiement d'une ancienne dette prescrite ; dans ce cas il y a lieu k Taction en repeti- tion de deniers. Que, sous les circonstances, le consentement obtenu de I'agent est nul comme n'etant pas dans les limites de son mandat. —Champagne, D. M.—Dupuis vs. Evans, 12 L. N., p. 251. 5. Que tout ce qu'un agent fait dans les limites de son niandant avec des tiers, meme en son nom propre, il le fait pour son mandant, et ce dernier a le droit d'etre subrog6 dans ses droits entre les tiers. Que toutefois un tiers, qui a contracte avec un agent personnellement, sana dtoonciation du principal, a droit de se prot^ger jusqu'k ce qu'il soit d^charge de I'obligation contractee envers I'agent par la subrogation du principal aux droits de I'agent.— Tellier, J. — Wilson vs. Benja- min, M. L. K, 5 S. C, p. 18. 6. Que lorsque I'inspecteur de bfi.tisses de la cit6 de Montreal, en sa dite quality, contracte avec un tiers, pour faire demolir une batisse, suivant les prescriptions des reglements munieipaux, la cit^ de Montreal est responsable du cout des travaux ainsi faits.— Mathieu, J.—Frappier vs. City of Montreal, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 37 ; 20 R. L, p. 141. 7. That a complete and valid investment in trust cannot be created until the same has been accepted or ratified by the cestui qui trust, or some one duly authorized in his behalf, and, until so accepted, such investment may be revoked by the person who niadt" it. And so, when the father of a minor, who was not her tutor, invested moneys belonging to her in shares of a joint stock company in trust and afterwards sold the same and invested the procc'ils otherwise, it was held that no valid trust having been created, for want of acceptance in behalf of the minor, her tutor (subsequently appointed) had no right to recover such shares from the purchaser, who had bought them in good faith and paid full value and, in the circumstance, there being no valid trust, the question whether the purchasp.r had notice of a supposed trust was immaterial.— Q. B.— Raphael vs. McFarlane, M. L. R.. 5 Q. B., p. 273. I .i.li Consolidated Supplement No. 1. Art. 1727. 471 ,i'i' Tne above case was reversed in the Supreme Court, where it was hdd as fol lows ; IS Tliat the fact of the sliares being entered in tlie books of the Company and on the transfer as held " in trust " was sufficient of itself, to sliow that the title of the seller was not absolute and to put the purchaser on enquiry as to the right to sell the shares.-SuPKEMK. Q,o\:m.— Raphael & Macpharlane, 18 S. C. R., p. 183. 8. Que celui qui fait un pret d'argent au mari d'une femme sepu- rie de biens, qui lui remet un billet de sa femme, qu'il signe comino procureur, en vertu d'un mandat suffisant, ne pourra recouvrer de la femme le montant pret^, s'il est ^tabii que cet argent ^t'ait, k la con- uaissance du pret»Mr, pour les affaires du mari. (C. C 1301) — Mathieu, J.—Bau vs. Ross, 19 R L., p. 654. 9. Qu'une personne qui donne k une autre personne un billot sign6 en blanc avec I'entente que cette derniere le remplira pour une somme d^terminee, est responsable, vis-^-vis d'un tiers, du plein mon- tant qui apparait k la face du billet, quand mgme il serait plus tqeve que celui convenu ; le signataire du billet ne fait alors que subir les consequences de sa propre negligence.— Pagneulo, J.— Bank of Yova Scotia vs. Lepage, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 321. 10. Where the charter of a corporation does not provide for the exercise of its powers, otherwise than by giving it the right to make by- laws for the government of the institution and of the officers and ser- vants belonging thereto and no such by-laws were made, the persons who are admitted to have, de facto, and by common consent, acted as the governing board of the body, will be held to be its duly authori- zed agents, whose acts, performed within the limits of the charter are binding on it.— Andrews. S.—LH6pital de Sacrd-Camr vs. Lefebvre 17 Q. L. R., p. 35. •' 11. Where wines were ordered by the secretary-treasurer of a club— who had apparent authority to puchase supplies for the club— and the wines were invoiced and consigned to the club, the latter are liable tor the price. To establish a defence in such a case, it would be necessary to show, not only that the act of the agent was unau- thorized, but that the jiarty dealing with the agent had notice thereof. — VVurtele, 3.— Gourd vs. Fish S Game Club,^. L. R., G C. S.,p. 480. 12. Le cur6, en se chargeant de la tenue de3 comptes de la fabri- f ' 1 w^ ^ Bilir.j*' ^ I;fSi .^» ' '' CTHi ^'\ 472 Comoiidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 17^7. que et de la collection de ses revenus, so fait pour cette bcscjgne !«■ commis ct propos6 du uiart?uillier en charge (qui est la personuc h qui In loi impose ce devoir;, ct ce qu'il fait sous ce rapport, lie la fabricjue et decharge les personnes qui lui coinptent le uiontant de leurs dcttt* k la fabrique, tout aussi etlbctivenient (lue si les coniptes etaient tenus et les paieinents re^us par le niarguillier en charge. Une autorisation 'pour defendre a une action, donnee par une asseniblee du bureau ordinaire, ou il n'y a nulleuient ete question d'une reclamation de In fabrique contre le de^naiuleur, n'autorise pas un plaidoyer de conipen sation.— Casault, ^.—Giroiix vs. Fabrique de Beauport. R.J.Q., 1 C S., p. 47G. 13. In law and by the custom of trade, the mere taking of an order for goods by a connnercial ti-aveller does not complete the contract of sale, so long as the order has not been accepted by his principal. And where the latter refuses to accept the order, and gives notice to the person from whom the order was taken, he is not liable in damages.- Q. B.— Brock vs. Gourley, M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 158. 14. An action may be brought on a contract by the principals, though the contract was made by their agents in their own name and without disclosing their principals. — Davidson, J. — Mackill >'.,. Morgan, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 535. (The decision in the above case was reversed by the Court ol' Appeal, but this particular point was not adjudicated upon. The decision of the Court of Appeal is noted in full, in this Supplement, at article 2415). 15. Where the will creating a substitution expressly authorized the executors, if they saw tit in making the division of the estate, to sell any portion of the substituted property and divide the proceeds thereof, the bank Respondent, on whose register certain shares belong- ing to the substitution were transferred by the executors, was not bound, either under the terms of its charter, 18 Vict., ch. 202, s. 3(5, or under the terms of the Bank Act, to see to the execution of the trust imposed upon the executors by the will. It is sufficient for the protection of the Bank, in such case, that the executors possess all the apparent qnalihcations ncces.sary for such transactions. — Q. B.- Stewart vs. Molsons Bank, R. J. Q., 4 B. R., p. H. - PuiVY Council. —18 L. N., p. 164. 16. A wife, marchandepubllque, gave a power of attorney toiler Consolidited Supplement No. l.~Art. 1728. 47.S husband, who en.Jorscd a promissory note, thereby oxceodinc, l,is mandate. The wife subsequently was served wi 1. a d l,;i ass,gnrnen , b.^ the husband was not ma.le a party thereto ^r t ^ purpose of authon.in. his wife. She neverthele.ss assigned and promissory note was included by her as a liability in her bila,, was contended that this,p.r «., was a ratification of her husbar>d's a endorsing the noi.. HM : that the Plaintiffs ratification w, R O ;T R ' •"-;*-! -thori.ation. - Q. B.-P.,.,. .5 Da^..on, K. J. Q., 4 h. R, p. r2.~C. R.-R. J. Q„ C. S., p. 48. 17. Le mandant a droit d'actio. contre le tiers, qui a contracte 18. L'huissier, employe par un avocat, a un recours, contre la partie representee par cet avocat, pour ses frais de signiHcation et ce, WAlHiLU, ,i.—Oanust vs. Grondtn, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. «J30 iV^o<. .-Compare the case of Sveeney & Bomh of Montreal (decision number 20 at this article) with the case of Petiy & cZe 'I Economte, noted at C. C. 931, decision number 3. 172S. That the agent who is authorized by his power to make .•ontracts of sale and purchase, charter vessels and employ servant and, as incidenta thereto, to do certain specified acts, including en- dorsements of bills and other acts for the purposes aforesaid, bu'i not ...eluding the borrowing of money, cannot borrow, on behalf of his principal or bind him by contract of loan, such acts not being necessary for the declared purposes of the power. Where an a^cnt aeeepts or endorses " per pro " the taker of a bill or note so accepted or endorsed is bound to enquire as to the extent of the agent's authority Where an agent has sucli authority, his abuse of it does not affect a /.>.«>rf. holder for value.-P.uvY Qov^vM.-Bryant & La Banque p. 103.-(rhe Court of Queen's Bench reversed the judg.nent of the Superior Court, which was restored in the Privy Council). See also case of Quebec Bank vs. Bryant, noted in this Sup- p einen at article 1704, and another case between same parties notfd at article IvJO, decision number 10, and case of Union Bank of Canada vs.Bryant, noted in this Supplement at article 989, decision number 5 i J'' 474 Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 1730. 1730. 1. Decision number 5, noted at this article. (Ansley vh. tfa^ertotyw/nsur^TJce'CoJ, was confirmed in Appeal. The decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, is noted, in this Supplement, at article 2490, decision number 4.-17 11. L., p. 108 ; 15 Q. L. K.,p. 256. 2. Que le fait que le cessionnaire d'une creance aurait, apr^s la signification du transport au debiteur, re(;u du cedant partie de la creance cedee et se serait ato 19 Fce8of. M toils Distraction ofco.ita ,W to 4'J Liatntityof r,oto6l Miscellaneous. ,..oi to 61 fiotar'ies.—Linbilit!/ of Gi Privilege of ''J Feenof. '>') Evidence of. '' ' Miscellaneous ■'''> ConsoUilaUid Supjdemevt No. 1 —Art. 17, L'. 477 Al)V()CATES-^,;i,/cwce of :^Notr.-'VU, oath ot the advocate makes proof as to the services rendered by him havinjr been lecpiind, and as to tlie nature and duration thereof, Imt sucli (jath may l.e contradicted in tlie same way as any other evidence --Q 54 Vict cap. ',V1, s. 2. >e 1. Quo bien (ju'il ne soit pas ccmvonable pour un avocat au dossier d'offrir son temoi<,^nanoral nd litem., rononcer a un acto de procedure nul en lu forme, i)()ur le remphu-or par un acte ro<];ulier. Que pour (lu'il y ail ouverture a Taction en desaveu, il faut qu'il y ait faute grave de hi part de I'avocat. Qu'il faut de plus qu'il y ait eu prejudice caust^ a In partie i\\\\ se plaint et la question de savoir s'il y a eu prejudice, relevc entieroiuent de I'appreeiation du juge. Quo lorsque, couime ree R..vers. tlj. other Defendant, W. ]McD. IX.then residing in the State ot New York On the return of tlie writ, the Respondent Hied an appearance as attorney for both Defendants, and proceedings were suspended until 1874 when judgment was taken and, in December 1880, upon tbr issue' of an alim writ of execution, the Appellant, having faded m an opposition to judgment, filed a petition in disavowal ot the Respond- ent The disavowed attorney pleaded, inWr alia, that he had been authorized to appear by a letter signed by S. J. D.. saying : " Be so good "as to tile an appearance in the case to which the enclosed has "reference etc.," and also prescription, ratification, and insuthciency of the allegations of the petition of disavowal. The petition m disavowal was dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court o Canada, the Respondent moved to quash the appeal, on the groum that the matter in controversy did not an... ant to the sum ot !>2,000 —Held —That as the judgment obtained against the Appellant, n. March 1874 on the appearance tiled by the Respondent, exceeded th. amount of S2,000, the judgment on the petition for disavowal was appealable. That there was no evidence of authority given to th.^ Respondent or of ratification by Appellant of Respondents act, and therefore the petition in disavowal should be maintamed.- Supreme Covviy.— Dawson & Dumont, 20 S. C. R., p. 709. 19 A crew of sailors claiming salv ige from the owners of a vessel picked up at sea, gave a power of attorney to P. authorizing lum t. brin- suit or otherwise settle and a^ljust any claim which they might have" for salvage services, etc. Held, affirming the judgment of th. local iudge in admiralty, that P. was not authorized to receive pay- ment'of the sum awarded for salvage, or to apportion the respective shares of the sailors therein. (Tascheheau, J., took no part m th. judgment, entertaining doubts as to the junsdiction o* the cour to hear the appeaL)-SlTPBEME Court.- Churehtll vs. McKay, 20 S. C. R., p. 472. Advocates.— i^ee« of .—20. Que I'avocat qui devient porteur >!. ('OiuiulidaU'd Supplement No. /. Art. /7.t^. 4^1 I.toftuna./ir?.. par rentrenu.se d'un tiers, a , ln.it a se.s frais contr.- son client quel.,u'aient .^te len arrangements ,le ce dernier avec ce tiers gue la convention par laquolle un avocat sengaffe a ne pas charter Je tnu.s a son client, .lan.s aucun cas, e.st un n.arel.e illicite.-CuM- I'AONE, I). M.~Heniard rs. Elliott, 12 L. N.. p. I4(i. 880, 4.J-44 Vic ., eh. 4;^ ne s'oppose a ce ,,„e le jufre, dans i'exercice du pouv(,ir qui lu, est confie, sous les dispositions des .sous-sections 20 et SH de la section 9 du .lit stat.it, accorde des honoraires aux avocats (|Ui out represente les parties en faveur de qui les frais sont taxds et nu 2 C. S.. p. 850. ''"•""^"T'^ . 'I-Loranger m FdiatrauU, K. J. g., 35. An mlvocat,. has the r,>ht, in th. absence of any am-eornont tr, -cover jucl,nnent against his client, for th. proved va Lm t ■ is ';! tcs.s.onaI serv.ces„.respective of the tarifl: Jn the ah.senc Ta spen,a a,n-een.ent i.otween advocate and client, there is apn-s, . 'ti,,! u,t the tar,(l shall j,ove,-n as to the ndvocate'.- .-enu.n mt 7 1 th,.spresu.„pt,onn.ayi.e.-ehutted by evide„ee .„ to th , „ une.Kpccted„npo,tance or duration of the liti.ratio,. -O B "t / 36. In proceedings before the Exchequer an.l ,.up.-e,„e Courts .-re be.ng no ta...tfas between attorney and elicit. . ..'attorney 1 Is I..3 r.ght, „, an act.on for his costs, to establish the quantur. menJZ 37. Les deniundeurs, avocats, avaient fait, au no,,, d'un inte.-dit nne de,nande de n.ain-levee d'interdiction. Apr^s pr, u-e fa a cour n a pas cons.dere la gu^rison de Tinterdit asse. avane e pou pou! vo,r le relever de I'n.terdiction, ™ais. sur le consent, -.nen, iL pa.'t es elle a ordonne la convocation du con.seil de famille, uux f .s de non/ mer un nouveau curateur a I'interdit, en vue d'avar.cer .s .uex"soT Hunnant acteaux parties quelles scnblaient s'accorder sur 1 Jersonne' a etre nonjmee. La cour s'est egalen,ent, sur la demande .. s parties reservee dadjuger a una ^poque ulterieure sur la requete en mab lev ed,nerd,ction Ju,,: Que quant aux demandeurs. procure^r - ' 1 iim >!■• || 4HS Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 17S'2. somines, tant qu'il n'est pas mis en demeuio ou i\\\''\\ n'y a pas de reglement dc compte entre eux. — JE'ITti:, J. — Chagnoin vs. St Jeqm,, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 459. 60. Le fait que le creancier d'uiie dette a comniis uii champerty, avec un tiers, aux tins de la poursuite a intenter contre son debiteur, no donne pas a ce dernier le droit do deinander le renvoi de Taction a raison de ce champerty. — Q. B. — Ritchot & Cardinal, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 55. 61. Le changement survenu dans une soci6te de procureurs, par la nomination de I'un d'eux a une charge de juge, ne met pas iin au mandat ad. litem qui lui avait ete anterieurement confie, surtout lors- que c'etait a un des membres restant dans la soci^t6 que le client setait d'abord adresse.— C. 'R.—Gigu&re & Quebec, Montmorency <{■ Charlevoix Ry. Co., R.. J. Q., 3 C. S., p, 405. Notaries. — Liability of : — 62. Case number 93, noted at this article (Dwpuis vs. Rieutord) is also reported in the 18 R L., p. 625. NOTAUIES. — Privilege of: — 63. Qu'un notaire, agissant comme mandataire d'une partie et qui re9oit, pour elle, un cheque, a droit d'etre paye de ses honoraires et des d^bourses par lui faits poui son mandant, avant d'etre tenu de lui remettre ce cheque. — Q. B.— Gibsone & Tessier, 19 R. L., p. 495. NoTAiUES. — Fees of : — 64. Que la loi prononce la responsabilite .solidaire des personnes qui requierent les services d'un notaire. (art. 3619, S. R. Q.)— Jett6, J.—Gherrier vs. Messy, 35 L. C. J., p. 41. Notaries — Evidence of: — 65. The provision of law which author- izes notaries to make evidence in their own behalf, establishing their employment as notaries, extends only to such employment as specially appertains to the functions of a notary, and not to services whicli may be performed by a notary as an ordinary agent.— Archibald, J. ^Kittson vs. Duncan, R. J. Q., (i C. S., p. 402. Notaries. — Miscellaneous — 66. An acceptance of a delegation of payment is not void on the ground that the notary before whom the acceptance was made, was the husband of one of the partie.>^ antecedently liable for the debt and who sold to the Defendant the property hypothecated therefor. — C. R. — Moore vs. Smart. R. J. Q 6 C. S.. p. 432. Consolidated Siippl'm,>nf, No. l.—Arts. 17.io.l7,i(!. 48!) 1735. The J)efendant, an insurance broker, was the n-ent of two insurance conipanies, one of whicl. instructed l.in, to cancel a certain risk m Montreal. After asking for a reconsideration and the order be.ng repeated, he complied, and then transferred the insurance to the other company for which he was agent. He did this without he knowledge of the insured. The same day. a Hre occurred and the OSS was paid by the company to which the insurance ha.I been ransferred. In an action by the latter against the agent for fraudu- ently making them responsible f<,r the loss, it was held that the transfer of the insurance was made by the Defendant in good faith and m accordance with the custom of insurance brokers in Montreal and al hough not authorized by the insured, it was competent for the' agent to act as the mandatary of the company and of the insured - WUHTELE ._6W«..j..^ Fire Insurance Co., vs. Kavanngk, M. Ix R, 5 h. C, p. 262.— Q. B.-M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 323. The above case was conHrmed in the Privy Council, where it was held as follows : Where a writ and declaration alleged that the Defendant had been guilty of wilful deceit and had fraudulently effected a transfer- once ot fire insurance on his books, after a fire had occurred from a company of which he was agent to the Company Appellants, of which he was also agent, with a specific fraudulent purpose and such charges of fraud and deceit failed, it was held that the Appellants could not be allowed.in final appea , to contend, for the first t^me, that he pleadings and evidence disclose such negligence, or breach of :^"/^',V "\".,^*^T"^'"*^' '^^ <^'^^"- '^ge^t, as is in law sufficient to mfer Im liability tor the amount paid by them under the insurance so transferred. Fraud was of the essence of the declaration and the evidence of the Respondent directed to that issue cannot be accepted as representing all that he would have brought forward to rebut a charge of negligence, nor had the points connected with that issue boen submitted to the courts below.-PuiVY CouNciL.-6^on....^;ou^ Hre Insurance Co. & KavanagK L. R., (1892; App. Cas. p. 473 ; 15 I J. iN.. p. o08. 1T3«. 1. Que la convention par laquelle un proprietaire charge xu agent d irameubles de vendre sa proprietedans un delai determine .noyennant une commission convenue. oblige ce proprietaire k payer crtte commission si, pendant ce delai, il vend lui-meu.e I'in.meuble au "Joo \'/";'V^»dre par I'agent.-Q. B.-Carle & Parent, 17 R. L P 122:M. L. R., 5 Q, B., p. 451. 490 Consolidated Snq^plement No. 1. — A7-t. 17S(J. 2. Lc proprietaire des inarchandisos, (jui lesconsigno pour ventc a un facteur dans un autre district, ne peut les saisir-revondiqutr, entro les mains de ce dernier, que par action prise devant le triburml de son domicile. Le proprietaire ne peut saisir-revendiquer les marchandises consignees pour vente a un facteur qu'apres remboursc- ment des avances faites par ce dernier sur les marchandises. — Casaui.t, J, — Gourdeau vs. Cassils, 15 Q. L. R., p. 25S. 3. Where a signature to a covenant of sale was obtained by deception and misrepresentation, by pretending that a condition pre- viously objected to bj' the party signing had been removed from tlie agreement, the agent who procured the signature is not entitled to recover the commission stipulated in the agreement — Davidson, J. - Land & Loan Co, vs. Fmser, M. L. K, 5 S. C, p. 392. 4. P. P. M., le d^fendeur, signa un ^crit sous seing prive, autori- sant J. B. L, le demandeur, a acheter pour lui de la successioA Hubert, un immcuble au prix de 855,000, payable $10,000 comptant et la balance a etre employee pour payer les cr^anciers hypothecaires. II est prouve que la propriety en question est gr^veed'hypothequespour plus de $45,000. Sous ces circonstances, P. P. M. ^tait justiiiable en refu- santde signer un titre d'acquisition. Le demandeur, J. B. L., poursuit pour sa commission et base son action sur la promesse de vente signee par Demoiselle Hubert. Or, 11 appert qu'au moment de la signature de cette promesse de vente, la dite Demoiselle Hubert ne pouvait con- sentir un acte de vente parfaite, attendu quelle n'avait paselle-meinc un titre parfait a la propriete, ayant neglige de faire enregistrer, au desir de la loi, une declaration d'heredite. Jugi, que, sous ces circons- tances. Taction est mal fonde. — Q. B. — Martin & Lahelle, 34 L C. .1. p. 28. 5. Where the owner of real property has authorized an agent to sell the same on his account, for a stipulated commission, within ii specified period, and, before the expiration of the term, the owner leases the same property with option of purchase, such agreement is equivalent to a revocation of the agent's authority, but the latter is only entitled to actual damages ; and where it appeared that he liiul taken no steps whatever to procure a purchaser, and the term of lus agency had nearly expired when his agency was interfered with, as above mentioned, and that the lessee did not in fact become a purchaser, it was held that no damages were proved, and that his action for the stipulated commission could not be maintained. — C. U.—Blondin rx. Duf, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 256. Consolidated Supplement No. J.—Arts. /7,'J8.J74/; See also cases noted in this Supplement at article 1722. 4!>l 17liH. A party who sicrns an agreement fn- services to a ve..,.l 1T3». Qu'une personne qui acliete des .narchandises d'un acrent iTc:::z:z ^^t f " 'r™"-- '^^'^ ^'" ^^''-^^ '-^ ...arch::,;:: rcctement du commettant avec la facture en son nom, acquiert suffisam ment la conna:ssance qu'il a achete du commettant pour e' e tfnri: lui en payer le montant, .urtout dans le cas oix il n'LZ h I'agent—CHAMPAGNE D M n ■ r ^ ''"''"'■''' P''^^^ CHAMPAGNE, U M. -Hicjgim vs. Lavigw; 12 L. N., p. 1 !)4. f fv,*'^*!*/' ^^'"^ °''™^' ''^ "'^ P'''*^^^^ i" decision number 6 noted at this article, were City Bank & Barrow. 2 The buyer of goods may, by assignment of the bills of ading to a bona fide transferee, defeat the sellers right to revendi^.te them m case of the buyer's insolvency.- Anbuew.^ J.- rZt « 5aWwn, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 119, Taussig iks. 3. The sale and transfer of instruments of no intrinsic value hut evidence of value, as notes, bills of exchange, bank bills, bills of lad i" 14«8, 1489 and 1490 C. C. Such instruments, when payable to bearer require no other evidence of proprietorship than simple posse s on against which the only practically effective plea is bad fX^ the' ho der. and the burden of proof is on the p'rty who settfu the absence of such allegation and proof, the owners of debenture pledged, without authority, by their agent, as security for a loan t" Z ThVfa :tV";'"' r'-''''''' ''-''' - the hand! ot latter. The fact that, when they were pledged, the debentures had matured and were past due, is immaterial and does not affect U^lri I ownership of those who, as the parties in this case, arfno li St Z^NiT 71'^' - -dorsers, for the payment thereof- Qb!^ Tcl p"208 "'■ ^- ' ^ ""' P- ''' -A-«-v.s. J.-R J. Q. Dour^I** \ ^T^''"S''""^'''^^'"^''"*'-^P'^Muiadonn6unreeu P ur les marchandises quil a re.ues dans son entrepot, peut s'opposer a la saisie et vente de ces marchandises, n^anmoins, il faut unTn gl pourfau-ecette opposition et lorsque le porteur du re^u d ntrep iit!::tli r :«bife!Ej;« '.- t t < III 1 n 1 i. H 4!)2 Consolidated Supplement No. I. — Attn. 1756-1758. aura deja i'ait une opposition afin de conserver, le gardien d'entrepcU ne sera pas rocevable a faire une opposition afin d'annulor. — Telmku, J. — Straas vs. Kerouack, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 341. 2. The buyer of goods may, by assigment ot the bills of ladiiiy^ to a bona fide transferee, defeat the seller's right to revendicate them in case of the buyer's insolvency. — Andrews, J. — Taussig 'W. lidldwhu, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 119. 1750. 1. Decision number 3, noted at this article {Canilie d- Voaticook Cotton Co.), is also reporter in the M. L. R., 4 Q. B., p. 444. 2. Quand les deux membres d'une societe, qui a 6t^ dissoute et qui est en voie de liquidation, ont confie, par un acte conjoint, a un tiers, mandat pour retirer de la poste les lettres adressees k la ci-devant societe, il n'est pas loisible a I'un d'eux seul de revoquer ce mandat.— C. R.— Bernard vs. Allaire, 17 Q. L. R., p. 198. 3. By a power of attorney, executed in August 1866, N., an Insurance Co., in England, appointed T. at Montreal, their agent for Canada. The power of attornej' contained the following clause :- " Finally, we, the said Northern Assurance Co., reserve to ourselves " the right of, at any time, revoking the powers granted by this deed." On the 9th September, 1886, N. formally notified T. that the agency was terminated, the notice to take effect on the 31st. December following. T. brought an action to recover damages, claiming that, under the correspondence between the parties, the original terms of the contract had been modified and that at least a year's notice should have been given. The case was heard before a special jury and a verdict of $14,000 awarded T. T. moved for judgment on the verdict and N. for a new trial. Held : — (In Review), that the terms of the original contract had been modified by the correspondence be- tween the parties, although there was no special clause of any letter which derogated from the original contract. That in the cii'cuin- stances a year's notice would have been fair, just and reasonable and in accordance with well established usage, and also in view of the fact that, under the contract, T. was entitled to a certain allowance " 2?er awii'iivi " and the notice had only been given in August to terminate the contract in December.— C. K— Taylor vs. The Northern Insurance Co., 35 L. C. J., p. 6. 1758. Qu^ le mari qui permet a sa femme, commune en biens avec lui, do fairo commerce, ne peut, apres qu'il a retir;^ son autori.sa- ConsolUdated Sujyplement No. /.—Arts. power exist, ia o„t pr«„,„e,, to ,,e acce,,,.; , 1°",: ": ■ t""" "zrun: ::;;; ';;;f c'o' :i tt 't''°--> ''■=""— I i. • ,. "•'"• i ' ^-. i-A u, tliat the sale under oxennfior. ,>f' fi lot m question be made subject to the rent -Andrews T« 7 / m. Richard, R. J. Q., (j c. S., p. 03. Andrews, .l.~Bdodma ^^ ^^^ V.HAMPAGNE, D. M.~C'hevaher vs. BeausoleU, V.i L N.. 1«02. 1. Que le cultivuteur, qui prend un fl...v»l -... nest pas responsable, „„vo,-., Ic p,.„p,'i4taL, d Z po ,„ " .'rfl «■! tl,„ „ ac eve,, wl.ere U.„ buyer ha3 made an exaainaUon ofthe 494 CumoLidatexi Supplement No. l.—Arts. ISOJ^ISOB. goods and rejected sucli as were not to hia satisfaction. Held, alsci. (per Ritchie C. J., Fournier and TascheroauJJ.,) that wliere goods are sold by weight and the property remains in the possession of the vendor, the vendor becomes in law a depositary, and if the goods, while in hia possession, aro damaged, through his fault and negligence, he cannot bring action for their value. — Supreme Court. — Rim & Hannan, 19 S. C. R., p. 227.— Q. B.— M. L, R., 6 Q. B., p. 222 ; 19 R. L, p. 309.— TouRANCE, J.— M. L. R., 2 S. C, p. 395. 3. Que le voiturier est tenu de remettre au voyageur le bagage qui lui a et6 conti6, sur livraison des contra-marques donnees an voyageur, et qu'il ne peut etre libere de cette t bligation qu'en prou- vant que la livraison est devenue impossible, smi,u son faitou sa faute, et (lu'il est tenu de prouver le cas fortuit qu'il allegue. Dans cette cause, le bagage en (luestion a ^te transporte a Montreal le 11 aoiit et mis dans la chambre du bagage non reclame, vers neuf houres do I'avant midi, et le 12 aoAt, lorsque la dcmanderesse la reclame, le bafage ^tait disparu et aucune explication n'a ^te donnee de sa disparition ; et la seule explication de la perte de ce bagage est qu'il a ete enleve dans la journee du II, soit par meprise de I'un des em- ployes, qu'il I'aurait livre pour un autre, soit par la raeprise ou le vol de (luehjue voyageur ou etranger. — Q. B. — Canadian Pacific Itij. Cik & Fellant, R. J. Q., 1 B. R, p. 311.— Pagnuelo, J.— 35 L. C. J., p. 42 ; M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 131. 1^04. Que dans le cas d'un depOt volontaire, le depositaire n'est responsable de la perte de la chose que si elli a lieu par sa faute et sa neo'ligcnce, et que la preuve de faute et negligence incombe au de- mandeur.— Champagne, D. M. — Chevalier vs. Beausoleil, 13 L. N., p. 90. 1M05. 1. Que le d6p6t, fait dans unebanque, par un contracteur, ou pour lui, au nom du gouvernement, pour garantir I'execution du con- trat, est au risque du gouvernement, qui n'est pas libere par la seule remise du re(;u de d6p6t, apres la failliti Je la banque, mais qu'il doit remettre le montant meme depose.- Q. B.— Gilbert & Oilmour, 17 H. L. p. 124. In this ease leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused— 16 S. C. R., p. 189. 2. Similar decisions. -Gilman d- Oilbert, 17 R. L., p. 132 ; M. L R.. ; was refused- ConmdUated Supplement No. I.-Arf,. J81i>.i81l 495 ••{ Q. B p. 402, and Gilman vs. Gilbert, M. L R 4 s r n o^i,- noted ,n this Supplement at article 1024. ' ^^ -^''' ''** l«ia. Crown property is not in comniercio and tl„.r..for .en can attach to it. No lion can attach to pronel-K f^r M r'' ,"' I» 1 3. Que rhotelier, k qui des effets sont confi^s par un vova^eur nest pas responsable de la perte de ces effets survenue danfun L a t7m rr^: t^t;ir ^^ ^^-^-^ ^^^^ -■ - 4. A hotel-keeper is responsible for the value of jewellery stolen l™« guest, whether the things were stolen fro„.'a roonf ifthe ^Tf "ft* :li 1 1 f ^ 496 Camolvhititil Siipple.iyumt No. J.~ArL /SI4. hotel itaeU" or from a cottage used in connection tlutrewith, unless it bo e8tal)lislie(l that tlie K)ss was caused hy a straiifrer and arose iVoii. careU'ssncss on th.' part of the person clainiin^r— Lyn<'!I,.1.— /.ami/*'.' VH. Wulh: r, H. J. Q., () C. S., p' 27, 5. The I'hiintiff, after haviii},' travelled all ni>,'ht, went to th.' the Defendant's hotel, at an early hour in th<: moniinf,', nn.l asked for a hed-rooni. He was told that he could not have a room, as the hotel was full, but that there was a room, en;,'aged by people who would arrive during the day, which he might then utilize for the purpose of washing and dressing. He was shown up to this room and his luggage (consisting of portmanteau, hat-box and dressing-bag,) wen; taken up there, h" washed and dressed in this room, opening his ilressing hag for that purpose and taking out of it and placing on the dressing table a dressing-ease. He then went down to the coHee room, h.ul breakfast, paid for it, and went out, leaving his luggage in the room he had used, with the dressing-bag open and the dressing-case on thr table. He did not return till late at night. In the meantime, the persons who had engaged the room arrived, and the whole of Plaintiff's luggage was placed, just as it was, in the corridor, by the Defendant's servants. When the Plaintiff returned at night he asked for his room and was told he had none. Ultimately it was found that a room had been vacated since the morning, and the Plaintiffs luggage was brought from the corridor and placed in it, the Plaintiffs name being then entcired, for the first time, in the guest book of the hotel. The next morning the Plaintiff discovered that jewellery had been stolen from an uidoeked di-awer in his dn>ssing case. In an action against the Defendant for the value of tlir jewellery : Held, that assuming the relation of inn-keeper and gue>i to have continued between the Plaintiff and the Defendants until the arrival of the other gue.sts,the onus was upon the Defendants to show that the loss occurred before the removal of the luggage to tin- corridor, and consequently through the Plaintiff s negligence alonr, which they had failed to do ; but that, as to any loss exceeding £:!'» the onus was upon Lhe Plaintiff under 2G & 27 Vict., eh. 41, to show that it arose through the wilful act, default or neglect of the inn- keeper or his servant, and that as the Plaintiff had not shown that the loss occured after the removal of the luggage to the corridor, he had not fulfilled that oints, and was not entitled to recover more than .1-30. Held, also, that the true inference to be drawn from the facts was. that the relation of inn-keeper and guest continued between tlie ConmlidatM Supplement No. /.-Art,. 18ir,.tSl(kt. 497 afc(uehotelt.llthearnvalofthoguo.st who hal en^a,...! th,. room vvhere Ins lujr..,.., was.-ENur.sH V.nmr or APPEA.:-I.]f./.,.,«, i (y'raTir/ Hotel Co., U L. N., p. 281. An interesting article fn.n. the Law Journal, F^,wln„. with respect to mn-keeper.s & guests, is reported in the 14 L, N,. p. ivM). IHlSi Where a hotel-k-ceper retains in his custody bag-ra-rehelon-.- ■ng to a ravellor. during his absence Fron> the hotel, and ^i.:. a ct^cTk or rece.pt there or. it is considered a necessary deposit and his respon sibd ty as hotel-keeper still subsists an.l the value of bagga-^e so d - pos.te, n.ay be proved by the oath of the traveller. A hotd-keeper s not hab le for the value of effects so retained in his custody wlL he proves that they were lost, or rai Hotel Oo., M. L. R. 7 S. C. p. 1.39 ; .3.5 L C. J., p. m. iHlila. 1. The lien of an hotel keeper on the baggage and effects olh.s guest, for the price of food and acconnnodati^ extends to goods belonging to third persons brought into the hotel by the ?uest, with their permission, expressed or i.nplied.-TASCHEHEAU J- karcuse »h. Hog (y. b., p. 333. 4. Le droit de retention de Thotelier, sur les bagages et la pro- priete de ses hotes, ne lui permet pas d'enlever violemment les objets que portent ces derniers au cours du voyage, -Caron, J. - Z^oar^ V8. Lachance, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 118. 32 1' it! ►ft, 498 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 182S. m 1S33. 1. Qu'il n'est pas n^cessaire qu'un jugemeut nornniant uii s^questre soit signifie k aucune des parties dans la cause. Qu'un juge- inent nommant un sequestre, apres que le jugement final a ete rendu dans la cause, n'est pas un jugeinent interlocutoire pouvant etre revise par un seul juge de la Cour Superieure.— Papineau, J.— /TowarcZ w Yule, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 22. 2. Que le sequestre d'une propriety est une mesure extreme qui ne doit etre prononcee que dans des cas tres graves, tel que celui ou I'exercice de la propri^te aurait pr^sente des dangers tels que le dom- inage deviendrait irreparable.— Mathieu, i.— McGregor vs. Canada Investment Co., 18 R. L., p. 633. The judgment in the above case was reversed upon questions of fact. The decision is reported in full in this Supplement, at article 2207, decision number 1.— Q. B.— R. J. Q., 1 B. R, p. 197.— Supreme Court.— 21 S. C. R, p. 500. ' 3. II y a appel et revision d'un jugement ordonnant et nommant un sequestre.— C. R. — Sun Life Assce. Go. of Canada vs. Mandeville, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 135. 4. La demanderesse poursuivait les d^fendeui's en recouvrement du montant d'une obligation hypothecaire. Les defendeurs mettaient en question la validite de I'obligation, plaidant que I'emprunt n'avait pas ete autori.se et que la propropriete hypoth^quee 6tait insaisissable. JugS, finfirmant le jugement de la Cour Sup^rieure, Davidson, J., qui ordonnait la sequestre des biens, et celui de la meme cour, Loravgcr, J., qui nommait le sequestre): Que la contestation soulevee par les defendeurs quant a la legalite de I'obligation invoqu^e, n'avait pas pour effet de mettre en question entre les parties la propri^te ou la possession des immeubles hypotheques et que partant, en I'absence de preuve de d^toriation, il n'y avait pas lieu au sequestre. — C. R, — Sun ilAfe Assce. Co. of Canada vs. Mandeville, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 201. 5. Le demandeur, cr^ancier hypothecaire, poursuivait un indi- vidu, qui avait 6i& delegu6 par son d^biteur pour lui payer le montant de sa cr^ance. Le defendeur contestait Taction, pour le motif que If ■ demandeur n'avait pas acceptd la delegation de paieraent.— Jw.(/(i : (infirmant deux jugements de la Cour Supdrieure, ordonnant le sequestre des biens et nommant le sequestre)— Qu'il n'y avait pas, .dans I'espfece, litige sur la propri^t^ oa !a po.s.Hft.'i.sinr. d'un immeuble et. Consolidated Supplement .Vo. l.~Art,. ISU-ISSL 499 uu sequestre.— U. K— Bedell vs. Smart, R. J. Q., 6 C. S.. p. 332 iviAiHiEU, J.—JJumouchel vs. Lariviere, 21 R. L., p. 79. 2. A sequestrator appointed to the effects of a co-partnershin nenH .n„. the determination of a suit between the members thereof 'has no au hor.ty to pay over the moneys in his hands to one of h' parties without an order of the court, and he is bound to rende an accoun and dehver oyer the effects in his possession as sequestrato^before he 1830. Que la construction d'un aqueduc oar difTpr^nfc ,. ta,res, pour 1W«0 c„.„„„ d„ |e„^ P^prietl'",'* t nHrtl" toe pas une soceM ordinaire entre cux qui „„i.„ Lo H,l T !' ;^"tf nr ::r " r ^^ ^;- f^ ^- p'-^r r::r : aTueduc lo B X/' ?«"'" ^' P"*^"^ °" ''^ '^<^'*^t'- ^e cet Q B p 3^?' "" '^ ^""*'^"^'' 1^ ^^' L' p. 504 ; M. L. R., 6 1S31. 1. The Defendant, on beino- snod in or, o^^.- to account denied by his p..; the e^^sCe f any t^^Z:^ admitted that the Plaintiff was entitled to participLTZ xten of one half, ,n profits which n.ight arise from a contra t between th. SZSr Vs'^ ^^'' r ^"^ '^"^ ™^^^"^- admitte:\h:t- e oi prohts. The Superior Court. (Taschereau, J.) held that parti cpation in prohts is equivalent to a partnership and o'ered an account to be rendered in proper form. Johnson, C. J., in d ^erin^ he judgment of the Court of Review, confirming this deciln m"df he ollowing remarks :" I would not even touch the J/ o the judgment, which says that this arrangement constitued a partners! under the law. I understand that to mean a partnerETw ODject to. — C. R.~Pratt vs. Berger, 33 L C. J., p. 126. Qu'ur.e convention, par iaquelle une personne avance a une ma L!i. 500 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 1831. autre une somine d'argent, pour etre employee dans le commerce, Ma condition de recevoir six par cent pour le montant avance et, a la hn du temps fixe pour la terminaison des affaires, de recevoir la somme avancee plus cinquante pour cent des profits, constitue une soci^te la rendant responsable des dettes de la societe.-Q. B^Davxe & Sylvestre, 18 R. L., p. 148 ; M. L. R , 5 Q. B.. p. 143 ; 83 L. C. J., p. 321. 4 Qu'une convention, par laquelle deux personnes stipulent qu'ils exploiteront un commerce determine, pour leur benefice ct avantage respectif Tune d'elles devant en etre administrateur et I'autre iour- nissant line somme d'argent qui doit lui etre remboursee, a trois mo)s d'avis, chacune d'elles devant partager les profits egalement, constitue une society.— Mathieu, J.—Hudon vs. Vallee, 18 R. L., p. 551. 5 Que la convention suivante constitue une soci^t^ et non un simple pret- M. pretre a N. une somme de $2,000, pour etre employee dans son commerce. N. donned M. un billet promissoire, payable dans un an et engage M. comme gerant de son commerce a un salaire de $100 par mois. Comme consideration des services de M. et de ce pret de $2 000 N. promet lui payer la moiti^ des profits du dit commerce faits durant I'ann^e et s'engage a ne retirer du commerce que a somme de $100 par mois. N. promet de prendre M., au bout de I'annee. en society s'il le desire, pourvu qu'il fouymsse $2,0C^' de capital. -Q. B.-McFarlane £■ Fatt, 20 R. L., p. 388 ; M. L. R, 6 Q. B., p. 251. 6 Une convention, par laquelle une des parties prete k I'autre une somme d'argent, pour I'exploitation d'une entreprise commerciale. avec stipulation de participer dans les profits, ne constitue pas n^ces- sairement un acte de soci6te entre les parties contractantes. Quoique. d'anres les termes de I'article 1831 C. C. et la jurisprudence une telle convention entraine avec elle la responsabilite de toutes les parties contractantes comme associes envers les tiers, neanmoins si les droit.s des tiers ne sont pas en jeu, I'intention des parties doit determiner s, elle out fait un contrat de pret ou de soci^te. Un acte r^dig^ dans l(.s termes du contrat mentionne dans cette cause, constitue un pret ct non un acte de societe. et le preteur a droit d'exiger le remboursement de son argent dans une action resolutoire tendant k iaire annuler la convention.-TASCHEREAU, J.-Rinfret vs. May, M. L. R. 6 S. C, p. 437. 7 That participation in the profits of a business does not make the person particfpating iiabie as a partner towards third parties, unless s not make the parties, unless Consolidated Supplement No. I.— Art. 1S34, 501 the intention was to form a contract of partnership, or unless he has ' been held out to the public as a partner. M. entered into an a;?reement with N. who was then doing business alone, under the style of B L Nowell & Co., by which M. advanced N. the sum of $2,000 for which he was to receive 8 percent interest and one half the net profits of the business^ M. also entered N's employment as manager, at a salary ot 31,200 a year. The agreement was for a year, at the end of which time ^. agreed to take M. into the business as a partner if M «o desired^ After about 15 months N. made an assignment, and m" was sued for a debt of B. L. Nowell & Co., on the ground that, by virtue of the above agreement, he was a partner. Held, that M having acted merely as manager, and never having been held out to the public as a partner, was not liable as such to third parties credit- ors.— Q. B —Reid & McFarlane, R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 130. 8. La participation dans les profits d'une society par un tiers ne rend pas ce tiers associ^, k moins quon ne prouve que telle a '^t^ 1 intention des parties.-PAONUELO, 3.-Lec.ompte vs. Daclos, R J. Q. * U. o., p. dob. 1834. As to the declaration to be made by persons enterin other Defendants fwho had previously carried on the business under the same firm name) were, at the date of the registration of the certificate, indebted to T. in the sum of $8,000 previously advanced by T. and used in the business, which debt was sot ott" against the $10,000, and the balance of $2,000 was subsequently paid or settled by T. in cash and by note. Held : — The declaration contained a false statement, within the meaning of Art. 1877 C. C, and T. was liable as an ordinary partner.— T A IT, J.— Emerson vs. Tourville, K. J, Q., 4 C. S., p. 140. 4. Un associe commanditaire, qui fournit une partie de sa inise en deniiirs comptant ot I'autre partie au moyon d'un billet, sera teiiu comme associe general.— G. M., J.—Allard vs. Ricard, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 427 See also cases noted in this Supplement at article 1872. 1S7». 1. General partners in a limited partnership are personally and jointly and severally resionsible for the del>ts of the partnensliip, in the same manner as ordinary partners under a collective name, and a general partner may be sued for the value of goods bought for the partnership, in the same manner as if there wore no special partner. — Tait, J.—Childs vs. Thibawlt, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 442. 2. Un jugement obtenu contre le g^rant d'une soci^t^ en comman- dite seul, mais pour une dette sociale, pent s uxecuter sur les biens de telle commandite. — Gill, J.—Childa vs. Thibault, K J. Q, 5 C. S., p. 210. ISSO 1. Decision number 23, noted at this article {Magog Textile Co. & Dohell), is reported in full in the 14 S. C. R, p. 664. Conaolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. JSS9 511 2. Quo la (lomarde do veraeraents, aur la doul.lu responsnl.ilit^ dcs acfcionnan-08 d'une hmqm, no peut so f«iro qu'k dos intorvalles do tronto joiirs francs ontre chaquo versemont— Mathieu, J —Cloyenvs Darling, 16 R. L., p. 050. 'i. Qn'uno compagnio incorpor^e ne peut pourauivro un de sea actionnaires pour lo n.ontant, on partio du montant. quil a souscrit dans le fonds capital, sans avoir M dftment ct prealablunu-nt autori- seo k lo fano. Que (luoiqu'uno compagnio incorpor^e, tomboo dans un otat complot de desorfranisation et do deconfituro, conservo toujoura tant que la corporation n'est pas 6teinto, son existence legale, nean- nioins elle ne peut poursuivre comine susdit, sans etre dOinent et rogulierenient autorisee.-TASCHEiiEAU, J.~Cie. ,lu Cap Gibraltar vs Ldonde, M. L R„ 5 S. C, p. 127. 4. Que quelque soit letat do disorganisation dans lo(iuel une conipagnie incorpor^e soit tonib^e, lea er('>anciers de cette coinpagnie peuvent toujours exercer leurs droits contre elle et .ses actionnaires Que les actionnaires ne sont pas. par le seul fait de la desorganisaf on et de la d^confiture de la conipagnie, d^chargds de leurs obli.-atio„.s do payer le n.ontant ou la l.alanco de leurs actions dans lo fonds capital Que le statut qui r^git les co.npagnies de societe de construrtion ne permet pas d'exig. r I'interet sur les parts non payees.- Tascheukau •\.—Hu(jheH "s. Vie. du Cap Gibraltar, M. L. R, 5 S C d 120 • IS R L, p. 205. :U L. C. J., p. 24. ' " ^' ' 5 Where the Act incorporating a company provided that the capital stock should be SGOO.OOO and that the company rni^dit commence business when that amount should hav been subscribed and one-third of it paid in, a resolution, whereby the directors pro- tHided to reduce the capital stock to a less amount than §000 000 Nvas ultra vires and null and void. Under C. C. 1716, a mandatary w.io subscrib.s stock in a company in his own name, is liable to creditors of the company as a shareholder, without prejudice to the creditors' rights against the mandator also.-PAGNUELO, J _ Molsons Bank vs. Stoddart, M. L. R, 6 S. C. p. 18. 6. A winding-up order may be obtained against an incorporated company, when it is in fact insolvent, though sixty days have not elap,sed since the service on such company of a demand for payment ot an overdue debt ; but when a petition Jor a winding-up order is presented before the expiration of such delay, the petitionc-f is re- 512 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art, 1889. -iifl quired to prove the insolvency of the company, unless it be acknow- ledged, or unless one of the other cases in which a company is deemed insolvent exists. — Wurtele, J. — Eddy Mfg. Co. vs. Henderson Lumber Co., M. L. R., 6 S, C p. 137. 7. Qu'une corporation ne pent, pour declarer un dividende, prendre en consideration la plus-value, ou accroissement en valeur de ses immeubles et de son materiel durant I'ann^e, car, ce sera le mettre en danger, en I'escomptant, mais elle peut justifier un dividende sur un fonds dit " de reconstruction " fait et accumule a meme les profits annuels, quoique ce fonds soit destine au renouvellement du materiel. (This case is also noted in this Supplement at article 360, decision number 3). — Pagnuelo, J. — City and District Savings Bank vn. Geddes, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 243 ; 19 R. L., p. 684. 8. Que par le statut du Canada de 1881, 44 Vict., ch. 61, 1'orga- nisation de la Compagnie de Sauvetage de la Puissance, qui a ete incorporee par ce statut, ne pouvait avoir lieu et qu'il ne pouvait etre procede k cette organization que si. dans les six mois de la raise en force de ce statut, il 6tait souserit au moins $100,000 au fond social de la compagnie et si un dep6t do $30,000 etait fait dans une banque incorporee, au credit de la compagnie. Que les souscriptions, dans le fond-capital de la compagnie n'ont 6te faites que sous la garantie de droit que les conditions voulues par la loi pour I'organisation reguliere de la compagnie seraient accomplies et que, vu le defaut de I'organi- sation, dans le delai fixe par I'acte d'incorporation, les souscriptions sont nullos et que I'organisation illegale de la compagnie, apres le delai fixe par la charte, ne rend pas obligatoires les souscriptions d'actions et que la caducite de la charte peut etre plaidee par uii actionnaire, comme defense k une action pour versement du capital souserit. — Q. B. — Brown vs. Cie de Sauvetage de la Puissanc, 20 11, L, p. 557. 9. Defendant subscribed on the stck subscription book of a joint stock company for ten shares, and ,..ote his signature as follows: " T. A. Trenholme in trust for H. Trenholme," but the words " in " trust for H. Trenholme " were erased on the stock-book. Held :— In the absence of evidence as to the time when said words were erased, the presumption was that they were erased at the timt! Defendant signed the stock-book, rather than that the book wa.s subsequently falsified ; and it was for the party alleging that the erasure was made subsequently to prove it. A subscription for shares ,'^^*'ii!i; Consolidated Supplevient No. l.—Art^ 189.>.lS9Ga. 513 accepted and acc,uiesced in by the directors of the Cou.panv, constitut- i. blelr'r ." ' "T'""" '" *" ^"^'' ^'"^'•^'«' - - '- -J- hi- JO Tr '^ "''r ^'"--t^"- -T)oHEHTV, J.-^^/,^ „,, Trenkolme, IV J. (^., d b. h.,p. 16;}. 10. Where a company has failed to make a call oF ten ,)er cent on the capital stock, within the thne prescribed by its charter but has ■nade a cal o two and a half per cent in lieu them.!- ane determination ef a suit between tlie niouibers thereof, has no authority to pay over tlio moneys in his hands to one of tlie parties, witliout an order of the Court, and he is hound to render an account and deliver over tlio effects in his possession as secpiestrator, before lie is entitled to his dischai-ge. — DoiiEliTV, J. — PhiU'rpfi vn, Kurr. \\. ,]. Q., 7 C. S., p. 358. 4. Que, sur uno requete pour fairo nommer un Ii(]nidateur a une societe dis.soute, sous I'art. iNDlia. C. C, le jnfj;e est com])et('nt a deeider sil y a eu societe, on non. — C II. — Uhxjntm vx. liciutctt, R.J. Q,, 1 C. S., p. 2(;i). l.S1>7. Lorsque les deiix ei-(U>viintaHsoeiescontinuent separ6inont ie meme commerce, celui (|ui a ncquis les dettes actives de la societe, n'a pas seul droit de i-ecevoir les lettres adressees a la ci-devant societe ; et CO droit, s'il I'avait, no lui doniierait pas inie action en doiiimat:jes, contre son ci-devant a,ssocie, )H)ur reins de lui doimer un coiiseiite- niL'iit on autori.sation a cot eU'et, niais une attion pour fairo declarer qu'il represente la societe (luant a ces lettres. — C. R. — Bernard iv. Allaire, 17 Q. L. R., p. 1!)8. 1H!>.S. 1. Que des batisses origte, par une socioto on nom col- Icctif, sur un foods apparteiiant a un des mombres de cette soeiet('\ appnrtiennent, apre-; la dissolution de la societe, a tons les inembre.s de cette societe et lion ;ni proprietaire seul (111 I'onds et peuvnt etri' licitt^es h la poursuite d'uii des menibres de la ci-devant societe (('. C. 080 et 151)2, et C. P. C. !)l!)j.— Q. R—i^'atu/sfcr u.t q,:o d,i.-e cette liquidation, de d... .ud,.,- „ .insfcice a .sos co-assoeies -Jktti f /), / "f"'^" "" 0. See case of 7)/t;X,;,ta ,t- ,SVr;/,;,t/'/ n„t,.,l ;„ h,;,q -, article IS.'W. '" ^I'ls Supplement at hii' coinpto e litre L'tu'iuLettc, notiMl in this 7. 8ee al.so ciso of Ih Mu-liin,, vh /y Supplement at article 1«.5;}, decision number 2. ISmy 1 Q„e 1,, separation .les patrimoines fC. (] 74:}; n a n.,« sous notiv di-o.t, ledet d envo,-er les cUnci,... du ,1 iCn ,^' sion de ses b.ens, comme cela avait lieu sous 1. dn.if , ' ' quelle ne constitue cpu.n prvile.. ant on ' 1 '""' ""''■' H,.l,. i«0(i I n 1 / ■ ' '"-• ■^"'''l<>,:4uo acdm consa;re par lar- .cle 189!) du Code C.v.l en laveur du civancier dune .societe 1 ' hjens de cetto derniere.-Q. U..-Ar.l.uuUaU ., F/,.. 1^ R l!., " 2. Ladi.ssolutioudune societe et le transport, par Tun dr. ^ -isoc.es 1:11 516 Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Arts. 1909-11)21. k I'aiitre, de tcut I'actif social, a la charije do payer Ics dettes de k soci^te, n'enlovo pas aux croaiiciera do la societe lours droits do pref6- renco, en vortu do I'articlo 18!)!) du Code Civil, a I'encontre des cr^an- ciers do rassoci6 cessionnaire, sur los bions sociaux codes tl cot associo at vendns sur Ini, iiiais co droit do proloronco dure jusqu'Ji co quo fa liquidatiou de la socioto suit faito.— Q. B.—Lcman it: UveilU, R. .). Q., 4B. li, p. 1.S7. 1»0». Errittam, :— Tho rcforouco to tho C. N. at this article should be to l!)7i) and not to 15)10. IttlJH. I. In this case it was field that there was sufficient evidence of an agrecinont between the parties amounting to a trans- action.— Sui'UEME CovMT.—IIardif .1': FUiatrauU, 13 L. N., p. 153; 17 S. C. R., p. 202. 2. Quo la transaction no s'applique pas qu'aux choses qui y sunt mertionnees coinnie fai.sant robjet do la transaction.— Q. B. — Jetti' <(• Dorion, I!) R L. p. 243; U L. C. J., p. 157 ; M. L. R., (i Q. B., p. 43.S. 3. Qu'un dobiteur, arreto sous rapiaK,t\m regie avec son creancior pour lo uiontant reclame par Taction, sans so reservor specialenieiit son recours en donimages contre son creancior pour fausse arrestatioii. ne pent plus, subseejuennnent, poursuivre le creancior pour dommage ; le regu nccepto par lo domandeur constituant un regloment linal ontre les parties. — .Iette, J. — Ikmutels r.s. F'duitrtiuU, M. L. R., S. ('., p. 238. 19S1' 1. Quo colui a qui ties aliments sunt dus ot qui, apros uiie poursuite pour los olitonir, transigo avoc son dobiteur et accepte de lui une rente annuelle determinee, ne pourra onsuite poursuivre co debiteur, pour obtenir de lui un plus fort montant, s'il n'etablit ims que sa position a change et (jue ses besuins ont augmonte depuis la date de la transaction.— Q. E.—Coidombe <(• Nadeaii, 19 R. L., p. 375, 2. Le deraandeur avait achete, d'un tiers de bonnu foi, du ft^r appartenant a la defonderesse, et I'avait onsuite brise pour lo venchv comme du vieux for. Menace de poursuites criniinelles, il s'oblige a payer k la defenderesse, $1,400, ce qui d^passait considerablement le montant des dommagos soufferts par cette derniere. Jiigd: Que (pioi que le demandeur n'eut assume, par son achat, aucune responsabilitc civile ou crirainelle, cependant I'arrangement en question constituant uae transaction, il ne ponvait etre mis de cote k canan de I'erreur de it this article ViniHolulated iiwpplement No. J.~Arh. 1!):>().I027. 517 .Iroit sous I'empirc .luquel Ic deman.leuv s'^tait on.^age i payer cette soMune pour ev,ter dos poursuitos ot ce „ouol.sta,;t la loS ,uo e .I.'mandour ava,t souHbrte, la U'-sion nV-tant plus une caus Til i -tro ,na,eurs. Quo la crainto .I'uu proces suflit .,.,. droit pour t v i .aso a uno tran.sact.on otlui doru.or u„o cause valal.i.. .,, iLt.. - Trm •\.~~iitv-Mano rs. Snuirf. R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 2!>2. ' ' l»a« (,,)„-„„, ..rrcur de calcul. dans uu r^gie.ueut dc co.npte .Mtreassooes, est susceptible de rectificatiou. Qu'H n'v a n.s li , i... -ur de r^ouvrir des d.l.ats et de per.uettre^. 1^.: > J ^ I-t.o do x.econ„„encer une contestation sur les iteu. d unco, „ te 'I" ellos out sourn,s a des con.ptahles, .liscute et finaleuaent rid run oonnnun accord.-(l R-L^^horevs Auhn,, I R. de J., p. JS l«a7. ^Hu- names of the parties in decision nund.er 5 „„t,.d at this article, are 7o»,rans. ,S7/rt<. • 1. Que celui cpn .lepose, .ntre les mains .I'un courtier, une somnie ■> -|?ont, pour speculer a 1 echan^e, sans I'intention de lair d" ZZ ou des ventes s,'.rieures, na pas de r.-eours en loi cont'v ,; '"'**'■ -Gill, J.-yi.w/ ... FnU-k, 17 R. L., p. IJrg ' '' '^ """■'"'• 2 Lors,,uun pari est fait, a la condition ,|ue les sommos pariees soront deposees entre les mains d'un tiers, le retrait de son ^ieu^ lune des parties .net fin au pari et donne a lautre le droit de n.o vrerdudepositanvcequ'elle avait elle-me.ne depose sur .1 en "^ ant que le pan nest pas gagne par Tun des parieurs irsoinm: ..eposee or. ina.ns t.erces ne cesse pas d'etre la proprie.e .iu I,', o a" >'t d pent la retu-er.-C. R.-S.„lft ,, Angers'l^q. L. R., p. i£r 3. Qu un client a, droit de pour,suivre en donmiages son a^rent de change, pour refus <.u defaut de livrer des actions ou stock !" 'a .ont aurait achetes pour lui. Ces dommages consistent da ^^ Idi . .•once des cours Le man.lat est severe et IWhat red et sin^' t non pas un ,eu de bourse, lorsc.ue le client o, ,leja aehet.s par 1 m^i ere du memo ,ig..nt des actions dont il a pris livraiso, ; ,<^"X 1 aye une ina -ge de vingt pour cent sur les stocks reclames, qui Z, es stocks surs et peu variables, et iorsqu'ila offert de pren.l e\,os^ io„ n payant a ba^nce du pri. dachafc. interets et commissio , ^^ ette derniere offre n'odt ete faite que sei.e mois apres la hat I la bourse.-PAGNUELo, :\. -Ritchie vs. Barclay, 21 R. L, p. 421 4. An action does not li. to recovo.^ from a broker, a balance 618 ConnolidniM Supplement No. I.— Art. 19'27. roiiiaininp in his liamls of nionoy wliich was dcpositod with him l)y tlic Plaintitr, as "inaririii" or security a;fainst l(}ss on transactions in stocks, wiiich W('i(! l)eint>- carrio(l on by tho broker for the PlaintiH', ami wiiich wcnj ailinittodly niero fictitious or ijaniing contracts. — C. R._7->r.,.„,/,v/jfc {W. J,/r/,;,s07i., 11. J. Q., 3 C. t^., p. ;K!i. — DoHEKTY, J.~ R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 25. 5. A l)rokor is not entitled to recover from a customer tlie amount of loss sustained on a purchase and i'(!-sale of stock, where delivery of tlic shares was not made or contemplated, and the contract was merely a gannng contract. — C. R. — Baldwin vh. Turnhidl, R. .1, Q., 5 C S., p. .'J4.-WUUTELK, J.— 11. J. Q, 1 C. S., p. 402. G. Un billet, donue en roglement do difference de bourse phisieurs mois apres que los operations out etc tcrminees, n'en repose pas moins sur uue cause illicite et est nul. La dette de jeu ne constitue ])as unci dette naturelle pouvant servir de l)ase a une oliljffation civile et, par- tant, cette dette n'est pas susce])tible de novation. — Fagnueia), J.- Cltrk vx. Brais, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. 1 81. 7. That there is no riglitof action for tho recovery of the amount of a promissory note, given by the proprietor of what is commonly terme"-•. -Ind. ^av. Hso '^i->''t''-'.-i.^tiL; ' : ;;:r -s inten.pt.. as to such ,:,:?;^;r''*-'V"'^'r;'V'" Q.. 4 B. R., p. , l.S._P.vuNUEU, J.I2I R L.;7, S ■ '^"•^"•^' ''• '^ (Tho ,)ii.l,i,nuont ii, tlH3 ul,ov(. caso has ^i,.,.,. ^, Privy Couucil). '' '""'' ^'^^^-" '-(ivers..! by tf.,; ciwtion pon.,..,: :;:,:;;;■ ;;':^ --; ^'-^ «'--.x, a ,!..oit lo .Iroit dWtio„.-C„AM^A<^; V ^;'''^^''''r'^ >'VnK.vaMtpas 241. • ^^- ^^—J^ow '"s. Le» its Ployee ha.l becon.e gniity ^^^ 1" , , . "7' "^'■'"^^'"'■^ ^hat tho e,n- to entail, loss to th.'en.,l;l: ^^.^ ^l^/;'--^ -^^-"■'^' -■ ''^"'7 >"a.le under tlie poiicv Th. ,■ T " ''""" "''^^ ''■'^''''^' to be andtheevidencJsXd tnr under the policy. — SuiMlEME Court. — 77te Harhoitr Comminsionens of MontvMd li; The Guaran- tee Companif of North America, 22 S. C. R., p. 542— Q. B.— R. J. (J., 2 B. R., p. (i.— Malhiot, J.— 20 R. L., p. 14. 2. The cashier of a bank removed bundles of notes from the hank premises to his residence, for the purpose of signing them, but it appeared that he brought them all back, and, subsequently, in his office .i:\ the bank, ho put a number of $5 notes in the bundles, instead of .* 1 iiotes, and thus defrauded the bank of §8,140. Held: — 1. In trusting the notes to the ca.shierto be sij^ned, there was no ne'dirjencc on the part of the b. ik involving a violation of the terms of the contract, and the loss was one caused by " fraud and dis- " honesty amounting to embezzlement " oti the part of the em- ployee, and came under the guarantee given by the policy. — The same employee, shortly before his Might from the couTitry, caused his own clu'(iues, to the amount of .*515..'574, to be certified bv the ledrrer- keeper of the bank, altliough \v\ the cashitjr, had no funds there. Held : — 2. This act, althuugii, technica'ly speaking, not constituting tJK! crime of embezzlement, was " fraud and dishonesty amounting to " cmbezzlenuMit " on the part of tlie cashier, and came under the sjuaran- ti'(! of the policy. The.se worils in the policy have to be taken in their ordin.iry or vulgar sense, as (otherwise the words " fraud or dishonesty ' would be without effect. The fact that the baidc recovered a lai'ire part of the money taken, did not affect its right to claim under the policy, there being a balance of total loss remaining which exceeded the amount of the policy. 4. The claim of the bank was not affected by its conniiunications with the employee after his flight, such com- munications not having had any injurious effect as regards the guarantee company. On the 30th May, the cashier did not appear at his office and a luimber of the cheques certified by the ledger- keeper, as above mentioned, were presented and paid although he had no amount to his credit, to check against. On the following day, the bank gave notice of the defalcation to the local agentof the guarantee companj^ H hi : — 5 The notice was given en temps utile, and the bank was not guilty of negligence. — Q. B. — London Guarantee & Accident Co. & The Hochclaga Bank, R. J. Q., 8 B, R., p. 25. 3. By the terms of a bond, the sureties guaranteed that A., who had been appointed agent of the Plaintiff, a life insurance company, for the purpose of procuring applications for life insurance, etc.. Conmlidated Hupplement No. l.~Art,. mi.1943, 521 would pay over nil monies hi-lonfrii,,, to Uu. fV^...,.. . • , , at any tin.o ..ecoivo. o. fo.- whieiri r, ^ ^.t^'JLT YT^'t .nonies which he n.i.htowc to the Con.^ ,y , '^ ^r*^ f'^'° '^" mace to hi,„ or otherwise, to the extent of S2 0^) At, '''''T^ his reouest H,^l,l ■ ti w. , , '''' *" '^- '^ ^^lie at nis ie(iuest. ^^^r^-lhat the hoiul constituted an ordinarv s.nvfv sh.p, and was not n.erely a fidelity bond hindin. tl, ■ .t L osscsoccunn. thron^l A.'s .iishonesty, and that'lhe su e i "^^ lal.le for the amount of the advance n,a,le to A "s wife O T ^n ., Ty United State. Life Insurance Co., U^t M? l~ pour iwV:,tS'd;r::!;;:.;;!:'Str ': "t^""'^"^ "r- '^'^-- ,),. In P..»- . '^^""•^' ''"'t ''"'uporteeau nom (e Tresorior -0 la Irov.nce, et sur son autorisation speciale -VVuilTF. I T Ma-dlH V... Allien, 1 1 L. N.. p. ;j()7. ^ vvuihele, J.— 2. Que eelui ,,ui ren.et ,.M l.iih.t promissoire au creancier ,!'„,. ->6 ; M. L. R, (i Q. B., ;,, ;^' ^'-^ """■"^- '^^ ^"'^^-^. 19 «• r^. p. 3 Que lexigibilitt^ anticir.k" oncourue par le dehiteur ne rend nas -Mgible, par ant.cipation, la dette 50 The accomodation i-ndorsor, who pays a promissory note, is snlndnntcd hy ]n\v in all tli.! rights of the creditor, including any hypothec which the latter uv\y have taken as collateral security. C R.--Iti re McAtfrei/ 1- La Banqae du Piuple & Ldoarnenx, R. J. Q 5 C. S., p. 185. 1!>»1:{. 1. Decision nunilier G, noted at this article, (McKinnon d- Keroac/c), is also reported in the 15 S. C. K., p. 111. 2. The maker of a promissory note cannot, by dilatory excepticjii. stay the suit of the holder, in order to call in the endorser en ga- rav/C/c— Davidson, J.— MoUons Bank v.i. Chadchois, R. J. Q., 2 C S., p. 286. 3. Que I'endosseur d'un billet promi.ssoire est la caution du fai.seur, et, conune tel, il a toute la protection acconlee par I'article 195.'{ C C. a la caution. Que I'endosseur a u.i droit d'action person- nelle contre le faiseur, devenu insolvable, ponr etre indemnise de son endossement, memo avant d'avoir paye et avant locheance du billet — CiMON, J.— Pellet ler vs. Denehcnes, 1 R. de J,, p. 352. 105!l. 1. Decision number 11, noted at this article (Dupraar.s Lamoureax) was contirmed in Appeal. — 19 R. L., p. 4(S7. 2. Que la composition, consentic entre le ci-eancier et I'endosseur d'un bill(jt, ne libere pas le prometteur. — C. 11.— Banqae Nationule w Betowrnu)/, 18 R. L., p. 175. 3. See also case of Oagnon vs. Brochu, noted in this Supplement at article 2071. 1»61. 1. Held {by Gill, J.)— Que la regie de droit pos^e par I'article 1961 du Code Civil, ((ue le delai accorde par le creancier au debiteur principal ne decharge point la caution, ne s'applique pas dans I'espece en autant que, par I'article 2340 du meme code, on doit avoir do, (McKlnm his Supplement Consotvlated Supplement No. I. —Art. lOUt. r>23 recours, en mafcioro do I.iHefcs proinissoires anv Ioi« .V \ i . f...oo I. ..,0 ,„ai ,s.«,, ,,„,„„„ z ,ii,p.,:;;i;:;:,,:,,t''":: ;::;:;; ;■■; «p.'c.,.lnn,.|it I,.., l.ill, u A Irttro, ,1,. d„,„ . "ii».nmnt sory not,., ha.l sncl. f^rantinff of tin.e l.-en prow,! wl.ich i / / noM..., in this ease.-Q. B.-/...,. {.,^1:;:;; i:;^^- 2. QuVn loi,„n en.lossour portonr ^Vnn billet, qui accnnle ,lu -i-lHi au t.u.seur, sans le consente.n.nt ,I,>s antres endows u, recours contre ces en.losseurs, les,,ueis se tm 'T ■ "'' OniMFT T I\,ll f n "'^'|"l-'» ■''(> tlOUVent (Icclliliws. ~ uuiMET. J — / elktier vs. Bnmecm, M. L. R, fi s. Q., p. ;J31. P'ljer 10 bil,a.-G. R.~Mei/de m i>o>'i,>», R. J. Q., i. ,. j^ j, ^.^ 4. TI.e endorser of a promissory note is consi.len..! a s,n-..f,. i Kevew m tl„3 ca,e, a™ to l» r„„„J f„ a,. U L S p 'i?) c ,, «»»«/•( m 4„j Jr ,.n"J,!;''"'""° ""' ™ '°°'°'"""' '"" '• '■ '■'«.'"' 'I'"" ti-" m,o - -onrnt.on .n aa^ptani an l^uouvellement dti billrt et en tral- 524 VovHolklated Stipideinent No. I.—Avl. I'.KJl. \k taut nvoc nn (k'H cii'losseiirs oil vu»m1i! aa liberation iiKiyniiiiant uii |iaieiiu'iit paitiel, lui donnaiit airiHi uii moyon de CDiitustation iIl' I'uo- tion (|u't'llo a contn: lui. Li; tiers propriiHairo do la valour inise en gago ost (los lors fondo a en poursulvro le rocunvronumt do la bannuc _Q, W—La liavqar dtt I'eapleit- Pacaad, U. .1. Q. 2 B. 11., p. 424'.- Andrew.s. J. — U. J. Q., .'} C. S., p. 8. iK If ^ iWi 7. Appellant, on the 22nd March 188(), addressed the followino letter to the bank Ucspondcnt : — " In consideration of your niakinji " advanci's to W. C. liibbard upon his dral'ts upon W. 11. Hilibard, uml " accepted by the latter to the extent of !<(!,()()U, I hereby guarantee " you, the said bank, the due payment of all sums at any time due and " owing to you, the said bunk, froni the said W. C. liibbard, under said " drafts, not exceeding the .sum of 8(),000. and any interest and cost-- " which may accrue thereon, and that no .lyment received by you from " W. C. Hibbard, or otherwise, shall be taken in reduction of my " liability upon this guarantee, and that you may give any time to, or " take any .security from, or accept any composition from said W, V " Hibbard, or any of the parties to any l»i!ls, drafts, notes or cheques " discounted or held by you as aforesaid, without prejudice to your " claim upon me under this guarantee. And I further agree that all " dividei'ds, compositions and payments received from him, th ni or any " of them, or his or their reproentatives, .shall be taken and applied as " payment in gross, and that this guarantee shall apply to and secure " any ultimate balance that shall remain due to you, the said bank, " under saiil drafts. And I further agree that this guarantee siiall be ;, " continuing guarantee for an amount not, exceeding the said sum of " S0,000 due to you from the said W. C. Hibbar.l, for any or all of the " causes aforesaid, and shall remain in force until revoked by writti-u " notice to the .said Molsoiis Bank, and that the same .shall not lie " revoked by my death." Upon receipt of this letter, Respondent advanced to W. C. Hibbard $6,000, in three sums, upon his drafts upon W. R. Hibbard, and accepted by the latter. These drafts were renewed from time to time, as they became due, by similar drafts, which were similarly renewed, when they became due, until 188!). In 1888 Hibbard closed his account with the bank, drew out his balance, $88, and went out of business. In an action by the bank against the Appellant, for the amount of the drafts as representing the balance due upon advances made under the letter of guarantee. Held : — The guarantee, being a continuing guarantee for the amount, was not restricted to the original drafts, but extended to those by which they were renewed, 14 Oomolidatetl Suppl, orient No. /.— y| "nt.l rovoked by written notice. Tho fact tf.at Mil ^ i . -eonnt an-l .l.-.-w o.,t his t.aIanco ,li.l taH tl 'c 'l'' "ot appear that any draft was due to ^11.',,,^"' '" 'f;'"' vait;i^;;;i:n::;:::r'!';::;^;;T^t''';'':- '•'■^>''- - -"- •■ any extensions ..rti.:r p y e^ 7':" '"'^ '"" ""^^ ^^'^"^ " account, or renew anv nn.n / '''°"'''' "'' '"^'•"'^■« "f . . "^ wilt Il(r (riven fd tr.ii 1. ■■(?i>'i"Kyou,ucl, „„ti™ „•,.„..,«. h, ■* ■* "■ '""' "I""' ■ •'<.» or ,„,cTuin,. ,l„-. t„ J :Z,? ' ?,f '" "■'""»'"'' ""'J' 'I'" torn-, et ,,,,'il „vt, i , „ , , 7"' '" '.'"""«'" ''!"" J'l par Ic UK,. le co„,c.„tomo„t *, .l.-.l.itcL- p ipa? In" .'°° ''",' "'''''"""■' ""» surety, and i. not „„tiU„,| t, ,„ ,J , t ! '^ '" "'T '» "i"'"™'' ....Jer con,mercial .locuncnt, of titfe, dn v endo" d a J r r""; ;n ^od ,a.M,.ereV l"!;:;- ', "ittCiraJlir:;' Tl' to dispose of the same for its benefit. A transfer of n n " "^ade by a trader to a bank, as collateral secuXtrTtr'; "*."' him to the bank, the manager of the Bank at he TX "' ' "^^ fer, having, reason to know th.t t ! V ""^ ^'^^ *''^"'^- - Knou that the transferor m insolvent, is void, K!,1 'IT ii r ■ 526 Consoiidated Su,i>plement No. l.—Arts. 1968-1970. under Art. 1036 C. C.-Q. B.— Canadian Bank of Commerce ,iW.„/ i' 9 v^ ./ . ^*' ^" possession de ces fniction de Montreal, 20 R. L, p. G38. -^'f"«f«i*e de Cons- pay,„/„t of „cort,ji/i^.''\ rrriT"'"" "V" "'™-"' "i-™ • ^"i' »>■ i.i» c.-«„i::t til „ ;;:;:'z:;i",,r^'".'"?'' '■•■■■ "« « an aasi,„.,™t .,. t\i JjJ:; ;';/^!^---t -;.y R ^ woitl, ,,,„„ tl,a„ tl,„ am t ,l„o to tl" ba, 1 V ■■■■' '"-'"« ='u-ier.y ciaimeu the sliares were I* •■ I. ■■! It "■i.( 528 Consolidated Supplement No. I. — Art. 1971. pledged to them for the whole amount of P.'s indebtedness to them under the by-laws. Held, (reversing the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, appeal side, and restoring the judg- ment of the Superior Court), that the shares in question must be held as having always been charged, under the by-laws, with the amount of P.'s indebtedness to the society, and tlu^t his creditors had only the same rights in respect of these shares as P. himself had when lie made the abandonment of his property, vix., to get the shares upon payment of P.'s indebtedness to the society. (Fournier and Tasche- reau, J J, dissenting.) — Supreme Court. — La Societ>^- Canadienve- Fran^dim de Construction de Montmd & Develuy, 20 S. C. R., p. 449 ; 15 L. N., p. lOG.— Q. B.— M. L R., 7 Q. B., p. 417. 7. A person who is in possession of a moveable article, as lessee, is unable to pledge it eflectively, as against the real owner, for a past due indebtedness of his own.— DoHERTV, 5 .—Carhonneau vs. Alacliu- bee, R. J. Q., C. S., p. 92. 8. Que le transport d'un conuaissement de marchandises, fait, a un particulier, en mars 1888, pour garantir le paiement d'une dette contracteci plusieurs mois auparavant, ne transfere aucun droit sur les marchandises, (pii ne sont pas mises en la possession du creancitr cessionnaire du conuaissement.— Davidson, J.— Fatt v.s. Shortlry, :}.') L. C. J., p. 35. 9. That the transfer of goods, then stored in New York, by a debtor apparently solvent, to his creditor, by endorsement of the bill of ladino-, as security for an antecedent indebtedness, as well as for a note at the time discounted by the creditor, is valid, and the creditor may apply the proceeds of the pledge to the antecedent debt, and recover on the note discounted at the time.— Q. [B.— Watson ,(■ Johnson, M. L. R., 7 Q. B , p. 147. 1»71. 1. Decision number 4, noted at this article, (Bennimj .t Thih" /miOwas contirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench and by the Supreme Court and is noted in full in this Supplement, at article 197(i. decision number 1. 2. Qu'une banque, qui fait un pret, et accepte, comme garantie collaterale, un transport de ses propres actions qu'elle fait faire k son werant, est respon.sable de la remise de ces actions, k I'emprunteui-, lorsque ce dernier a acquitte sa dette, quoique ce tranport soit illegal. Conmlidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 197^. 529 ~Q. B.-Exchange Bank of Canada & Fletcher, 1!) R L n S77 • S4 L. C. J., p. 130 ; M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. H. ' ^^ '"^ ' '^* 3. Que le porteur d'un billet promissoin., qui a ete renv. en cr^^r. con,n.e sGret6 d'une creance qu'il a centre leniosseu du b .1 efcS transportece billet, pour valeur ro.uo, k un tiers, perd pa iJtl TZ^r'oTT'^'';''^' '', '-''- '' trouv;Ln;iroLp;„'r et etemte.— y. B.~Lepage <£• Haviel, 19 R. L., p. 439. 4. Qu'une personne qui a une action en dosnrnacres contre son de- bteur et quz en a re,u un gage, n'est pas tenu dc^ discuter e gage avant de prendre son action en dommage.-PAGNEULo, J._C,7./ ^^• District Saving Bank v,. Geddes, M, L. R., 6 S. C p 'H3 • 10 R p. 684. ' ' " ' "■■ '^ 5 Que le creancier gagiste pent obtenir la vente du gage en le faisant saisir entre ses ,nains, par saisie-arret apres jugemc^.t -Tas- CHEREAU. J.-Murray vs. Montreal & Sard Ry. Co, 20 R. L, p. 433. 6. Que Ir convention par laquelle le creancier gagiste est autorisd a disposer du gage, pour un prix determine, n'en.peche pas ce dernier de le fa^re vendre. s',1 ne trouve pas k en disposer de gre a gre pour le pnx d^termme.-JETTE, ^l.-Murruy vs. Montreal .(SorelRy^o M JK. Li., p. 4J0. '' ■' 7 That a contract by which a building society takes a transfer of real estate^ as security for advances made by it to the owner and then leases the same property to the debtor, with a stipulation 'that m default of comphance by the lessee with the conditions of the lease' he society may keep the property, is lawful ; and where, in such case' the lease has been cancelled by the Court, owing to the debtors' default to comply with the conditions, the society becomes absolute owner of the property, and may soil and dispose of it, without bein.. under any obligation to account for the proceeds-Section 1 2 of ch': bJ, C. b. L C, which enables the society to sell property transferred to .t as security, and repay itself its advances and hand over the balance to the owner, does not exclude the society's right to stipulate that, in detaulc of payment, it may keep the property pledged.-Q B -Ste- wart & St. Ann's Building Society, R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 320. p ,'*?!?■ ^' ,^'""^"" ""™^^^- 2 noted at this article ( Exchange Bank of Canada vs. City and District Savings Bank) was confirmed m Appeal.— M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 196. 34 580 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1972. m ,ii 2. i^ue le debiteur, qui donno en gage une creance k son cr^an- cier, reste propri^taire de cefcte creance efc que, si le cr^anoier, par son testament, donne k son debiteu une quittance de tout ce qu'il pent lui devoir, le debiteur pourra ensuite percevoir lui-meme le montant de la creance qu'il avait mis en gage.— Q. B.—Jette & Dorian, 19 R L, p. 243 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 157 ; M. L. R 6 Q. R, p. 438. 3. Revendication, in the hands of a curator to an insolvent estate, of certain debentures illegally pledged by the insolvents and redeem- ed by the curator. Held, that such curator would have no greater rights over such debentures than had the bank, pledgee, and it appear- ing that the full amount for which they, with other securities, had been pledged had been more than covered with the proceeds of such other securities, the debentures must be returned by the curator to the Respondent, their rightful owner—Q. B.— Rattray & Methot, 16 Q. L. R, p. 203. 4. The pledgee of grain, pledgep. Cas., p. 637.— Q. B.— M. L. R„ 5 Q. B., p. 461. 3. The Molson s Bank took, from one H., several warehouse receipts as collateral security for commer'ial paper discounted in the ordinary course of business, una, having a surplus from the sale of the goods represented by the receipts, clainu d, under a parol agreement, to hold that surpli;:^; in payracut of other debis due by H. Ihdd : tliat tiie parol agreement was not contrary to the pmvisioiis of the Banking 4cfc, eh. 120, sees. 52 et neq. and that, after the goody were lawfully *.i]d, tiis> money tiiat remained, after applying the proceeds of each sale to (Is pr()])er note, was simply money held to the use of H., sub- ject i> the terms of the parol agreemv lit. — Supreme Court. — Thoiopson tfc Molson's Bank, 12 L. N., p. 339 ; 16 S. C. R., p. 664.— DOHEETY, J.— 8 L. N., p. 363. 4. Que le creancier, qui a des garantie. collatdrales et qui com- pose avec son debiteur, sans aucune reserve qviant aux gai'anties col- lat^rales, n'a droit de les retenir que pour assurer le montant de la composition. — Mathieu, J. — Heney vs. Primeaw, 18 R. L, p. 271. 5. The pledgee, who applies to his own lises a sum of money pledged as security for the payment cf a ndte, is guilty of an abuse of the pledge, within the meaning of article 1975 of the Civil Code, sufficient to justify the pledger in demanding repayment of such money with interest. Where the return of money, pledged as security for the payment of a note, is conditioned upon the collection by the pledgee of the amount of such note, the fact that he has been himself the means of preventing the collection of the note, ('as by releasing one of the parties thereto, the others being insolvent), will make the conditional obligation (to return the money) absolute. — Andrews, J. — Pacaud vs. La Banque du Peuple, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 8. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the above case is noted in full in this Supplement, at article 1961, de is^on number 6. 6. Que le propri^taire d'un chemin de f. > . .... ;truit par un entre- preneur, ' t iUi est convenu d'en laissCi. la po; ission kce dernier, ju.-^- Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art 1970 533 McGreevy, 17 Q. L. R., p. 289. McGreevy vs. docision number 5. ' "'" S-PpWrneot, at article 1972. U4 "'Lt::..!!'""" ""^ "'•'""■"'"' ''y "- «"P-"- Court, which promissory notrfen 1 L v t "hirforlr "' "*'? -""""^ ""'^ fullamount of hisc„„l™irol^LVto;r; ""'''"""'■ ''°'- ''■<' on the groond that the noi: ;^s:;t:fz:::,':;'::z7- I! il! ir il 534 Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. 1077. of the Rfifreement between the parties, viz., the vohintary assignment, to collocate the Appellants upon the whole of their claim as secured by the deed.— Supreme Couut.— fie?nit7)^ d- Thibeaudi u, 20 S. C. R., p. 110. 2. Under the common law of this Province, a creditor, claiming against the estate of a joint debtor, is entitled to take a dividend on his claim only after deduction therefrom of whatever sums he may have received from his other joint debtors. Money due by the creditor, at the time of the claim, is to be set off against it and not against the dividend to be declared upon it. — Andrews, J. — Chinic vs. Bank of British North Amer'-ca, 14 Q. L. R., pp. 205 and 289. 3. Qu'un creancier n'a pas droit d'etre colloque sur le plein mon- tant de sa reclamation, sur les biens de ditferents obliges conjointe- ment et solidairement au paiement de cette creance, sans deduire de cette reclamation ce qu'il a re^u sur les biens de I'un d'eux, avant pa production.— Q. B.— Ontario Bank & Chaplin, 17 R. L., p. 246 ; M. L R., 5 Q. B., p. 407. , The decision in the above case was confirmed by the Supremo Court, which held as follows. Per Ritchie C. J., and Taschereau J., affirming the judgment of the court below , (Strong and Fournier, J J. contra), that a creditor is not entitled to rank for the full amount of his claim upon the separ- ate estates of insolvent debtors, jointly and severally liable for the amount of the debt, but is obliged to deduct from his claim the amount, previously received from the estates of the other parties jointly aiicl severally liable therefor. — Per Gwynne and Patterson JJ. That a person who has realized a portion of his debt upon the insolvent estate of one of his co-debtors, cannot be allowed to rank upon the estate (m liquidation under the winding-up Act^ of his other co-debtors, jointly and severally liable, without tirst deducting the amount he has previously received from the estate of his co-debtors.— (R. S. C, ch. 129 sec. 62. The Winding-up Act.) Held, also, that a person who makes a deposit with a bank after its suspension, the deposit consisting of cheques of third parties drawn on and accepted by the bank in question, is not entitled to be paid by privilege the amount of such deposit. — Supreme Court. — Ontario Bank & Chaplin, 20 S. C. R., p. 152. 1977. The Respondent obtained against the Montreal and Sorel eal and Son; ComUukUM Supplement No^ i.^AvI. im. jjS Railway Comp„ny njudgment for the sura of Wrr j , havmg couscd a wit of veruHHoni ,x„Zl tf i ""'' ~"' """ way property of the Montreal ^i^^^Z^^Tl Tl, "'° "■''''■ were in possession and working tl,„ . V ""' ."f' """ Appellants, wlio agreeraent in writin., loT e,lL, T ?^' °'"""'"'' ""''»"• " ««'«" property pledged tolt»1oTr,ilr:„rtZ^^^ agreement relied n by Ltr.i „""'"'' '"" "'""""'''"■ '"" ween the Montreal Ja SoreTE i| "1 T'.'f T '■""""' """ >«'- and stated, a,„on»t other thinf?^,,";' "'" "^PP""'"" ""'"Panv, Company was iLhtd :i ' l"'!* ""'?' ""-I """' «"■'«>■ ".oney to place the road in run in^ ^de ti' t::"';" ?";' ""' <^nada, dismissed the V;Lt„°;:;:^rr'%rjTt '^r: :rnttiru:,rd"r-r:' ;: '«re r t^-™ ^. ™* -"■ Montreal and Sorel Railway clpa„: 2nd Th.T ""^f ""'^ "' "'" granting the lien or pledge adeelod t ' °' "" "g'eement l^en registered, it was trd gatTT T"''"'^' """ ''"^ °'" Montreal and Sorel Railway r„T ,. °°""°'' ""'''°'' "f «'» 0.) 3rd. That Ar «9 C C d„ '"";' ■ ' ""' '"" ""'' 2°"* '^ veable, who has not regl^ered t", ""^ '"^\'° ° ^'"'8'° °' "" i"" - 'he pledger's e.eeutLTer:d":t;he"?'''"ffr'°^"'^»'^^ ments on the property pled.^ed but th. "^ r™ °' '"" '''*"'^"- opposition «/j/*LLL to tpadout olhf ""f ^ '" '' "" dieial sale. rArt 1972 O r 1 «„,. ^ * proceeds of the ju- B»»«j, fe ^. Wfe, 21 a c. R. P /31 '■""" ^""' *"*"' Vol. n" M2a '° '""■*' "' "'"' °' >-*"«• Cove Receipts, fc., see 1. Que bien qu'aux termes de Tarticle 8646 des S R o , . port d un conna ssement ne o-arnntit „., 1 "J*" "e* »• «• ut lien, droit ou privilto ,ue ers peuvent pretendre sur iceux. Lorsquune sail proven vo" <^to faite, sur un mdividu aecuso ^^^^ ^^^«-^^«^'^ 3. A carrier, who has put the thing transported in the particular fi'f 1 538 Gonaolidated Supplement No I. —Arts. J 994b- /994c. place specified in the contract of carriajro. is not consi.lwo.l to have therel.y .hspossess,-,! hin.self of it, an.l his rie also case of Thompson vs. Maacom, noted in this Supple- ment at article 1980. decision number 1. 11MM/;. Amendment.---/. The following article is added after article 11)<)4I. of the Civil Code of Lower Canada :- "Itt»4c. Every person engaging himself to cut or manufacture timber, or to draw it out of the forest, or to float, raft or brin.^ it down nvers and streams, has, for securing his wages or salary, a privilege, ranking with the claims of creditors who have a right of pledge or of retention, upon all the timber belonging to the person for whom he workid, and, if he worked for a contractor, sub-contractor or foreman, upon all the timber belonging to the person in whose service such contractor, sub-contractor or foreman were, and which was cut, drawn or floated by such contractor, .subcontractor or fore- man ; but said privilege is extinguished as soon as the lumber shall have passed into the hands of a third person who has bought it has received delivery thereof and has paid the price therefor in full buch privilege in no wise aflects that which the Banks may acquiiv m virtue of the Banking Act. However, in the case in which the creditor has worked for a contractor or sub-contractor, such privile^^e shall not exist unle.ss the person having a right thereto has given^a verbal notice to the person aftectcd by the exercise thereof, and to the debtor or their agents or employees, in the presence of two witnesses, or a notice in writing, of the amount due to him at each term of payment, as soon as possible, and such notice may be given by one creditor for .md in the name of all the others who are unpaid. 2. In the event of a contestation between the cre.litor and the debtor respecting the amount due, the creditor shall, without delay give written notice to the person affected by the exercise of such right, and the latter shall then retain the amount in dispute until he receives a written notification of an amicable settlement or of u judicial decision. " 2. Article 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended by in this Supple- is added after of «,s C,:,, Cot ^^:i, "J;"*"'- '» "■•'- <"• "«'"• ■Oi.4c C. J., p. 67. i^-^««>si. .vs. Lawrence, 17 R. L. ,,. „; . ..,.3 ,^ i-intit^t:;:;'::,^:;-;'^^^ r -- ^^^- ^- ^lebitour. .soitp<,„ro.„p'!^^ier ;i, r V r ''? '^' ^'-"-"-'" clue, et que, sous IWticI toSu C C T -T'^^tf '/""'""'^' "" P^"" courus daiKs un litige, mais qu'il suffit n MI« '? '' ^'''"' ""■ L. R.. 6 Q. B.. p. 201.-WaHTEi,E, J._M. L. R, 5 S. C. p. 374 ' renfc. and on J; o^ d^^^^^^^ «*" '^^^-hn-nt for curator by privile " /^./i T^f^^^^^^ *« ^'« P"^'^' '- l""'! «« eonoeate/f^ any^ort^^^, JSl^!: ^r SJ^^ ^ /^ ^^ -^^ ANDREW!,, J _Jfc IK,H,<„„ „s. Orfer, R, J. Q., 2 C. S., p. I2(i. ■ clause, the word » «,.,, •^-<^t^Vi„^ JMri" 2''™ "' "'° '"" .n»ubi au,„ern";; ^r,: : oror:v : d: ;- '• -."'«f ■ -'■ comme en faisant narfio T .*'•' J^^ec icqucl il a ete saisi ot vendu payd ne,t<,„ C/i: , rix ; Ts^ 3 "" '^'T."'"" "'^^'^ """ p. 332. \^i n 540 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 1998. 3. Que ]e vendeur d'uu meuhle, qui stipule qu'il restera propri^- taire de la chose vendue, tant que le prix n'en sera pas paye, n'a pas le droit, apres la cession de bi^ns de I'acheteur, d'etre colloqu^, par privilege, sur tous les biens cedes pour le prix de vetite de cet objet particulier.— Q. B.—McKtnzie <& Chapleau 19 R. L., p. 402. This case is also reported (under the name of Irving & Chapleau) in the M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 157. 4. L'absent, aux biens duquel un gardien a 6t^ nomme, en vertu de I'article 780 C. P. C, est en faillite dans le sens du dernier alinea de I'article 1998 C. C. Le privilege du vendtur d'un mouble non paye, d'etre pr^iere sur le prix, est perdu par I'expiration des quinze jours qui suivent la vente, lorsque I'acheteur a fait faillite. — C. R. — Duhai- me vs. Pratte, 16 Q. L. R., p. 258. 5. Defendant purchased from Plaintiff a cargo of coals, to be settled for by his promissory note at three months, deliverable to Plaintiff" on the unloading of the cargo on the wharf, but failed to give or offer such note, and in spite of diligent search he could not be found, whereupon Plaintiff" took a saisie-conservatoire and seized the coals, without, however, alleging secretion, absconding or insolvency on the part of Defendant, or asking the resiliation of the sale. Held. dismissing petition to quash, that Defendant's default to give such note entitled Plaintiff" to demand immediate payment in cash and at the moment of resorting to his seizure he was in the position of an unpaid vendor for cash, having the right to protect his privilege bj' saisie-conservatoire. An unpaid vendor, even under a credit snle, has a right to protect his privilege by a saisie-conservatoire of lh( thing sold. — C. R. — Maguire vs. Baile, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 75. 6. Une vente de machineries, faite k la condition qu'elle seront posees par le vendeur et mises en bon etat de fonctionnemcnt, h. la satisfaction de I'acheteur, est de la nature d'une vente a I'essai et reste suspendue jusqu'a evencment de la condition, et si, apres essai, I'acheteur se declare non satisfait et refuse de les accepter, la vente n'est pas parfaite et ne transfere pas la propriete des machines a I'acheteur. Les machines ne deviennent pas, par telle installation, immeubles par destination, parce qu'elles n'appartenaient pas au pro- prietaire du fonds et n'y ont pas ete placees par lui, et parce que le vendeur ne les y a placees qu'a I'essai, sous condition d'acceptation, ft non pas a perp^tuelle deineure. En supposant m^rae la vente parfaite, le vendeur aurait droit d'ou demander la resolution pour r.-uise de Gonsollidated Supplement No. I. -Arts. W99.200ii. 541 non-paivment cl^une partie du prix, payable coinptant, et de revcr, diquer les machines dans les quinze jours de L declaration . non-acceptation.-RouTHiKH, J.-^.. vt. Caun, R. J Q 5 C s., p! 19»». The ,mmes of the parties in decision number 18. noted ut this article, were Hatch.tte vs. Gooderham. aOOO. 1. Que le privilege du vendeur d'etre pay^ avant tout de la vente de la chose vendue par lui, lorsqu'elle est encore dans les inemes conditions et qu'il n'est plus dans les delais pour la r^en i quer, pent s exercer nieme apres les ouinze jours qui suivent la ven L R, Ts. a ^l;^'''-~'^'^^^'^--^-ll'^-^-nd vs. Stevenson m: 200oVr"l''T P""^''^»\S™"*-J t- the unpaid vendor, by article sTe in. f T'"'""^ ""^^ "'■*^^" fifteen days from the date of LE.,Ts a, p^ 222 ''•"''"''' -'-^^^^^-^"^^ - Lyendecker^ M. S. The lessor's consent to allow his debtor's effects to be sold bv private auction, rather thnn by judicial sale, will not prejudice hi^ claim upon the effects of third parties, also garnishing t'he'p mi where it is not shown that the result was less favorable thi "id have been tha of a judicial sale ; but the proceeds must be app^d s regards rank and privilege of claims, in the same mannei asif distributed in conrt- A. m^^^■., J. ^Valliere vs. Carrier, R. J Q r 2001 Qtcar,; has a printer a lion on manasoript given him to a003. The widow and the tutor to the minor childi'en of vni rf. K^;. ' ""'"/ '*' ''" '"'^"■^' '^^'•^•-' -d the su-^cersion will not be held responsible for the costs of service ordered contrary to th ir wishes, and which the moans of the deceased did not justify -.AIT. J.-Barreife vs. Lallier, R J. Q., j Q. S.. p. 541. ^' Il'l p 'jSi^Ju iJM^ 542 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Artf. 2009-Wll. 2009. Amendment. — Paragiaph 7 of article 2009 of the Civil Code is replaced by tlie followinsf : — " 7. The claim of the labourer, workman, supplier of building materials and builder (chief contractor) subject to the provisions of article 2013."— Q. 57 Vict., cap. 46, par 1 : J^ote : — This amendment has itself been amended, at the recent Session of the Lejifislature, by an Act which has not yet been chaptered and reading as follows. Paragraph 7 of article 2009 of the Civil Code, as replaced 57 Victoria, chapter 46, section 1, is replaced by the following : " 7. The claim of the laborer, workman, architect and builder, " subject to the provisions of article 2013." 1. Que le proprietaire, qui construit ases frais un mur de cloture, dans la ligne entre son terrain et celui de son voisin, n'a pas, pour la moitie du prix de cette cloture, de repours contre le tiers acquereur du terrain du voisin. — Mathieu, J. — McGoivan vs. Amyotte, 17 R. L., p. 329. 2. Que, sous I'article 2009 C. C, les frais faits dans I'int^ret coin- mun et declares privilegies, ne sont pas necessairement des frais en- courus dans un litige, niais qu'il suffit qu'ils aient 6te exposes dan.s I'interet couimun.— Q. B.— Barnard cfc Molson, 19 U. L., p. 290 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 201.— WuiiTELE, J.— M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 374. 3. Que les frais d'ouverture et d'adniinistration de la faillite nc sont pas. en general, faits dans I'interet des creanciers hypoth^caires, dont les droits sont assures. Que les frais qui ont pour objet la con- servation et la liquidation des biens immobiliers peuvent seuls etre consider^'S comme frais de justice privilegi^s. — Gagn6, J. — DeBerger vs. Kane, 13 L. N., p. 410. soil. Where certain lots, cadastral subdivisions of a Inrger lot of land, were sold by the sheriff, and against the proceeds the numi- cipality filed a claim for taxes on the whole lot, without indicating the amount chargeable to each subdivision it was held that the claim was not one upon which the corporation could be collocated for any sum whatever, and the prothonotary was ju.stified in ignoring the claim and collocating the creditor next in rank. — Anduews, J. — 'lemier vs. Burroughs, R. J. Q, 6 C S., p. 40. Ews, J. — 'lesder OomolilaM Su,,,pUm,-nt No. J.^Arls. ms-msc. 543 follo^^irrarST*'*^*^^"'" '-aid Code , .p,„eed ,y the living one „tt;™*:*;::""y '*'"-■'!'»'. except the creditor up^n"! ::wt™:'ve:;r '"'°™ "^'^ '" ""^---p"- 1- The labourer. 2. The workman. 3. The supplier. 4. The chief contractor. .i..uboTl'toS;:i"t:,f' "■; "'r-- '- '— '"-oei-t d„e o™t«.;.d„r;tr':aL:',::;'::"^^^ while such work lasts, as the case ,nL ' J"'""?/*^^'. f "le work or P-ided it be regisiered ^itr 7^ ^1::^::^]^^'^'^ c-o".pletion or the cessation of the worl' ^ ^ ^""''"^^ ^'^^ 2. But such rifrht of preference or privilecre shall ,.v,«f . tor two vears frnm Hi„ ,i„4. - xi . F'^^'tj^e hnaii exist only stipulated in the contmet. ^ P"' '"""' ''"■' '"='=- Mlowb"'!:dit'l';"""""'"" '"■ '"'' P""*«° '» "■'»« '" the I- The labourer and workman must ffive nntin ■ VurhnIN, I „i' •, "lusu ^ive nOtlCO Ul WritlHir or \«rbally before a witness, to the pronriof^.f. ^f fi,,. .-., , /, ^ ji-^i r or tfu- immoveable, tliat 544 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arts. W13d-WlS. they have not been paid i'or their work, for each term of payment due. Such notice may be given by one of the employees in the name of all the other labourers or workmen who are not paid. 2. The supplier of materials shall, before delivery of the materials, give notice in writing, to the proprietor of the immoveable, of the contracts made by him for the delivery of materials, and mention the costs thereof and the immoveable for wiiich they are intended. 3. The sub-contractor shall, within eight days from the signing of the contracts, also inform the proprietor or the bailleur de fonds, or either of them, as the case may be, or his agents, of the contracts he has entered into with the chief contractor. 3013ii In order to meet the privileged claims of the labourer, workman and supplier of materials, the proprietor of the immoveable may retain an amount equal to that which he has paid or will be called upon to pay, according to the notices he has received, so long as such claims remain unpaid. ::>013^. In the event of a difference of opinion between th.- creditor and the debtor with respect to uhc amount due, the creditor shall, without delay, inform the proprietor of the immoveable, by means of a notice which ^all also mention the name of the creditor, the name ot the debtor, the amount claimed and the nature of the claim. The proprietor retains the amount in dispute until notified ot an amicable settlement or a judicial decision.— Q.— 57 Vict., ch. 46, par. 2. J^ote .-—This amendment has itself been amended, at the recent Session of the Legislature, by an Act which has not yet been chaptered, and reading as follows : — Articles 2018, 2018«, 20136, 2013c', 2013fZ and 2013e of the said Civil Code, as enacted by section 2 of the said' Act, (57 Vic. cap. 4(1) is replaced by tho following : " 2013. The labourer, workman, architect and builder have a "right of preference over the vendor and other creditors, on the " immoveable, but only upon the additional value given to the ini- " moveable by the work done. " In case the proceeds areinsuffii^ient to pay the laborer, workman i-30L% m of payment !S in the namo id. of the materials, loveable, of the nd mention the ntended. n the signing of mr de fonds, or le contracts he if the labourer, the immoveable mid or will be eceived, so lon^j n between the ue, the creditor immoveable, by of the creditor, nature of the il notitied of an ct., ch. 46, par. 2 1, at tlie recent t been chaptered, )13e of the said '67 Vic. cap. 4(1) builder have u redifcoi's, on the riven to the ini- borer, workman Consolidated Supplement, No. I.^Arts. m^ia-mSc 545 " The aforesaid privileged claim is paid onlv nnnn *. bundtTnL'a'lZ:^*^ "' "' "'°"^"'' "°*-'"' -'"''=' -I t ' 1 . The labourer ; " 2. The workman ; " 3. The architect ; " 4. The builder. ■■ ready for the purpose for which H i.tte'ded ' ''" '~""' ••fo;:L'ir/;^:itsn::i3:x:iT "-" -^^ -'^ "in the i„te,-v„l.or unle«, a lonl^detv tV n ''" '^''^ ''''" " stipulated in the contract. ^ f"^"""' •"" b™" : ..ha. not he. paid for thei? Ztl::^ CZ^^^^^ i\ ■ 546 Conmlidated Supplement No. l.—Arts. WlSd-WlSi. \W'^ " 2. The architect and builder shall likewise inform the proprietor " ot the immoveable, or his agents, in writing, of the contract which " they have made with a chief contractor within eight days of the " signing of the same. " aOlSrf. In order to meet the privileged claims of the labourer " and workman, the proprietor of the immoveable may retain an " amount equal to that which he has paid or will be called upon to " pay, according to the notices he has received, so long as such claims " remain unpaid. " 2013e. In the event of a difFerence of opinion between the " creditor and the debtor, with respect to the asnount due, the creditor " shall, without delay, inform the proprietor of the immoveable, by ' means of a written notice which shall also mention the name of the creditor, the name of the debtor, the amount claimed and the nature of the claim. '■ The proprietor then retains the amcjuut in dispute until notified " of an amicable settlement or a judicial decision. " 2013/. The sale to a third party by the proprietor of the " immoveable or his agents, or the payment of the whole or a portion " of the contract price, cannot in any way affect the claims of peirsons " who have a privilege under article 2013, and who have complied " with the requirements of articles 2013a, 20136, 2013c, and 2103 of " this Code. " 2013,9. The supplier of materials shall, before delivery of the " materials, give notice in writing to the proprietor of the immove- " able, of the contracts made by him for the delivery of materials,and " mention the cost thereof and the immoveable for which they are " intended. " 2013^. In order to meet the privileged claims of the suppliers " of materials, the proprietor of the immoveable retains, on the contract " price, an amount equal to that mentioned in the notices he has " received. " 2013i. The notices mentioned in article 2Ql^g have the eftect " of an attachment by garnishment on the contract price. " Within the three months following the notice given in accor- s until notified iven in accor- Gonsolidated Supplement No. I. —Arts. 2013J.W131. 547 ;; dance with article 2013^, the interested parties must adopt legal have the debtor condemned and the seizure declared valid, otherwise tne latter lapses, " 201»j. In the event of the proprietor of the immoveable erecting the building himself without the intermediary of any contractor, the notices mentioned in article 2013r; may be given to the person or persons who lend or may lend money to the person ■'sutiec"tt:h ^''^■:^"P«" /^« ^'^"^ «!-". rautatJ .^utanL Z subject to the provisions of the preceding articles. " a013/.. No transfer of any portion of the contract price or of the amount borrowed, as the case may be, either before or during the execution of the work, can be set up against the said suppS of materials, nor can any payment, exceeding the costs of the lork done according to a certificate of the architect or superintendent of the works, affect their rights " 20nf ^!f ^" r^r ^''? *° *^' P^'^P^^^^^ ''^ ^i'-*"^ '^^ article 2013.7 and registered according to article 2103, the suppliers of materials shall have a hypothecary privilege which shall nxnk afte " this ir ^ "^ "^''"^' ""' *^^ P"^"«g- -'-t^d by under aS ^^UCC J' "'' "^^«^77,^«'' .-" ^^P^^t, when appointed unaer article 2013 CC, to secure a builder's privilege on an immove- ab e to give notices of his proceedings to the proprietor'. credTors uch proceedings not being regulated by arts 322 etseq. C C P That there was evidence in this case to support the finding of fact of the courts below, that the second procis-verhal. or official statement required to be made by the expert, under art. 2013, had b en made within SIX months of the completion of the builder's works. That i w,. sufficient for the expert to state in his second proc^s-verhal, made •If 1 at s„r ""f T' T' *'' "^^^^ ^^^^^"^^^ ^^d been ex;cuted and that such works had given to the immoveable the additional value tixed byhira The words "executes suivant lei rigles de Varticle" ^:^:^f^''^-'r::'r^. That if an expert included in his valuat n works for which the builder had by law no privilege, .uch error will not be a cause of nullity, but will only entitle the^interested parli o ask for a reduction of the expert's valuation.-SuPKEME Court - Dufo^sne & Prefontmne, 21 S. G R., p. 607.-Q. B._R. J. Q„ i b R 548 C'onKolidateil Supplemcvt No. 1. — Arts. W14.-S017. 2. Le posesaeur do bonne foi, qui a fait des constructions sur le fonds d'autrui, n'est pas tenu, pour obtenir le paiement de ses ouvra- ges, d etablir qu'il s'est conforuie aux exigences des articles 2013 et 2103 du Code Civil. Ces articles ne s'appliquent qu'au constructeur ou autre ouvrier, qui fait des constructions pour le propri^taire du sol et en vertu d'un contrat avec le proprietaire.— Gagne, 3.— The Chinic Hardtvare Compavy vs. Lmirent, 1 R. de J., p. 278. 2014. 1. See case oi Bilodeau vs. Sharpies, noted in this Supple- ment at article 1998, decision number 2. 2. Entre les cr^anciers, les privileges ne produi,sent d'effet k I'egard des immeubles qu'autant qu ils sont enrdgistres, mais le privil%e du vendeur d'un immeuble est effectif a I'encontn. des creanciers, dont les titres de creauce ne sont pas enregistres _C. R.— Bernard vs Bernard, 16 Q. L. R., p. 108. 3015. See case of Great Eastern Railway Co. <& Lamhe, noted in this Supplement at article 1977 and at article 1032, decision num- ber 18. 201T. 1. Que le creancier qui, sans reserve, consent a un con- cordat avec son debiteur, n'a pas le droit de retenir les sdret^s colla- terales qu'il avait eues de son debiteur, ou le gage qu'il a en mains, si ce n'est pas pour le garantir du montant de la corapositioa— Mathieu 3.— Roy vs. Faucher, 17 R, L, p. 287. 2. Que I'acquereur d'ustensiles, places dans une usine dont le ven- deur est locataire, mais dont il devient proprietaire ensuite, ne pourra les revendiquer, a I'encontre d'un creancier hypothecaire, par obliga- tion post^rieure a la vente, affectant le moulin et les ustensiles vendus auparavant, mais non d^plac^s. (C. C. 379;.-Q. K~Thihaudeau <^ Maille, 17 R. L., p. 299. 3. Que des pieces de machineries mises par le proprietaire d'icel- les, dans une usine, qui nelui appartient pas, ne deviennent pas im- meubles par destination ou autrement, et que le proprietaire de I'usine. en I'hypothequant, n'hypotheque pas ces machineries— OuiMET, J.— Chevalier vs. Latraverse, 17 R. L., p. 642. The above case was reversed, upon other issues, in Review, the judgment of which Court is noted in this Supplement, at article 1472, decision number 6, and at article 1970, decision number 3. miii Oonsdidated Su,ppltment No. J.-Ah,. mU-tms. m -C. K~B^lodeau vs. Sharpies, 14 Q. L. R., p. 332 ; 16 R ll p 524: 5. Que le creancier, qui a des "amntios nnllnf-ixni . • avec son debiteur sans auonn. ,'^^'^''"''''' coHaterales et qu. compose mles, n'a droit de les rettnl '^''''^ '^"'^"^ '^"'^ S'^^-'^nties collato- posit on. Jm TH Ll J '^^^ pour assurer lo montant d. la con.- iUAPHiEu, d.~Heney vs. Primeau, 18 R. L, p. 271. cannot bo exercised wir„mr- ^ "'• ''™''"'° ^'"='' P">'il«g" tlusca,e) and the innnoveabiXt , , Ilv"" n' "° '"'* '" i»in possession of a third oartv or T V ^^'oWcs are attached H. 6 Q. B, p. 77, '"^ '— '^■E-'7K-L.p. 637;M.L. '^. JftS:wTa rr,%^ c„„,„ o„,»ri« c..,. ^„,„,,„, Q. B., p. 91. ' P- ^- ^— 1^ K- L- p. 631 ; M. L. R.. 6 p.oprit,^dVr;;arri„is:;'";°:;ri;''eit:r''\--°- p..rtant, I'h^potheqne eonsentie par le vLenr c™ti„t T ''° 1' part ven^d^e, „a„r. eette venteic. R. - Crilt^-rQ! with,^rrt;da;^:rdX:ce:ini':,eZ7n"''™!;"''^'^^' distribution of t^e 17/^,^; 1 ^t ^rS o"f Z'' f ^ -.Iaxixieu, J.-^ew^ier vs. Mivest, 17 R. L., p. 528 ''"P"^'"^^' 550 Cownlidaied Supplement No. l.—Arta. WHG-WSJ^ 3. Qu'un coinmergant insolvable ne peut 'alableinent accordcr d'hypotheque sur ses biens, au d<5trimcnt de scs creanciers en jr^n^ral. quand nieme celui on faveur de qui I'liypotheque est donn^o ignorait I'insolvabilitti du debiteur.— Jett^, J.—Stevenson m LalUmand M L. R, 6 S. C, p. 305. 4. Where the circumstances disclose that tbe hypothec sought to be set aside was granted merely to take the place of an ample security previously held by the mortgagees, aiul that the hypothec wa'^ obtained by him in good faith, without apparent profit, solely to help his debtor and in ignorance of his insolvency (even assuming that a state of insolvency existed at the time) the right of the creditor to be collocated for the amount of his hypothec should be maintained. C R. — Lefehvre vs. Lamontagne, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 158. S026. See C. C. 2147a, as replaced and noted in this Supplement. A legal hypothec may be registered against the substitute of a substituted property, before the opening of the substitution, but the notice in the inscription of the judgment must be worded so as only to affect the rights of the substitute and so as not to prejudice those of th i.4itute.— CiMON, J.—Hingston vs. Franklin, 19 R. L, p. 124 ^im^. 1. Que I'hypotheque l%ale, que la loi accorde k la femme, nc p; fit .vappliquer k la donation d'une rente viagere, en cas de survie, k eile iViifce par le mari dans le contrat de mariage, et qu'un hypothfe- que g^n^rale accord^e par le mari, pour garantir le paiement de cette rente, est sans efFet ainsi que I'enregistreraent de cette hypoth^que sur des immeubles laissds par le mari. — Q. B. — Davignon & Roy, 18 R. L., p. 546 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 233. 2. See also case of Perraulf vs. Caron, noted in this Supplement at article 2042. 2034. 1. Que le cr^ancier qui a obtenu jugement dans une poursuite pour une somme tnoindre que quarante piastres, et qui fait enregistrer ce jugement, sur un immeuble de son debiteur, ne peut ensuite poursuivre ce meme debiteur, le dafendeur, par une action en declaration d'hypotheque, et ainsi faire vendre un immeuble pour une somme n'excedant pas quarante piastres. — C. R. — Campeau vs. Brouilld, 16R. L., p. 404. 2. Qu'un jugement, contre une compagnie de chemin de fer, af- )Iement accorder ciers en %^".A ^'^^ ,^ ^c C^r i/.i 552 Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Art. W44. Mathieu, J.-Hmt dtl Dalwde m. Lapovte dit Dinu, R. J, Q., 2 C. 3- Th^ '^^J^'f r of a location ticket granted a hypothec on his lot llTfT n''""'''' ^°^' "" ^^* *° ^"« -"Who obtained a patent from the Crown. The hypothecary creditor then, by action the sale as a fraud on his rights. Held, that the hypothec was void under article 1743 of the Revised Statutes of Queb'ec, which forbids the hypothecation of, and exempts from seizure, a set ler's lands heU under location ticket ; and inasmuch as the lot had never, in contem plation of law, been part of the deltor^ s patrimo^ne, so as to be the gageoi his creditors, the Plaintiff had no action parUiana agains him in respect of it^ Even if the sale were proved t^o be collus v' tl Court would not set it aside merely to enable the Plaintiff to call upo^^ the Crown to take proce dings for the annulment of the letters-paten as having been fraudulently obtained.^ The Plaintiffs rem dy T^' Cent r! 7. T'^ ^' ' ''''''' ^PP'^^^^'™ *° t^- Attorney General, supported by affidavit.-C. R -Marin vs. TrerMay, 17 i'i , fl m ^044. 1. Lhypotheque conventionnelle n'est valable quen HUtant que la somme pour laquelle elle est consentie est certaine et detei-min^e par un acte. (Thiscaseis more fully noted inthis Supplement at article 2124.)_Q. B.-Foisy dit Freniire & Germain. 18 R. L 2 Dans un contrat de mariage du 8 aofit 1867. (avec clause de s Vra ion de biens et de renonciation au douaire) " en temoignage de 1 amiti,^ que lefuturepoux ported la future epouse, il luf crJe et constitue. par les presentes. une rente annuelle et viag^reet pension aiunentaire qui lui sera pay^e. a dire dexperts. par les heritiers on legataires universels du dit futur ^poux , k son dec^s. et a la prestation de laquelle rente le iutur epoux hypotheque specialement une terre " qui .St d^cnte dans V^ct..~Jng6 : que cette rente viagere se trouve entreviis et que cette hypotheque conventionnelle est valable bien que la rente ne so.t pas evaluee au contrat de mariage. en une somme ceraineetdetermuiee. vu quelle est appreciable en argent ; et. lors de la distribution du prix de la terre. il sera fait une ^valuiio; en t. wu. de la date du ti(;re. DMis, R. J. Q., 2 C. ypothec on his let n, who obtained a or then, by action the annulment of lypothec was void, bee, which forbids settler's lands held never, in contem- 3, so as to be the pauliana against to be collusive, th(! aintiff' to call upon the letters-patent, Fs remedy, if any, to the Attorney vs. Tremblay, 17 it valable qu'en e est certaine et ti this Supplement 'main, 18 R. L, (avec clause de 'n temoignage de 56, il lui cr^e ot iagere et pension les heritiers oii et a la prestation ?ment une terre " agere se trouve d'une donation st valable, bien e, en une somme argent ; et, lors > Evaluation en Consolidated 3upple.^ent No. l.^Arts. m7-W5;, 553 *-'<^tii^S^oU^,ti^Z: »"'''''''''''' amount, cannot b„ The registration or a deedof ^ '''° T" ""^ "°'"»veable, given, fnce of a deZati„„ of n T- ^"^ ""' "^'^"^ »» " »««?- ,u'.r*:it'^r:::„i^r:;i:;::i;'':'sr ''°^'- - ''"- -*» creances chirographaires • tnnW T ^°" ^nregistrement, les produit deffet^quTcon pt'erl '"'' """'^ '' '"^'^' I'^ypoth^que ne .Ire d'un enregltreme^fetfe i ^-'^g'^t'— .t, ce qui doit s'enten- "Pon the property and was arrest '?'!;; """"f"' "' '''''' «ion of article 800 C P C ,f !!''' "P°" ^^^^P'^^ under the provi- J, p. 151. ■ '"^ '^ ' P- '^43.— Belangeu, J.— 1 R. de nest pa.f:;ei;;:r;::rta£ 'f t ™' "^p"^'^ •■yp°'^^^»». ^ larlicle 800 d„ code de p "eed,, •',""""«'' ''™' " -' I"-"- ■lue ,ur rordre dl Ju^; co:S: . n^ tt;: il''* " T' """"^ ' uifumer ait Lapierre, R. J. Q., 3 (^ g „ 43 ™r I'LlSi: t;^r;r:prdt:;r ""» "- - "^■''""■*'.- exprime I'intention dl contin-Z !■ ''" ''"''"'"'* '™»i-lorabIe, et -»«e cet i,„,„e„ble en V r. frrndT""" "' ''";"'" "™'' ™^°">- lorsque cette coupe est faile en d, I T "''"'"°'"' > =' «>■ '""■'™' -ntre lui ct J^cZ^ "f:^:^^^;'^"'^'''";'^ convenues ment endommage ri,„„e„ble po ,rZ re ' i?"''' ""*'"'"■ r=ute? llXTe^l'rf 7 '* '-" -"'"-? " - I.ae„a„de„r^:X:r~:^-:--^Hes^ I' 564 Consoiidated Supplement No. l.~Art. W5J^. I V nation du capxm, pour ^tabllr I'intention dans laquelle les actcs ant6- rieurs, reproch^s au d^fendeur, ont «5t4 faits—LARUE, J.—Bdavner vs. Lacroicc, R. J. Q.. 3 C. S., p. 479. 4. The Defendant having, for a consideration of S3,000. obtained a piornise of sale of iinmoveable property hypothecated to the Plaintifl' for $2,(500 and interest ramountinpr in all to about $2,900,; proceeded to cut the timber on the land and sell the same, without applying the proceeds to the payment or reduction of the mortgage. The land was not worth more than the Plaintiffs hypothecary claim, and the removal of the timber would sensibly diminish the value. The Plaintiff; having unsuccessfndy endea ured to obtain a settlement of some kind, finally caused the Defendant to be arrested under a writ of capias. Held, that under these circumstances, the capias was well founded.— Brooks, 3.— Chaffers vs. Paquette, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 268, 2058. 1. Que le creancier d'une obligation hypoth^caire, qui pour- suit son d^biteur personnellement, ne pent subs^quemment. dans une action en declaration d'hypoth^ue cohtre un tiers-d^tenteur, r^clamer les frais qu'il a faits dans Taction personnelle, si ces frais n'ont pa« et6 enregistr^s contre I'immeuble portant I'hypothfeque.— Loranqer J.—Sancer vs. Thibeau, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 473. 2. Que Taction hypoth^caire ne peut etre intentee que contre le d^tenteur k titre de proprietaire et non contre le locataire.— Lorangeu J.—Olobensky vs. Forget dit Despaties, 18 R. I,., p. 663. 3. Que le creancier de rentes constil-i epr^sentant les rentes seigneuriales diies sur un immeuble vendu depuis I'ech^ance de ces rentes, n'a pas droit k Taction hypoth^caire contre Tacqu^reur, mais il a Taction personnelle, et que dans une action hypoth^caire, le d^fen- deur, oblige personnellement, pourra etre condamn^ comme dans une action personnelle.— Q. B.—Curwi7i c6 Cooke, 21 R L.. p. 97. 4. Un achat par vente volontaire par une compagnie de chemiii de fer, aprfes que les avis d'expropriation en vertu de Tacte des chemins de fer, 51 Vict. (Can.), ch. 29, ont dte donnas et an cours de Texpro- priation, confere k la compagnie un titre parfait k Timmeuble en question, libre de toutes les charges qui le grevaient, et, partant, un creancier hypoth^caire ne peut poursuivre la compagnie en d^clarn- tion d'hypotheque, son seul recours ^tant sur le prix pay6 par la com- pagnie. Le creancier hypoth^caire n'aurait qu'un recours personnel contre la compagnie, au cas ou celle-ci aurait n^gligd de deposer en Oomolidated Supple,^eMt No. I.-^Arts. 2061.2071. 5r,6 cour le prix de I'inuneublo.— Louanger T n Ottawa Ry. Co., R. J. Q., 3 C. S p 445 ' ^""^'^^ ''■ ^''^'"'^•""^ '''^ ^0(7./,.^ s!otl,HTl p 214 ''""■ ^' ''''^'''^- - ^- «• 1- arr^rages. .ais en^T e' on ^tl" reT'^''"" ''' '^•^^'"• cette rente ii I'avenir >,endanf .™' Y ? '"' P'"^-''t'^tions ,1,, position n'etantquuneflu^^ ''^^^"*-"- «t cotto ,Iis- B'en prevaloir erdoffiri titr 7 ''*"^'^"^' ^'^'^^ '^ '»•''<' dernander.--JKTTE J-iy,^^^^^ '' non au creaneier de le i^iii., o.—Maic%lle vs. Primeau, R. J, Q., 4 c. S., p. 327 sufflsa„tes.-c,MTNr-wTi:ur°v?n°""' ''*'"'»-' ^ -rm&er ys. Boucher, R. J. Q.^ 5 c. 8., p. 22 1 (This case is fally report^ 'r.l « ''l'°''' 8"">''"e » "'••« »«.»-•(. V8. Bdanger, P J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 162 ™'^'^'^er>— u. R.— />am^so« within four days after the r»t„r„T,r' I " ""^P'™. «le.l «d tender the m^y ^ ^1™ ;' '"l"""?' '".'"""'"' ""■ '"■°P"'J' enough to state thatL TarLd ret^^Lt s^Tc ^r"' «' ',""' ^^s. Campbell, R. J. Q., 3 q S., p. 393. R— WieTK^cajt 3O7I. Que le cessionnaire du nHv rl'„»,-. accord^ ^un subsequent acquWde a,!" ^''"T' "'"'"' ^"' * moindre, un d^lai plus hng^ZZ-s^Cltir?'''^^^ "" ^"^ s'est oblige envers o^ .Jr. ^ . ^ P^"" '^ P^'emiere ventc ot affeotant fa /r^^Itfpor, ^^^1?;;;,^ ^'^^^ '''l^P-"^.- t' uu prix de la premiere vonte f'-Tf ,| ivi Iff} _ ip ■ m m H\ I 566 Comolidated Supplenumt No. I. — Arts. S073-S082. n'a pas d'action centre son cedant, qui a'csfc oblig^ de fournir et faire valoir, ni contre le detentenr de la propriete affoct^e k cette garantie par son cedant, uvant I'expiration du delai qu'il a ainsi accorde, ni pour I'excedant du prix de la premiere vente sur celui de la seconde. — C. R. — Oagnon vs. Brochu, 16 Q. L. R., p. 102. 2073. 1. M. acquired an immoveable aj^ainst which ajudgment had previously been registered. M. paid this hypothecary claim, out of the purchase price payable by him, only after the extinction of an usufruct on the property. When he did so, the time for renewing the registration of the hypothec had not expired, and he did not renew the registration of the judgment within the delay of the cadastre. Held .—That the payment by M. of the hypothec on the property was made en temps utile and had the effect of extinguishing the hypothec, and that M. was entitled to retain the amount so paid out of the price payable to his vendor.— Q. B.—Kay & Gibeault R J. Q., IB. R, p. 427. 2. Le garant du defendeur. dans une action hypoth^caire, qui avait re^u I'immeuble en paiement d'une dette privilegi^e anterieure a celle pour laquelle Taction est portee, peut intervenir et exiger, avant que le -aranti soit tenu de delaisser, que le creancier po'ursuivant lui donne le cautionnement de I'article 2073 C. C. — C. R —Leclerc vs Martin, 17 Q. L. R., p. 177. 2075. 1. In an action en diclaration d'hypotJUque, the Defendant, in default of his surrendering within the period fixed by the Court, may be personally condemned to pay the full amount of the Plaintiffs claim.— Supreme CovKL—Duhuc & Lidston, 12 L N p 178 ■ 16 S C. R., p. 357. • 2. Les conclusions d'une action hypothecaii-e, demandant que le defendeur soit condamne & payer si mieu:: il n'aime delaisser, sont suffi- santes. II n'est pas n^cessaire, dans les conclusions d'une action hypo- th^caire, de mentionner un delai dans lequel le Defendeur devra faire son option et delaisse..- -CiMON, J.—Fraser vs. Boucher, R. J O 5 C S., p. 221. ^'' M 2078. Erratum. should be C. N. -The letters C. C, at the end of this article, 2083. 1. Decion number 15, noted at this article (Dufresne & 1 of this article, cle (Dufresne & Consolidated Supplement No. 1 --Art ^^>n,^^ Dixon) was confirmed l.v fl,« « i« noted in this Supplen.fnt at cTmo '^ "" '"'^'"^^ '^' ^^^^^^^ transport est sans effetrritcole^^^^^^^^^^ s;est conforms aux exigence" deL" ^7^^-"- -^'sequent, qui pr-.ce of sale from L. to M.) brought t!^ ! ""P*"'^ ^^''^"^'^ "*" ^h." poadents were collocated iZt.irtZ' ^'f''^^^^ ^'^'^- ^- ot an obligation with hypothec xfcnZ. Tf'^''' *'^^' '^'' '^"•«»°t transferred to RespondenT tL tYtl .f £ '^..'^- ^'°" "^^ -'«' -' never been registered. The title of T ' "'''''''''' "'^'^"^ '^^d the sale to M. Respondents hynot ""' "°^ ^'^^-^^^red until after sale from L. to M., and the amount '' T. "'^'''''''^ ^'^^'^ the L. at the date of h s sale to 7 ,''r''^ '^''''^'^ ''^' ^^'J' d^o by tion of that sale, ii^i^j^i:::^^:^ ^\T' '^'^ "^' ''^ -»-^- transferee of the rights of L hdd "? "" collocat.on, that Appellant, the Respondents; that L. could not bt 'n '" '^ '^'^''' '' ''S^'^^ ^elUbailleur de fonds ckhn create i T""' '"' ''^^""'"° *« '^""- «laim over that of his hypore'c!! !,i> '" ""° ^^^"'^ ^ Preferential of registration of title, f Cotlca.^ r. ^'^'^^'^"''"^ ^b^^"-' - regards his debtor, and if eSed foT ,7 ''' '^ ^^^'^ ^^P^^^-^. him on the proceeds of the mTnoii; ^' ''- '"''^ ^"^ ^''^"'^'"^'^ *'^ «^< judgment creditors of one W A P «. . lot oi land, situate in the city of Monfr.!,, 7" , ' '"'^'^ '^"'^ sold a This lot had originally belonged t^DllM^T ''^ ^«*'^^- C, e« al, and subsequently WAP -T • ' ""''^ '"'^ ^* *« W. A of the lot. re-assignl, it to l.t M D '1^™' ''' ^^'^^^"^ -"- by Dame M.D.. through her tenant' atfhf ^'T'*^ "^"^ °^«"Pied sheriff's sale took plac^ on i^^:lTotZ Zt d'^ 'T'^' ^^^ .red her deed of re-assignment on tl e Islh N ^""^ ^^^ ^^ '•«^'«- he 4th May 1885, the pSrcha^ers re! teld i^ ^ . '''' '^"^ °» The Respondent, by petition to the Sun' ^ P f''' "*" P"^«J>*«^'- setting a^ide of the sheriffs decree mu k:T' ^''^'^ ^^ ^^e been for a long time in open, pealeablf and K • ^^^P°°<^«°* having property and notably so rttknieofth'-"^^^^-^^^^^^^^ '' '^^ aad sale thereof, at the instance oTthe Iterr ""«^-^«---re been made super non domino tZI f P.P'"*"*' ^«« nuH as havinff by the sheri/on i^eTa7j,t' imtf"^^^^ ^^^ ^ granted until the 4th May 1885 and R *^^*'*'« ""^ J^aving been her deed of retrocession on the 2Sth No T^?' ^'^^°^ r«S^«t-ed entitled to the conclusions of her pSoT ^^ '''' ''"P"'^^-* -« ^-««n« cfe Dia^on, 12 L. N.. p. 33?; 16 s c r7p 596 ''^ CouRT.-Z)t.- taite!^u!!eing?rTvl\:r;ap?sV"r"'^^' ^'*"' ^^^ —tons droits des cr^anLs iu ve^^ur 3I" tnV^'r '^^'^ ^" ^-"^« 'i- 'ie cette vente. et ce quand m rle racte d. . "'"'^''^ ^" ^^'"P^ quapres que le veudeur fut^ venu en /' "T "' ''"''' '^^'Si^tre Township Bank ^ Bishol^Tl p 1^1' lV^. ^■~^^«^^-- 'P- ^^ - ^>I- L. R., 5 Q.B. p.216. - /iie declaration contained in Art 2090 P n .u . ration of a title conferring real n^hts L n' ' 1 " '^' ^^^^«'- • property of a person, nmde within thc/b ^ T"" '^' ""'"^-^able ' bankruptcy, is without effec" i Vo Vo "^ ^ ^""^"^ *° '- such registration an absolute nu litv^n « '^'^^Preted as making ^ any one having an estb^ ed^^^^^^^ only relatively' tually sustained prejudice or loss in corLeouen" ""^ "'^° ^''' ^'■ Hence, other creditors have no le.al ^^r:Z:l:'''):^^^^'^-^^on. o - to criticise such registration i.: I III I J". 6fiO Conaoli(l(ded Supplement No. l.—Artn !209,i.'J098. li until it has been (ienionstrattjd, by a jndi^ment of distribution, or other equivalent legal procedure, that their claims remain unpaid, in whole or in part, as a direct consequence of such registration. — Q. B. — Tnidrl «-«t;rHEME Cornrr. 'luant k eux. .me par lonrriJ ^'^'^ '^f " '^^■"^ t'-'">sm.,so valal.lement ■luvendeurpuve'ntvalabZn7'" ';•"'■ P"'*'^"'' '^'^ -^---- venten'apaLt/lS^ rtrrivl'T"?''^ ^^"'" '^^ ''^'"^ ''^ -St sans em,t.-PAr;vuE o T aT ' '"'^^'^'^''^•"•^"t apris la saisi. .«'nd!r;:r:,;e :l:lirt:^ - property, creatm. a LaUleur ,U after thirty day Z^ he aP ' '.""' " ""' '•^^'•^'^•^'-"^' ""*'' ..-ante, h/the ^rci:::^ ^ il v^ tl^r T ''^ '^^"'''^'•^^'• Civil' dSug::;:st:::::t:tr:^t '^ -r"^ ^" ^^-^^ ^" ^-^^ W, estsaLeffet.ta ; e e'^U^ ^^^ ^'^*^"' '"■- ^ ^^^ >^. lieaiUiert IS. Boucher dit Desroche,, I R. Je J., ,, nrl J' ^"' f' '" '^''P^^'*'^" d« Vernier alin^a de I'article -mH T r prise conjomtement avec I'articio 2043 C C Vh T ^' par le possesseur k titre de propri'tlro et ::n ^^f "'"' ""'''^'"' gistrement de son titre prime iCl/l'" T^^'^'^' "^^^"^ I enre- ''.Uitrl-MATHE; 5''t;r^:nT'; ^" '""^^ -i^"---^ ^^^ '^ ^ato Q.. 2 C. S. p 66 ' ^'"^'"^^ '" ^'^^^'^'-'^ '^'^ ^^-'-- R- J. p i-> i ! A62 Corsoiidated Supplement No. t.—Arts. 2 100-21 OS. !). L'effct do renregistrcmont du titro de I'acqudrour, fait avant colui du titre do son autour, n'ost que suspendu ; IV-nrt^giHtroinont Huhs/Kiui'tit di; CO dernitT titro doniin k colui do I'ucqui^rour sou plein ot ontier offct, uionn- k I't'ucontro drs droits do Tauteur, dout le titru n'a et6 enrogistr^ que plus lio tronto jours apr^s aa dato. Davn ien- j)dce, lo deiimndour ayant enregistr^ I'licto d'^chango lui dormant la gui-antio sur It-s lots poss6dos pur Ics (k'lV-ndours, un an aprfes I'onr^- gistreniont do I'acquisition do.s dits lots par ocs derniers, lui, dit de- r-andour, n'avait pas sur Ics dits lots, pour la dite garantio, un liypo- tlifeque qu'il put invoqucr contro les d^fondeurs. — Andrenm, J., diasenticnte.—C. K—Si/lvain vs. LahU. R. .1. Q., 2 C. S., p. 4«(i. 10. See remarks of Lacoste, C. J., as to the meaning of the words " acquereur" and " mnn efct," in the case of Ihlan "»™» Form A. Form of notice or memorial thatntavew^drolrhf^'^^^f'^^^^^^''^ ^^^^'^ declare at f hp fnul ,^ ^ immoveable of r«a«i^ of the provrietor) at the following work (nature of the work), (or I have suIZri77i he a suppler, etc., (as the case may be) sin e («it 1 cZ^f' X. amount due me is (amount of the claim) ,hJill ^ ' ^^'^* *^' which I have worked is described ^rf^^ll ' . "nmoveable on or descr.pUon by mete. aJ'^Ji::::-^:^. '' '''''''' this 189 Sworn before me, at day of Signature CD. I Justice of the Peace (or Commissioner of the Superior Court)] Q Signature A. B. — o7 Vict. ch. 46, par. '.i '.\fi n'"') . 564 Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Art. 2103. Note.— This amendment has itself been amended at the recent session of the Legislature, by an Act which has not yet been chaptered and reading as follows : " Articles 2103 and 2103a of the said Civil Code, as enacted by section 3 of the said Act, {67 Vict., cap. .^0) are replaced by the follow- ing article : " ai03. Tiie privilege of the persons mentioned in article 2013 " dates, in the cases mentioned in the first clause of article 20136, only " from the registration, within the proper delay, at the registry office of " the division in which is situated the immoveable affected by the ins- " cription, of a notice or memorial, drawn up according to form A, " with a deposition of the creditor, sworn to before a justice of the " peace or a Commissioner of the Superior Court, setting forth the " nature and the amount of the claim and describing the immoveal.lc " so affected." " 2. In registering such memorial, it is sufficient to mention, op " posite the official number of the cadastre which describes the " immoveable, if the cadastre be deposited, or opposite the title of the registered deed, if the cadastre be not yet deposited, the name of " the claimant| and the amount due at the time the memorial is filed. " 3. The memorial shall be made out in duplicate, one copy of " which shall , emain in the archives of the registry office and the " other be delivered to the creditor with the registrar's certificate " thereon. " 4. The creditor shall, within three days from the registration " of the memorial, give a written notice to the proprietor of the iin- " moveable, or to his agents, if he cannot be found. " 4. The Act 57 Victoria, chapter 40, and all other provisions (jf " the Civil Codo inconsistent with this Act, are repealed. Form A. Form of notice or memorial. I, A. B., (name and residence of claimant), do hereby declaim that I have worked upon the immoveable of (name of the proprietor). at the following work (nature of the tvork), (or / have supplied), (if he be a sxtpplier, etc., as the case may be) since (give the dote) : that the amount due me is (amount of the claim) ; that the immov- ^'^'^''^^olidaled Supplement No. l.^Art. >ior >tu- Sworn before Jiie, at ... J ' , this .*^''^°^ 189 Signature, q j) A„. P . . Justice of the Peace I (<" ^""""'««>oner of the Superior Court.) J Signature, A. H. 'letablir ,a'il sest confo'^a'uxext "?"""'"' '^^^^ ^--^-«. •'" Code Civil. Ces artides m " r ''' ^"' "'^^^'"^ ^^^^'^ ^^^ 2103 autre ouvrier, qui fait d- ^onstrulw "'"\'^"'''" ^°"««^"'<=teur ou en vertu d'un contrat ave r^2^'l ^"" n ' P^-^P'-^etaire du sol et Hardware Co. .s. LaZ^t, , ITTT^^'''''' ' ~ ''' ''"^'^ 2- See case of Dufresne .(• P^jf^ * ■ «"Pple™nt, at article 2^3 l:Lf;:t:tri.''*'' '" '"" '° ""^ nient. a.«6. SeeC. 0. 2,47a, as replaced and noted in this S„p,.,e. n,e„t**"'' ^^ °- ° 2147a, as replace,! and noted in this Snpple- musi?e^!g iirdln'tVetr' """""'""" "" "PP"'"'™™' of heirs, after the dtth of «« perl 'r™'.?' ""'' "'"''" 'i' '"<"■* y~P.ri,,. AvJl L E 7 s c° p 107°''''°'"'"°''"' ~ "'""™'''' Z r r .' '"""• "" '^'"°"°'' '""' "*^ '" '^'^ «°PP"-« »««. See C. C. 2U7», as replaced and noted in this Supplement tion d'iriir::°ettr';:3s '""-"'f ^ -=' °pp-"« p^ ■» sitoa. acqudreur .t. A le ^^1 ^ enrS r™"'' ^ ''™™°""^ "'"" "- n.cnt.-PAONUELO J-^„/ L™ *^ » ■ '™ «°<'»™l«'- I'enregistre- 3IIS 1. Qne l-act. 44-45 Vict., chap. 6, ,„i e.ige I'enregistrc- Pi!' 11! ir 666 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Arts. 21S0-3121. ment des titres errant les servitudes discontinues et non apparentes, pour leur conservation vis-^-vis des tiers, ne s'applique pas a un droit de passage apparent.— Casault, J.— i)^?roc/ie vs. Gagne,'21 R. L.,p. 67 17 Q. L. R., p. 1. 2. See case of Mathews c& Drignon dit Lapierre, noted in full in this Supplement at article 2172, decision number 3. 3120. See C. C. 2147a, as replaced and noted in this Supplement. 3131. See C. C. 2147(/, as replaced and noted in this Supplement. 1. A judgment may be registered against the grev^ upon the substituted property, even through the property be insaisissable. An inscription in Review does not prevent the registration of the judg- ment of the Superior Court.— Lohanger, J. — Seyviour vs. Seymour 21 R. L., p. 39. 2. L'avis au r^gistrateur, mentionn^ k I'article 2121 C. C, pent etre donne par le procureur ad litem de la partie qui a obtenu le jugement a enregistrer, quoiqu'il ne represente pas alors la partie comme mandataire, son mandat ayant pris fin avec I'instance, il agit comme negotiorum gestor et son acte profite k celui dans I'int^ret du- quel il est fait.— C. U.—Leclerc vs. Martin, 17 Q. L. R., p. 177. 3. Gilmour, ayant obtenu jugement contre H. J., I'a fait enregistre contre la propri^t6 de son d^biteur, afin de prendre une hypotheque judiciaire, puis a fait saisir et mettre en vente cette propri^t6. H. J. et sa mere, L. W. ont conjointement pris une action en radiation de cet enregistrement appuyant leur droit d'action sur le testament de D. J., fils de L. W., et frere de H. J. Le testateur a legu6 k sa mert' " her maintenance and support during the time of her natural life '' upon the real estate to me belonging and her board and lodgin"- in " the premises by her now occupied." II a nomm^ son frfere, H. J., son legataire universel " subject to the keeping and maintaining tlio " said real estate, during the life time of her, the said L. W., free and " clear of all encumbrances, and that he, the said residuary legatee, " shall in no manner or way, during the lifetime of her, the said L. VV., " mortgage or sell the said real estate." H. J. et L. W., ont pr^tendti que la defense d'aliener et dhypothequer empechait Gilmour de prendre hypotheque en vertu du jugement qu'il avait obtenu et ren- dait la propri^te insaisissable. La pretension de Gilmour etait que I'enregistrement du jugement constitue un acte conservatoire qu'il e, noted in full in <'onsolidated Supplement No. l.--Arts. 21U-2m7 5^7 ment aura .son eftLt T W H P^'"'"'''*'"" «e«-^ant) I'enregi.stro- taut etre n.un " cru^n itro et dl ' '"" "" '''''' -nservatoire, il pas le pouvoir dVpotheouor Pi). ,*^'e"J'teui, que ce dernier n'a "»n plu, ,es p.S ' r , ,a ti r'lT " '■"'■ ^^ " "■" ''"^ crfaneiors, pour l^'nuZ'"' '" P'-^"'""". «" f"™" dc, ot cc« is pendal ^„■nT''■'"'''°"°''°™'■'■''""'''''''l™'■''™*'•» 8. L, p. 5S8; 34 L G J., p 248 " '^''""*' * '''™''«' '" ™enf' ** «»=CC"47<,,as ..placed and noted in thi, Supp,.- " ^oun.^::'::i™tf re <• n:;-:;rx ■'- '°™°"' -^ -- "- constitutes, cr^ees oar ce. \^^''^''^\''^^''^ ^^ les arnerages des rentes dus par priville au L'l ' '^"^ ? '^'^^ ?"' P^^^^"*^'^' «°°t tous R., p. 271. ^^'^^ULT, J._Ci<;y 0/ Qtteftec vs. Fe.rland, 14 Q. L. .Hs Je'r;a„trr;::r,rLTr„tr "' ? r ^'^ '-«■ du renoncant T '«„. • •." ^^^-^ "ers, et notamraent, des creanciers attribue a ce demier o^^, ^^ '^"°' ""^ ^"^''^^^^^^ ^^^'^te, sauf indlnif P'°P'''' ''^ P*^'-^^ cl'immeubles acquises r^ 0:^:^:^:1:^1: r™""^"*'- '" ^ ^ '^^"- «^ -' ^ P>- ^'-te design^es-c'p r "''' d acqu.sxtion, les portions dimnieubles sont signees.— u. ^.—Oagnon & Valentine, R. J. Q., 9 C S., p. 50. 2127. 1. The assignment of an hypothecary clain. must be r)()8 i ! I, I i ■ Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. 2t3S. .served upon the original debtor, before the assignee can bring an hy- pothecary action against a third party who lias acquired the hypo- thecated immoveable, even though such third party has undertaken, by his deed of purchase, to pay the debt.— Anduevvs, J.—Grenier v.^. Gauvreau, 14 Q. L. R., p. 357. 2. La subrogation a son etfet, vis-a-vis des tiers, meme si la quit- tance par le premier creancier, qui est pay^ des deniers du second, n'est pas enregistree au long, niais est seulement depos^e au bureau d'enr^gistrement.— Q. B.— Owens rf- Bedell, 21 R. L, p. 89. The decision in the above case was confirmed by the Supreme (-'ourt, which held as follows: No formal or express declaration of subrogation is required, under art. 1155, sec. 2. C. C, when the debtor borrowing the sum of money declares in his deed of loan that it is for the purpose of paying his debts, and in the acquittance he declares that the payment has been made with the moneys furnished by the new creditor foi' tiie purpose. Where subrogation is given by the terms of a deed, tiie eironeous noting of the deed, by the registrar, as a discharge, and the granting him of erroneous certificates, cannot prejudice the partj .subrogated.— Supreme Court.— O^oens <& Bedell, 19 S. C. R., p. 137, 3. Que le transport judiciaired'unecr^ance portant hypothequc -« instead of remaining deposed wiht. "'«'■■ "nreRistration. with and without cfrtiBeate, "'«'*"'"' '"'' '» '=»"' «"»' «. advice and consent of the Lgi.at^of^ueSr J;',,:* /. Are hereby declared valid and sufficient • articiis^j^a! ro9?ir^:ro?'^r;r„M "Tt'^n-™"""'- '- 2.31, 2138, 2146, 2161, 2168 and 2 of he c vil Co ' "'I' '''=' by notarial deed either ™™„,.„,.„. J™ ^'r'"' "^^ ■»'' «'ven Ff ' 572 Consolidated Supplement No. I. — ^/-/.s. :itJf8-^150. " 3. Thti enregiatrations of the notices abovo inentionod, whether notarial or under private seal, although sueh ncjtices have heen returned to the parties giving the same, instead of remaining deposited with the registrar, and in either case whether tlie certificate of registration has or has not been thereon entered ; 4. The renewals of the enregistration of several titles of claims jigainst several persons or against several immoveables made by one notice, provided the entries have beenregularly made in the index to immoveables.— Q., 47 Vict., cap. 13, sec. 1. The section above cited was amended as follows : The second paragraph of section 1 of the Act 47 Victoria, chapter 13, is amended by adding in the third line, after the figures " 2133," the figures "2136." and by striking out, in the third and fourth line's of the fourth paragraph of the said section, the words " provided the entries nave been regularly made in the index to immoveables."— Q., 52 Vict., cap. 26, sec. 5. ' 3148. Qu'un debiteur hypoth^caire, qui paye une partie de son obligation payable par installements, a droit d'obtenir de son creancier une quittance et d^charge d'hypotheque partielle.— GiLL, J.— C/iris^i?/ dit St-Amour vs. Morin, M. L. R, 4 S. C, p. 469. 2150. 1. Que lorsqu'un vendeur a [fourni k son acheteur des titres suffisants de la propriete vendue, k la satisfaction de ce dernier, , il n'a pas le droit, subsequemment, sans le consentemeut de celui-ci, et sous pr^texte de completer ces titres, de faire enregistrer, sur la pro- priety vendue des actes faisant voir apparemmcnt qu'il ^tait encore le propri^taire de la dite propriete. Que dans ce cas, I'acheteur a une action pour faire radier ces enregistrements, si le vendeur refuse de le faire.— Taschereau, J.—Mallette vs. Doltin, M. L. R, 6 S.C.p. 138 2. A judicial hypothec may be taken against the rights of the substitute to a substituted property, before the opening of the sub stitution, but the inscription of the judgment must be so made as only to affect the rights of the substitute.— Cimon, J.—Hingston vs. Franklin, 19 R. L., p. 124. 3. L'acqu^reur d'un immeuble, tant qu'il n'est pas trouble de fait, n'a pas d'action contre le vendeur, son garant "contre tons troubles, " dons, douaires, dettes et tous autres erapechements gen^ralemaat " quelconques," pour le contraindre k faire radiar une hypoth^ue ins- Cm^oUiialM Su,,,.,..,^nt No. /. -ah. ,„,>.,,,, ,,., Cowwer, 16 y. L. 1{., p.uy. '"tJ5j.— c. \i.~licaudette rx. tion of „„ action*™ IVii," ■"; '"?"""?'' ""'" "'"■'""■ "•»""- Appeal will „„t h ^: C il r'l :•' '"'"'"*""-. tl- Co,„,„f below in co,,d«,,„i,„- t ,„ A„ ' 1° I'T"""" ■"""'i*'! by the C -t more especially ^^ " otl! ""^ "'" °°* -' -"='' "«-"■ i" the 4i»tere,l trltfcr„t " IT'",''"',' T ""' '" '"* '""' ' McLaren ., /-/«.*„:;°!,''^";f ^'V^l^tsV" Appellant.-.^. «_ e««.":^n^ ■:rti2,:r:':i;^r'''"''^™'- ^"« '- -"ont, et acqumr ainsi urn. l.vn f. ""PP^V^"*^ enregistrer lo jum- ■•egis^J^, lotat'd^s'rli^tll^n r"7'^"-"-* d« payer uu temes des articles 2155 et 215 t nr T'f "^^ '^'^ '^''^^'^^^^' ^Ux ^'l'e.s, lors de la contfction du cerHK ? '"^ '^""^^aires pc,ur recher- -adiations resultant de IWeXfS! ^e l^tire aux ftns d'effectuer le.s -ts. 2155 et 2157 du C C nf 1''"' " ^^''^*' '^^^f^rm^n.ent a„x 3158. As to the organization of Reo-isfrv nffi„ o .r M32 ., «, and a.endn.ent contained St Acf Q le V?' "' ■«', sees. 4 and 5. ^^ ^" ^ict. cap. til ' 5I'; 574 Conaol'ulaled Supplement No. J.— Arts. 2I(U-2J68. 3101. See C. C. 2147(r as replaced and noted in tliis Supplement. 21GM. See C. C. 2147(«, as replaced and noted in this Supplement. 1. Que I'enregistrenient d'un jugement.avec un avis d^signant un immeuble, par son numdro oHiciel, comme dovant etre affectea I'hypo- thequo rtlsultant de ce jugement, a effet k I'encontre de I'acqui^reur di- ce inonie immeuhle par un titri; (jui designe cct immeul)li!, .sans donner le nmnero otticiel du cadastre. — C. R. — Watson Mfg. (Jo. im. Seguiv, IS R. L, p. G77. 2. L'enregistrement, pres de cinq ans apres la mise en force d>i cada.stre officiol, d'un acte de vente imniobiliere, pa.ss6 avant cettc mise en force et ne contenant la di'isignation de I'ininieuble vendu que par tenants et aboutissants, conserve le privilege pour le prix de vente, lors memo que cet enrogistrenicnt n'est pas accompagne d'un avis au registrateur du num^ro sous letjnel rimmeulile en que.stion est d^sign^ au plan et livre de renvoi du dit cadastre.— C. R. — Ucrnanl vs. Bernard, 1(J Q. L. R., p. 108. 3. La vente par le sh6riff d'un immeuble sous un numero cadas- tral, maia avec une designation par tenants et aboutissants, qui com- prend un autre immeuble, ddsign^ au cadastre sous un autre numero ne donne pas a I'adjudicataire un titre a ce deuxieme immeuble. — C. R.— Cavoii vs. Houle, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 186. 4. Dans une action hypoth^caire contre un tiers d^tenteur, d'uno partie seuleraent du terrain hypothequee, il suffit de donner correcte- ment la designation du terrain du d^fendeur, en disant qu'il forme partie de celui hypotheque par le titre de cr^ance du demandeur, sans donner la designation de tout le terrain mentionne en ce titre, vu qu'en r^ferant au titre et k la preuve, le tribunal pourra constater si le terrain poss^de par le defendeur etait reellement hypotheque tel que le veut la loi par le titre de creance. — CmoN, J. — Eraser vs. Boucher, R. J. Q., 5 C. S,. p. 221. 5. The seizure of an immoveable under its number on the official plan and book of reference for registration purposes, is valid, if it be •ntirely owned by the Defendant, although lots may have been set apart from it and may have acquired different values and been put to different uses from those of the remainder, so long as such lots have not received new numbers under the provisions of law to Coi'mlidated Supplement Ifo. l.^Art -/-' that effect. ^Andkfws \ ui j " ' " 6 Le numoro du cadastre ^tanf I.. ,. • , •'-. -• "n inuneublo, ,ui est situ "1 U T -'"''''^'''^" '''' '""«-'■ •''^n« une autn-, e.t cadastre co." ue' e "l '' T. P'^'"''^^" '"^ ?-*'> roisses seulement. il s„fKra dans ^^"^ ''""'^ "'"■ •'"• e.vs ,.a- ,'ivon under both forms Nos, 25 and 2*5 of tiie Appendix to the Code of Civil Pro- cedure ; " Whereas it is neco.s.sary to remove the doubts which exist touch- ing eiu-ef(istrations socfFected ; therefore. Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislature of Quebec, enacts as follows: " /. Are hereby declared valid and sutficient : I. The renewal of the registration of hypothecs, re(|uireil by arti- cle 2172 of the Civil Code, effected by notice prepared according to either of forms Nos. 25 or 2(5 of the appendix to the (!ode of Civil Procedure." —Q, 47 Vict., cap. 18, sec. I. 1. Que I'aete creaiit substitution, fait avant 1H55, doit etre cnre- gistr^ de nouveau au bureau d'enregistrement apres la passation de la loi de 1855, et que, d'apreg larticlo 2172 du Code Civil, tel (piamende par 35 Vict. ch. 16, sec. 4, I'enregistrenient d'un tel acte doit etre re- nouvele dans les deux ans (|ui suivent la mise en force du cadastre. — OuiMET, J.~Des}nns vs. Doncau, 32 L.C. J., p. 26 ; M. L R.,4 S. C., p 450. 2. La reserve, par le vendeur d'une terre, de tout le bois qui se trouvo sur une partie de cetto terre etdu droit de I'enlever (juand bon lui semhlera, et de couper et enlever .sur une n itro partie telle quan- tit<^ de pieux et de perches qu'il voudra prendre j.our s. u utilite et ce, tant qu'il y en aura sur ce terrain, constitue .to d^oil- (!■■ superficie qui o.st un jas in re et non uri jus ad rem, et n'a pas be.soin, pour etre con- serve, d'etre renouvel^ au bureau d'enregistrement dans les deux ans »iui suivent la mise en force du cadastre. — C. R. — Cadrain vs. The- herge. 16 Q. L. R., p. 76. 3. '• default of renewal of registration of the deed by which it a'^ .wjginally constituted, as provided by Arts. 2172 et seq., C. C, u . aventional sar illade of right of passage, which is not continuous or apparent, has no effect, as regards a third party, who has subsequently dnmdidated Supplnnent No. I. -.Art. im. 577 HCfiuir,.,! th« property .„. which sucl. servihul,. of n under atithul..t(l.lulvrt.Lnsf..,..,? P '''V? V^^^g^ existed, by which the servit , h, Z ; .. ,f "^^'^ /'f-^-st.^ti.n of the d. ed — 'T '.y th. fact th:r :^;:2: ir r ;: -^'^ -T'r' - party who preten.Ls that th- .rvi , . itx tne^ V, "'" "' -"f *'" wayovorana.lj„i„in.,iothttsn..v..rl , . "''■•" " '''»*'*•»*' regards the part of t ^ o w ';■^''''?'''°'' ''" '^''>' ^'*'-'-'i.'« ■servitud. is r.o -1! ,. " 1, r;; "'r^' ^''" ''•^"'^ ^ •'•--.cd. the undo,. 44.45 Viet. c'\n;'Kl_^ ;;;:"" '•-^'";;''^^ ^" •"■ -^-*--' •^^•t-- i-^>ii-tion'o the ,L, r^;: ^T'.°^ ^^"■^'''" ^i' '^•.-' •• '.y 1- been du^ en^gLS'!,? T ^!""l7f "' ^''^^ ''^P^^^- p. 135. ^ ^ ■ "■~'^" '•'' ^M//''^2/. R J. Q., 5 C. S., . tituont lilt!:':;::^:';::;:::',:'^ .••-age-efd-h.a>itation, „« eons. "I e"r%istre„.ent soit ^^ r ' e^'^^ '^ 'T '^- "'""" "^'"^"^ 'ner^«, R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 486. "^ >"«f^e'>onc(*«r nv. f/, ,;. enouvt!.,_C. K-Duchesneau vs. Bleau, 17 Q. L. R. p 34() trement de I'acte de vente h,i ,1 " ! '"*"' '*"" ^"^ I'enregi.- I'enregistrement-r R P ; ^^'*^ ''" renouvellen.ent de ^ -J i w .578 ConsolidaUd Supplement No. 1. — Art. 3173. 2173 C. C, concerning renewal of registration, only applying to a real right upon an immoveable, such as a hypothec, and not to a real right in an immoveable, such as a substitution. — Davidson, J. — Page vs. McLennan, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 368. SITS. 1. L'auteu" immediat de possesseur actuel, ayant acquis limmeuble comme soumis a uue servitude do passage, par un titre enregistre posterieur au statut 44-45 Vict., chap. IG, le posse.sseur actuel est non-recevable k plaider, k I'encontre de la servitude du pas- sage, le defaut de renouveler, dans le delai prescrit par lo dit statut, I'enregistrement du titre qui a cree la servitude. — Pagnuelo, J. — Mathews vs. Brignon dit Lapierre, 19 R. L., p. 547. 2. Dans une action hypothecaire, centre un tiers detenteur d'une partie seulement du terrain hypotheque, il sufBt de donner exacte- ment la designation du terrain du defendeur, en disant qu'il forme partie de celui hypotheque par le titre de creance du demandeur, sans o^ without pr„p;r;,:rLt:t::r"*' '-'- -^ -" ^^ .HveJt^rSfhei^o :„';::; "'77 - ?«■■■" -■^-» give certiticate,, respecting Th 1, 1 ttat ':?*'"■'■ "■'"'" '■'I"""''' t" are not bound to u'eutioS tl J^t, ^u '^j ^ o"".! ^"* "■''™3', ^'Xi:;-'."'"- ""'- ^p--;t,utt:r;rdo"f f s noti„rsrti:t:it:he rti^ra^ t?;"i "' " *'■'■ "■' — » by him of erroneous cerilicltef' °" '■'^"'TK' '»"<' "'e P'antiug 21 R. L., p. 88. ■ ^' ^' ^^ P- ^37.— Q. B.— • g.ii!efeit~:tL7'ir::h^ff :'""'f^- "^" '^^^ '» ■»■ tion division of ^l^^-^^tti,:^^^^'''''' '"^ '°^'*"- 3182. Amendment :-See the Act above cited. 8apre.e Court, wheri ft ^"s hlid^a^"- C ™' -°«™='' "^ «>= po.icrslMr™L°"„l: TZ^Z^ °" "'"'- "»^» '^' ■oss, i» a valid condition and )::^f:Z. StC !t H claims under such a policy will be baned if n, "f*'^'^- and »" snid time. Per TmLrmu I 1 ,;''""' *""''5'"' "'ithin the large the delay to prescrl bi^TI e ,'> """°°' ''''P"''""' "> «- 'i..t dciay._i„,:.rit,: :ri j:2.- ;;:;z,?:r;t . '° r*- awe Co., 12 L. N n 12- S'? T P T . ;f"f'"'^ *.;-'/'< ''^^ /w.sw- i>., p. II , .i,i L. C. J., p. 314 ; 1.5 S. G. R , p. 488. V 1 ■ m 'f ii 580 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Arts. 21S6-'J188. 2. La clause, dans une police d'assurance, que toute poursuite doit etre intent^e dans les trois mois du sinistre ou du rejet de la reclama- tion, est licite, et ne viole pas les disposition de I'art. 2184 C. C. qui defend de renoncer d'avance a une prescription non acquise. — Q. B. — Simpson <(• Caledonian Insurance Co., R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 209. 31*i5. 1. An offer by the debtor, purely conditional and made to obtain a final discharge, and not of an amount admitted to be due, is, if unaccepted, of no tHect whatever, and constitutes neither proof, nor commencement of proof, of a renunciation to the prescription acquired for such sum. — C. R. — David vs. Goyer, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 178. 2. La renonciation a la prescription acquise ne pent etre faite que par le debiteur et doit renfermer les conditions d'une obligate r. nouvelle, mais la reconnaisssance de la dette, n'ayant que I'efiet d'in- terrompi-e la prescription, pent etre faite par le debiteur ou par son repr^sentant.— Q. K—Milliken (f; Booth, R. J. Q., 3 B. R., p. 158. 218S. 1. Plaintiff" sued Defendants in damages for the death of her hu.sband, who was killed while in the employ of Defendants, and a jury awarded her S6,500. Defendants moved lo. For judgment non obstante veredicto, 2o. Arrest of judgment, 3o. For a new trial. At the argument on the motions, it was urged by the Defendants, for the first time in the case, that, according to C. C. 1056, 2261, 2262, 2262, 2267 and 2188, the PlaintifTs right of action was prescribed by the lapse of one year (C. C. 2262) and that, as the Plaintiff's husband lived more than one year after the accident occurred, and did not bring an action, the present action must be dismissed. Held ( Wurtele, J. dissenting.) — That the prescription invoked at the ar- i>-ument not having been pleaded, the Court could not take it into account. (The decision of the Privy Council i.=i noted in full in thi.s Supplement at C. C. 1056 and 2262). — C. R. — Robinson vs. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 33 L. C. J., p. 145 ; M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 225.— Q B.— 19 R. L., p. 483 ; M. L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 118.— Privy Council.— L. R., [1892] Ap. Cas., p. 481.— Sufueme Court.— 19 S. C. R., p. 292 ; 15 L. N., p. 70. 2. Que toute action en dommage contre une corporation munici- pale, a cause du mauvais etat des chemins, est prescrit par trois mois, par le S. R. C, chap. 85, sec. 3, Que cette prescription est absohu- et doit etre appliquee, quoique non plaidee, mais Taction sera renvoyee Co 581 consolidated Supplement No. /.—Arts. ,!192-U98 C. C, 2261. i2Z2^t "'■ ""'"' '" '"'» «''''P'"»"' »' (ires outsideofV. city ,"t," "',7''' .?'"^° ?'■'»''<''> "■"Rl't l^sentt., ...ayo.buts„c,.a„t.::Vwr„„ triai„ed'° 'T'' °' ""''■'^' ■iuestion. Held : I. The Plaintiff'. I ] , "" °='"'*'°" '" were .,o„,eti,„es requi d "a '!l J f -^ awa.e that tireiucn living objected ^Zl'.^^^tl^Z'':^''^^ "f "^ """ "°™' sending hi,„ to a tire l,ey„„d the ; I : L %X° ' "' '^""'~' ^ ■lid not ™ake th ci^ rl „, ,rt. t, '°™* '™ ""P'°^"' """ flremen beyond the 4/ limit nt el """" T "' '""*'"« "" fault in connection wHh t" d tl Tf PlatatW ^J "l"™^ "' prescription of sk months, under stionm If . '. u '' '"'" Vict.. (Q.) ch. 79. cannot be appi „d by he Conrt ° T^ v r'"' ''' pleaded.—DoHERTV T r„/J ,, '■ ""'™* '' '">» <*''» aux r«o"?s polTo::::"" rt™" "" ™ »■"■"-• >'»»- ^-erture que par la p.' uroXdT, ae es Zr: "'"'''''"' '"'' "'-' '^^''''^ le propr,.taire r.el.Zc a-£';;":XTQ.'L. ';,";"^r"°"'"' a Que l» p«s,„ion utile Ma prescription doit etre non inter- m •|1 i'fII '!'1iii •'" 1 III' 582 Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Arts. '2200-2W2. rompue et non contcst6e. — Q. B.—Archamlxmlt & Bourgeois, 19 R, L, p. 288. 4. La vente municipale nullert?) initio, at celle qui a et6 obtenue par dol et par t'raude, ne peuvent servir de base k la prescription edictee par I'article 1015 C. M. — Taschereau, J. — Gifford vs. Ger- main, 1 R. de J., p. 234. 2300. Que le d^tenteur d'un immeuble ne pent, se prevaloir de la prescription de dix ans, par son auteur, qu'en alleguant et prouvaut le titre et la possession utile de celui-ci. — Q. B. — Tremhlay cfe King, 17 R. L., p. 101. 230S. 1. Que le possesseur sans titre et qui sait qu'il n'en a pas, est un possesseur de mauvaise foi. — Mathieu, J. — Monnet vs. Brunei, 17 R. L., p, 681. 2. Qu'un individu qui administre Id propri^t^ de son voisin, que ce dernier a abandonnde, pour aller r^sider en pays Stranger et qui en peryoit les revenus et r^pond k toutes les charges, ne peut 6tre considere comme un ddtenteur de mauvaise foi. — Q. B. — Joyal & Deslauriers, 19 R. L., p. 175 ; 34 L. 0. J., p. 116. 3. Que pour les fins de la prescription de dix ans,- il n'est pas n^cessaire que le vendeur ait ^te de bonne foi ; il sufllt que I'acqu^reur I'ait 6t6 au moment de I'acquisition. — Que I'erreur de droit et Ic doute sont exclusifs de la bonne foi. — Que, n^anmoins, la bonne foi est toujours presumee, jusqu'^ preuve du contraire, et qu'une reserve de tous leu droits de la Couronne, inser^e dans I'acte de vente d'un lot, qui avait fait partie des Terres de la Couronne, ne suflBra pas, seule et independamment de toute preuve, pour constituer le possesseur de mauvaise foi, si, d'apres le contexte de I'acte, cette reserve pouvait s'interpreter raisonnablement comme s'appliquant a des droits autres que des droits de propriete. — Gagne, J. — Gommissaires d'Ecole de St- Alexis vs. Price, 1 R. de J., p. 122. 4. The Respondents, having lent a sum of money to one Liboiron. subsequently, on the 9th May, 1870, took a transfer of his property by a deed en dation de paiement, in which the registered title deed of Liboiron to the same was referred to and by which it also appeared that the Appellants had a bailleur de fonds claim on the property in question. — Liboiron remained in possession and sub-let part of the premises, collected the rents and continued to pay interest Comotidaicl Supple«u!nt fc l.-Arts. 3m.!IJ07 5m pleaded tl,„t they l,„d „cq„i„d i„ /od fait ,,, ! '''T''"''-'''" ^.o„., that r :,,:f:'!, dr^eXre^id' .szo "'■ '"" """'■•" actual knowledge o„ the IfepondeJ,. p„ „ake IT" '" " ''"' registered hyp„H,ec or baUtcl ,k f^nllin, w,, , "T "* """ the presumplion of »»od faith wl,.; , "'"'"'• ™/u"i'H'"t t„ rehut (Art. 2251 0. C ) -FoZ « / r ''" P''"*"'*''''" "' '"'' y«"r,, ^«i. e5,am.— u K.~Mass(; vs. Jozies, 21 R. L., p. 335. the pa'^rchas tt If iTh J r ""■? ""■''^ """" "™ "»«■""= •gainstaper,™ wTo held Th '"> """"^ "" '""™''"" ™'"l <^^nada Invest. Co., M.L.R, 6 S a, /m ^-^^'(^^'Wr rs, M:i=t=t/i\th--::r::r^^^ Court, which Ae^cZ as follows: conhrmed by tho Suprome H-^-rir.t-'~"-r-;T '■'■■■- taken nlace ftf'fpr T MnP ' i „ i"'"- vvue, sucii Miii- liavinir real ihf ! Tv wu ^''^'"' ^^ ^"^' ^^'^'^ ^^^i^' '""I P'»-n writing on the part of the petition rll^tw Wo h! 'T "' ''" '^^'^^^•' ^^"'^'^* ---" ^'-^ interests a ei^olvorln IJ^'"^^'^"*'- ^^ ^ P-'ate oneand private aoesnot^ai. t^^L^ ^SSL^^'r' T T^^^^T r/.at/cr, R. J. Q., 3 c S., p. 244. '"viasoN, .J,_ £,. ^„„,,„ />ao?t,s/. 12 L. N., p. 139. ^"AMiAGNE, D. M.— Desroswrs vs. Larose, 19 R. L, p. l *^^^™iei, ,l~Boisvert vs. Sawrette dit mimeme.ont 1 eftet «1 mterron.pre hi prescription ■ necessary to preseril.! will not r^vi t Jlt ^'^^''^';''%^'-/'- Gity 0/ Montreal. R. J. u | Ij R „ ^l p ^■^;, ~^''"''''"'' '^^ (1894;. Ap. Cas. p. (i40. ' ' -^"-' "'^^' C'>u.vr„.._L. It. 3. Lorsque les huit jonrs acc.nk^s par la loi pour n-fi sa.8,o-ijaf,er,e par droit do suite, expirenf ie din a .eh , T '"'"", '" exercer son recours avant ce jour et „n.. « !""""''"^' '" '^'^'^teur do,t vi^mo jour le lundi JL . sa.sie-gagerie faite ie n.„- v/„, / "^ '»"<". ■''t'ra renvoy^ comnio tardive —M «Ti»ir,T i Strachan v.s. Depatle, R. J. q., ;j o. S., p. 401. -^'"'"'EU, .1.- 3. La reconciliation des enmiY > .^f «« parlundecesepouxeontrclW. . ?".^ Procedures intentecs -o„ ,. „„.p,::;: r^i: :;ri»'z :; r r'r :^' 7- •160 ; 1 R. d. J , ;; 155 '-'■"■""■"""• "■ "■'.""•■ K. J. Q., 7 r. s,. p. Ootobrc ISO!), ma. that tl,„ „,■„"' iL", S « °™"°'V"'l"l"-'' -'!' h.l ll,at of thirty year, under'c C S-G B 'T ''"'"<'' "PPlv, 2. Que I'action on (iommaseu. que les aptinnnni™. v ,.n.e incorporee peuvent prendre cont e s d ect^^^^^^^^^^^ ""P'^' ad.n.n.stration, paiement de dividendes fictif p slmeC 1 TT .^c. ne se prescritque par trenteans.-PAGNUELo J Zl I r!"^!''^^' .W,« W .,. OeMes, M. L. R.. 6 S. C. p 243 -WrV^Z"" 3. Les int^r^ts dus par un mandatai.e k son mandant «m i CotJRT.-20 a C. R., p. 430. ■ ^^ P' 645.-SLTPREME ^Vaw^ei vs. 5me^^o kq, ^no)UUre. .oarel ...ay be deumn.l.d v„Xd^^^ ^ ^h,. ease ,„ .vhich law pn„r to th,. code. Tl.o tM.mhvf .. T ' ""'" ''" "'"'"' ^''^ f""P;7-ty to the ,e.o; bl '^^rrtl^H '''';"'"'" •'«^••• '•"'•n.l to pay all arrears of rent l.ef,. , f"'''^^'' "'"" ''^ ''^' '-• /Ma.^.r. H J. Q,. 7 c. S. p ujf '" -"'"g -C \i.~Larnp.o. 2 Que ,Jes arrera^rc's .luiterets, r^sultanf ,1'nn COUBT.- 20 S. C K., p, 430. ' P' '*'''■ - •""•fBEME par cin,| ans «t que le d«Wi, 6m rL T "" J,°S'*"'™t «e prescrivont faitecontre le tL-Iure tclr '"'"""J- 1'* """iM du„o.ai,ie, «"not claim the privilegeof the mL ttl^llT ■ ."'° '''°»'." »'' ..Cons for ground rents and '">ov. M. L. R., 7 S. C , p. 315. y^ars.-t. R-^;,ooue,- 1;«. Pearson, K' !' 1-^ ir,,i, 592 Consolidated Swppleiinent No. 1. — Art 'iiiol. 23S1. I. Decision number 14 noted at this article, (Dorian d- Ecel^siastiques du Se'minaire de StSulpice) is also reported in the 16 Q. L. R., p. 246. 2. Que I'enregistrement du titx'e de I'acquereur a non domino n'est pas necessaire pour lui perinettre de prescrire par dix ans contre le propri^taire reel. — C. R. — King vs. Roy, 15 Q. L. R., p. 67. 8. Rolland sold to L., the Respondent, in 1857, lot 104 of the «th concession of Sto-Brigitte, as " containing 3 arpents of frontage, " by 40 arpents in depth, more or less, bounded in front by the 7th " concession, in rear, by the lands of the 9th concession, on one side by " the land of W. McGinnisand on the other side by Moise Daigneau." McGinnis, the Appelkut's author, bought from S., in 1854, five lots, numbered 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 in the same concession. In 1877, after 20 years of peaceful possession by Defendant, he brought a pet- itory action and later, an action (ni borntiye, claiming the Respon- dent's lot 103, alleging that it was liis own lot. The Superior Court of Iberville (C/iagnon J.) held that the lot posses.sed by L. was 103. The Court of Appeals reversed the jugment, holding that L. was in possession of 104, and even if the lot possessed by him was wrongly des- cribed as lot 104, it was the lot intended to be sold and sold by the deed of 18th March 1857, under an accurate description by metes ami bounds, and that L. acquired the same in good faith, under a translat- ory title and had, before the commencement of the action, an effective possession thereof during ten years. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was confirmed by the Privy Council, where it was held that the lot conveyed to the Respondent . was specifically described, not with reference to numbers, but with reference to the actual state and position of the surrounding lots t),nd that the Respondent's possession, which was in perfect good faith, must be ascribed to his title and that the lapse of ten years had perfected his right in competition witli the Appellant. — Privy Council. — Dunn & Lareau, 32 L.C.J., p. 227. 4. The ten years' prescription in favor of a purchaser in good faith, with title, runs against a substitute, who is a minor, only from his majority. — Pagnuelo, J. — McGregor vs. Canada Invest. Co., M. L. R., 6 S, C, p. 196. The decision in the above case was reversed by the Court of Queen's Bench and by the Supreme Court, which latter Court helil as follows : — Consolidated Supplement No. I— Art "^'^51 in possession under a title from the wife sucl ale Z"':^ T place after J. McG.'s son became of a^e was v^Hd and 7 n'^'° n.hts which the son nn'.ht have hadtder Me .i 1 rfm"c C i".) — Supreme Court —il/cr^r/T/or. ,,. 7v n \ ^^""^^ '^1- ^- C. Agency Co., 21 S. C. R., p. 499 ^ ' "^"'""^^ /-^v«^m.«^ rf. 5. L'acheteur d'un immeuble, qui sait que son vondeur n' pas propneta re avec titre valable au moment delaTllTnJT' dans es conditions de bonne foi voulues pour acqu^rir par la n, ^'' t.on de dix ans.-C. K-Des.ert vs. Rolldou., 1 6 Q L r /iT'' sonti par son pere, faite en execution '<. The Respondents having lent a sum of money to one Liboiron, subsequently, on the 9th May 1870, took a transfer of his propertj-. by a deed en dafion de paiement, in which the registered title dei'd of Liboiron to the same was I'eferred to and by wliich it also appeared tliat the Appellants had a hailleur de funds claim on the property in (|uestion. Liboiron remained in possession and sub-let part of the premises, collected the i-ents and continued to pay interest to the Appellants for some years on the hailleur de fondn claim. In 1877 the Appellants took out an action en. declaration d'hypotheque foi- the balance due on their haUli'itr de fondu claim. The Respon- dents pleaded that they had actjuired in good faith the property by a translatory title, and had become freed of the hypothec by ten year.s possession. — Held, reversing the judgments of the courts below, that the oral and documentary evidence in the case, as to actual knowledge on the Respondent's part of the existence of this registered hypothec or hailleur de foiuU claim, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith, when they pui-chased the property in 1876, and therefore they could not invoke the prescription of ten years- SUPKEMK Court. — Baker & Metropolitan Buildinr/ Society, 22 S. C. R., p. 3G4. 3353. See case of Baker ct The Metropolitan Building Society, noted in this Supplement at article 2251, decision number 8. 3258. 1, Decision number 7, noted at this article, (Dorion ((: Dorion), is also reported in the 20 R. L., p. 170. 2. Where a minor, on attaining the age of majority, gives the tutrix a release and discharge fron) all claims arising from her administration as tutrix, the action of the minor for an account of the tutorship is prescribed by the lapse of ten years from the date of such discharge ; and this rule was held to apply where the dis- charge was not given immediately and expressly to the tutrix, but to the trustees in whom the estate had been vested by the tutri.x on her second marriage, the minor fthen of age), however, declaring that she had received her share and that she discharged the trustee.'^ and all others from all further accountability and in a letter to the tutrix, fifteen years afterwards, expressly disclaimed any intention of disturbing the settlement. — Q. B. — Watt A- Fraser,^. L. R., 5 Q. B. p. 307. See case of Duhaime vs. Tela, noted in this Supplement at C. (". 2262, decision number 2. rticle, (Dorian <(• jplomont at ('. < ' Consolidated Supplement No. J. .-Art. 2^.60 ;|U. "^up^ntdan, une instance o„ separatl, " '"■'7"-™''. ■latmn, i» that of principal .lol.fn,. i ""' *"'' '"■' ""'""""- s«nin, fo.-acc„„:,,:ttr ,t, 'i,;::!^,; ' "'i'"7 ;"" ^'■'■""" »!■ after maturity, lii» clai,„ a™.inl . ^^- ""' "' "«-' ""''■. "' claims of a comber' ialnat,,,™ J ,",: '""""'""'■■?■ "°"^» "-' year., applicable to the claim oa'^XwhrT''''''".'' f "'"'^ ....n. the Principal .lehto-.-^a rJ "Z ^I'^t rii' Tl^^^ .von/th^rjr.tnhT,:;:::;; ■ ;: r™°''''°"', '"■ "'° '^^- ■>' «- ^-■» ;»fo.ethe .late of ll'', ; "'1 '"S^O C " 1 'T'"°" '■"'°"™' ■lehtor cannot claim the benefit „t tl c / ,' , ' ""*■' """ "'" I'ankrnpt or insolvent w "TnacM/ / "' '™ '" ''»'' '«'»'"<' " ..ot creal a new ^Z:^C^^t "T^' ""' ^""'^ tion woulj hejrin to ran i„ „ "'atmity, f,-o,„ which prescrip- partnership. Tlmt a claim by one ,ne„Z „T1 * ' ».'°">"""''''' *ip a^inst a„other,after thLlisL'S'; ^h ZIT laP""; ■tccount, or to obtaip an account of the result of! ™° "' executed by the firm i, „ ^,„,.° """""' °''' """'"Mn^'al contract meaninK of Art. 22. Par \ C C lV°"'T™'" °'"""=' "■""" "- ..e«veyea.._o.E.-,,:«:;^;.';;:t;;::;''^rR.!'ri:^':;ta ,<596 Consolidated Supplement No. l.—Art. 3361. 6. See also case of Pare & ParS, noted in full in this Supplement at article 2264, decision number 2. Par. 5.-7. Semble :— Que malgr6 la g6neralit6 des termes de I'article 2260, les transactions entre commerqants, en dehors des affaires de leur commerce et a plus forte raison entre commer9ants et ceux qui ne le sont pas, ne sent pas commerciaJes.— Q. B.—Filiatrault & Goldie, R. J. Q., 2 B. R., p. 368. Par. 7.-8. In an action by a physician for professional services to Defendant's wife, where it was admitted by Defendant that he had employed the Plaintiff previous and up to the date of the account sued for and that he was aware of the attendance subsequently, it was held that the oath of the physician was admissible, under C. C. 2260, as amended by S2 Vict. cap. 32, sec. 1 fR. S. Q., 585i;, to make proof as to the nature and duration of tlie services.— C. R.— Bayves vs. Price, M. L. R, 4 S. C, p. 353 ; 32 L. C. J., p. 327. 9. That the oath of the physician or surgeon, which, under R S Q 5851, makes proof as to the nature and duration of the services can only be rebutted by the clearest and most precise testi- mony which was not found by the Court in the present case, in which— by the evidence of doctors who had not seen the patient before or during the illness, and who did not speak positively— it was sought to reduce a physician's account, for treating a case of fracture of the collar bone from S175 to $100.-Q. B.-Bourgeau & Brodeur^ M. L. R., 7 Q. B., p. 171. 10 Le medecin ordinaire d'un malade, qui requiert I'assistance d'un autre medecin, sera presume avoir agi comme negotioriim gestor de ce malade, si le medecin requis donne ensuite reellement ses soins a ce malade en conformite de telle requisition.-DELORiMlEU, J. -Forest vs. Cadot, 1 R. de J., p. 173. 2261. Note .— The Dominion Act, 51 Vict., cap. 29, sec. 287, makes the time for proscription for damages, sustained by reason of the railway, one year, instead of six months. As regards Quebec Railways— see R S. Q., art. 5175, § 1. 1. Decision number 14, noted at this article, {Eaton y lil.el .s not demurrable, on the ground that the .natter sought to he prescribed was not alleged as charges of libel, but to show animus, that bein- a matter of fact and not of lavv.-JouNsoN, J.— r-m^e/ 7;,s. Ci. d'L,n, 'it de Pub. du Canada, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 297. ' 4. The Civil Code of Lower Canada does not make it a condition precedent to the right of action, given by article 1050, to the widow ot a person dying as therein mentioned, that the deceased's riZJT"'":^ I^'^^""'' " °^'^^^^ '' "PP'y '^'^ prescription, although not pleaded by the Defendant. Q. B.-City of Sherbrooke d- Dufort, M. L. R., 5 Q. B., p. 266 ; 18 R. L, p. 505 : 34 L. C. J„ p. 76. kjyijri^ ! i! ; t;.iliniii.iir'' -( 1 600 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 2261i.. 2. Que la prescription decr^t^e par la sec. 3 du ch. 85 des S. R. C. (S. 11. P. Q., art. 4616^, n'est applicable qu'aux actions resultants des accidents causes par le mauvais ^tat des seuls cheinins situ^s dans les limites de la corporation poursuivie et que, lorsqu'il est constate que le chomin o^i un accident est arrive, ne se trouve pas dans les limites de la corporation de la cit^ ou ville, quand meme ce chemin serait entretenu par la corporation de cit6 ou ville, les dispositions de ce statut ne sont pas applicables. — Q. B. — Laforce & Ville de Sorel, 18 R. L, p. 688 ; 34 L. C. J., p. 63 ; M. L. R„ 6 Q. B.,p. 149. 3. Que la reclamation pour donimages ^prouv^s par suite de la negligence de la corporation d'une cite de reparer et entretenir les rues, dans ses limites, se present par trois mois et qu'il n'est pas necessaire de plaider cettc prescription. Taction ^tant completement eteinte ; seulement, si la d^fenderesse n'invoque pas cette prescription dans sa plaidoirie, elle n'aura pas de frais. — Q. B. — City of Quebec & Howe, 19 R. L., p. 554. , 4. Que la penality encourue pour defaut de faire une inhumation, conform6ment aux statuts de Quebec, 38 Vict., ch. 38 and 48 Vict., ch. 27, ne peut etre recouvree que si la demande en est faite dans les six mois de la date de I'inhumation. — C. R. — Barre vs. Bichard, 19 R. L., p. 189. 5. The prescription of six months, under section 276 of the city charter, 52 Vic. (Q.) ch. 79, cannot be applied by the Court unless it has been pleaded. — Doherty, J. — Lafrance vs. City of Montreal, R. J. Q., 7 C. S., p. 249. 3364. 1. La courte prescription, interrompue par la passation d'un acte authentique qui constate la dette, ne recommence pas k courir par le memo temps qu'auparavant, et I'acte authentique k I'effet de substituer la prescription de trente ans h. celle dont la dette etait originfti'-ement frappee. — C. R. — Duvias vs. C6t4, 14 Q. L. R., p. 308. 2. The prescription of thirty years is substituted for that of five years, only where the admission of the debt from the debtor results from anew title, which changes the commercial obligation to a civil one- In an action of account, instituted in 1887, the Plaintiff claimed, inter alia, the sum of $2,361.10, being the amount due under a deed of obli- gation and constitution d'hypotheque, executed in 1866, and which, on its face, was given as security for an antecedant unpaid promissory note, dated in 1862. The deed stipulated that the amount was payable Consolidated S' ylement No. t.-Arta. 22Gn.nG7. 601 on the terms and conditions and in the manner mentioned in the said promissory note. The Defendants pleaded that the deed did n ^ ffect a novation of the debt, and that the an.ountdue by tl. pi i Zuced^TTher. t',r°" """ '^^^ ^^^^«- The note L not (W Bench fT n ■ '^7'^'"^ ''" -'"''^"^^^^ «*' ^''<^ Court of •queens Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side), that tho deed did not affect a novat on ril69 & 1171 P r\\^ r^r /-V ! , ruDtion nf fho ^ • f- r -* """"^ '* operated as an inter- ruption of the prescription and a renunciation to the benet:^, of the time up to then elapsed, so as to prolong it for five years i he note was then overdue. r2264 C. C.) And aslhe ..«« was on th P int^ yearllret T' ^"'.^ ""^^ '^"^ ^^^^^ ^'^^ less than t! prescribed bvXr ""% "''""''^ °' *'^ ""*^' ^^^ ^^^^^^ -- p 243 y^ars-SuPHEME CouuT.-Pa^^.f Par^, 23 S. C. R.. n«f ^^*?".^" ^"^'''' arrerages d'int^rets, resultant d'une condam- nation judiciaire, ne se prescrivent que par trente an.s.-TASCHEREAU ^—Nantel vs. Bmette, 12 L. N., p. 348. a^^^hi^keau, 2 Article 2250 of the Civil Code, which declares that with the pre cnbed by the lapse of five years, applies to interest on a judicial condemnation._C. ^.-JetU vs. Crevier, M. L R., 6 S C n 48 R.728r'' "- ""■' ' ''' ' '' ^ ^- '' P- ^«3-Q' B. - R j'q. 1 a V.r L^Z^T""T^TJY'''''- '"'• "" J"^^-ent,se prescrivent faite conti-ele ?"' "''"' ^^^^ ''^'"^"^'^'' '^ """^^^ ^'uncsaisie taitecontie e tiers-saisi, en execution, contre un jugement obtenu pour des arrerages d'interet qui etaient prescrits lor's de I'manat on de la tiers.saisie.-PEU.ETiER, J.-Colombe vs. Blais, 20 R. L p 508 . i^T^. ^' r^'""^'^' '"'^ Defendants in damages for the d<^ath of her husband, who was killed, while in the employment of the Defen dants, and a jury awarded her S6,500. The Defendants moved 1 For judgment ^on obstante veredicto ; 2. Arrest of judgment • 3 For a new trial. At the argument on the motions, it Jas 'urged 'by Z Defendants, for the first time, that, according to C. C 1056 226 one year, (C. C. 2262 , and that, as the Plaintiffs husband died more han one year after the accident occurred and did not bring an action the present action must be dismissed. Held, ( Wurtele, J., dissen^. i ' fi02 (hniHoUdated Supidcnient No. I. — Art. 2M8, that the proscription iiivokod at the arjijument not having been plcaihul, tlio Court could not take it into account. — C. R. — liolnvson m Cauaillan Pacific It;/., H.'J L. C. J., p. 145 ; M. L. R., 5 8. C, p. 225. — Q. I!.— li) R. L.' J), -m ; M. L. R., (i Q. B., p. UN. The above case was conHnneil in Privy Council tlic hohlinu of which i.s noted in lull in this Supplement at article 105G, deci.sion number li and at article 22(J2, decision number 4. 2. A creditor receiving money for a specific purpose, cannot apply it in payment of a prc?cribed debt, for goods previously .sold. (This case is noted in full in this Supplement, at article 1158 and at article 1727, decision number 4). — C'HAMl'A(iNE, D. M. — Dupuis vs. •Evans, 12 L. N., p. 251. 8. See case of C'ltij of Quebec & Howe, noterl in this Supplement, at article 2203, decision number 3. 4. See case of Barr4 vs. Bechdrd, noted in this Supplement, at article 22G3, decision number 4. 5. See case of CUij of Sherhrooke d- Du/ort, noted in this Sup- jjlement, at article 2503, decision number 1. See also article in the 13 L. T., p. 05. SSG^ 1. Les mots " ni en affaire de commerce en general, " dans I'ai'ticle 2208 du Code; Civil, ne liberent pas I'achoteur de lionne foi d'un meuble vole, de la revendication que pent exercer le propiie- taire. lis doivent s'interpreter comme ayant pour objet det.^ndre I'efFet de I'article aux contrats autres que ceux de vente, tel que decide par la Cour d'Appel dans Cassils vs Crawford. — Larue, J. — Spencer vs. Lavigne, 15 Q. L. R., p. 101. 2. Que la possession legale des biens meubles donne au possesseur le droit de prouver pai temoins son titre a la propriete des biens qu'il possede. — Tellier, J. — Boucher vs. Bousquet, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 11. 3. Que le locataire d'unc maison est presume etre le proprietairi des effets qui s'y trouvent et en avoir la posssion a titre de proprietairc et que ce titre est suffisant pour faire maintenir une opposition, sauf preuve contraire. — Mathieu, J. — Peltier vs. Lamb, M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 69 ; 17 R. L., p. 676. 4. Que la possession d'un meuble, a titre de proprietaire et de Conmlitlated iiapiUement Nn. /. -A /-/.s. .'>(;!)• >>n. 60.3 tlic holiling of 105G, (k'cisioti jprietaii'e et de „.ncial -y. \,.-l.dudmiat ,(■ floUli,; R, J, Q., 2 ri R p -jii,, '.aro. WhiK.pi-eseriptioiisbc.Minlh.fni-*. tl,-.i'„i ly tlie pre.exi,t:ii» laws a now l-,w , '"'° S"onie,l "Inch, under the nre'cltun , ''""'"■ '"'"P'"'^ l"«criptil,le 'i« nnllitc- Q„e ,a ol,: r;arro ITpr ete''""" °' ' """'■ .,»-ur „„e rdennanee .p.eiaL .tceoir;':? ,' Z^C V^'Z -0. R.~Hudon vs. Millrr, .S2 L. C. J., p. 253. ^ 2. Qu'un a^ia*' bref de conh-ninf^. T^c,,. .l«n.andeur ait prealablei: b 1'^^^^^^ T '^"^ '' comme confcraire a Jarticle 781 C PC cl / "'^' ''^ ""'' '"«'«', 17 R. L., p. G08. ii— ^a»ioure«w y;«. Gil- (itnaant la litespendannc sur cetfp fonfocf ^f j? • , "^ p«ui,, -- - ur ceue contestatiun, fauo (5uiettre, contre '51 I- I tf> (104 CoTiHoliilated Sajyjrdement Nu. I. — Art. '2'27%. CO (l^fendeur, unc seconde rfjglc pour contrainto pour lea memos causes. — C. R. — Lamouvenoi vs. Gilmour, 17 R. L, p. 611. 237!2. I. Qu'un creancier, dont la cr^ance est port<^e au certifital du registrateur, peut poursuivre et obtenir la vento a la folle-enchere ot la coutraiute par corps du fol-cnchoris.sour et ce memo lorsfjue la creance n'ost quo conditionnollo. — C. R. — Gault vs. Honan, 15 Q. L R. p. 98. 2. Quo la signification d'une regie pour contrainto par corp.s, en execution d'un jugement demandant des dommagos-interets pour inju- res personnelles, faites au dofendour, pendant qu'il eat d6tenu on ])ri- aon, est nulle, .si olle no lui est pas faite entro les deux guichets. — C R. — Lavioiire.iix vs. Gihnour, 17 R. L., p. Gil. 3. Que la contrainto par corps, dans les causes pour injure - ver- bales, peut etre ordonn^e, memo loraquo le montant capital do la con- damnation n'est que do cinq piastres, si le capital et les frais exc^dent 816.66. Que le temps do I'emprisonnement est discr^tionnairo a la Cour. — PAaNUB:LO, J. — Houle vs. Desautels, 18 R. L., p. 315. 4. Quo le Code Civil permet lemprisonnoment pour dommages resultant do diffamation, lorsquo le montant excfedo cent francs, on $16.66. La demande do I'emprisonnement doit etre prdcedee de la signification du jugement, dun commandement de payer et d'une de- claration que le dofendour sera contraink par corps, au paiement dr la condamnation, quat re mois aprfes cot avis. Le commandement de payor consiste dans I'avia que le detViideur sera contraint par corp.s, s'il no paie dans les quatre mois. Le demandeur n'est pas tenu de discn- ter les biens du defendeur, avant dv i emprisonner pom lommages re>ul- tantd'injures personnelles. Le dewiandeur n'est pas tt iiu de faire signi- fier au defendeur un etat detaillo des frais tax^s, attendu que les frais sont taxes confcradictoiromentetquelesjugcments nese .signifient plus, L'emprisonnement n'a lieu que quinze jours aprfes le jugement qui IV)!- donne et le demandeur n'est pas tenu de mentionner ce delai dans Irs conclusions do sa requete. La cour peut ordonner, ou refuser, suivaiit les circontances, I'emprisonnement pour dommages resultant d'injures personnelles ; elle pourra aussi accordor I'eraprisonnement pour un temps, ou jusqu'& paiement de la condanmation ; I'esprit de notre legis- lation cependant est qui^cetteemprisonnementn'excedepas une annte. — Pagneulo, J. — Ooyette rs. Berthelot, 19 R. L., p. 147. 4. Qu'il n'est pas n^cessaire de signifier une motion pour r^gli otion pour veg\>- CouMol idnted Supplemnit No. I.-A vt. Sm. (J05 ■■t. autori* ,|a„, la p„„n.„it„ .„•, ,.„„ J^^X^T !!7T ' :"" ''•• ''-'"-■ I- .» .lu dMccicu,- o„ i„„ V t 'r "T" la contrninte par corns On'il ..' ^ "" «l«. base sur cet article „e peul 6uJ:^Zn iZ^r'^-' '' conformementirarticle.S01.--TErnKi. J 1 ""^'^'rV' "" J"S« A'ti^ierre. R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. +;} '^-Ommet vs. Meunier dit mxt„:k.. ., ...n.r'ri:^R;:;:^:^^^^^';-;j-'-- - peut p..,der a i;'c::tnl''p:no p" 1 1 ''i:! ^^'^^7^'^°^' t-tdo eesd^pens. Qu'H n'est^ n^" rava.u d'r'l T" a contrainte par corps, de discuter les imn. ubles e , ""'" " '1 -mnee. Que sous les articles 2272 et 2^ CCi f ^ ''"" incarc(^r(ie lorsqu'elle est <,n„« 1. ^T .^- ^^ ''^ **''""''^' P^-'Utetre - „ota™,e„t „e doU pa. or*; ^ nLT ZT ,?r""'"°-' 60(i Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 2273. I ^t6 payee, les depens n'etant plus alors I'accessoire de la dette. — Pagnuelo, J. — McNatnara, r.s. Gauthier, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 370. 3373. 1. A coiiunitinent for contempt must be for a {riven time, or until tlie person in contempt does, or is willing to conform to, the order of the Court. A coniniitment which is general and during pleasure, will be quashed and set aside. — Q. B. — Vinelierg al sale of his effects, of which he was ^JZ^t:^^ to be imprisoned, under Art. 7«2 C. C P until hi i n 7 J^is^cH^ Jndginent against hi.. PrevL^^^ he had made an abandonment of all his effects for the beneHt of 1 i^ ere 1 ors. At the date of the judgment ordering his i " tl n IHS /« an was being contested by the Plaintiff, on thegroun "of 3 d^m rtHllf r^^^^^*'°"--^^^^ ''- Bef:.dant :l^t: aemned to ten days of imprisonment for fraud. This punishn.onf h underwent. The bandonment was acted upon in the us, " the goods which . ^ been secreted by the Defondnn ™' r;;! to the estate, and _ nal distribution of the assets was made amoZ^ erms and applies, without distinction, to all cases of cC v imp sonment in civil matters, .nd to all the preceding artic s ^ ^ : section including art. 782 ; and therefore the Defendant, afte^ uL liberation.- C. R.- C/mrtrand vs. Campeau, R. J. Q., 4 C. S., p. W.i. 227«. 1. Que la femme marine est contraignable par corps nour des dommages excedant 200 livres ancien cours. pour d.^ 10 IZ calcnnnieuse declai^e mal fondee et malicieuse.-^LxHrEU, j!_t vs. Betournay, R. J. Q., 1 c. S., p. 139. •' 2 Que sous les articles 2272 et 2276 C. C, la femme peut etre incarceree. lorsqu'elle est sous le coup d'un Jugement accornt d om„,ages interets pour injures personnelles -Mathiep, 3.-,^^^. V'lle vs. St. Aubin, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p- 72. V'f^nrjr 3. Le septuagenaire, qui d^t^riore une propri^te hypothequeo nest pas exempt d'arrestation.-TKLLiEB, J.-OuLt vs. Jm^W /' Lapierre, R. J. Q., 3 C. S., p. 43. 608 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 2286. (Amendment : — Articles 3279 to 2,354, both inclusive, are repealed' except in so far as such articles, or any of them, relate to evidcnc in regard to bills of exchange, cheques and promissoi'y notes. — D. 53 Vict, cap. fio.) debiteur puyait k ses creanciers par le concordat, ne pourra exiger le paiement de ce billet, dont la consideration est illegale. — Pagnuelo, J. — Lefebvre vs. Berth iaume, 18 R. L., p. 325. 2. An insolvent debtor, who gives a promissory note to one of his creditors, to induce the latter to assent to an agreement of com- position, cannot, to an action bi'onght by the latter, to recover the amount of the note, plead the nullity of the agreement. — Loranger, J.Smith v.i. Blumenthal, 13 L. N., p. 396. 3. In the absence of legislative enactments pi-ohibiting the same and in default of an Insolvent Act, whereby the majority of the creditors would bind the remainder to the conditions of a composition and discharge, nothing invalidates, as between the debtor and his creditor, an agreement by which the debtor undertakes to pay such creditor more than thj amount of said composition and discharge and a promissoxy note giren to cover such excess is valid. — Gill, J. — Racine vs. Champoux, M. L. R., 6 S. C p. 478. 4. That a promissory note, given by an insolvent to one of his creditors, in excess of the composition payable under an agreement of composition, to induce the creditor to sign snch agreement, is absolutely null, and no action upon such note can be maintained by the creditor against the debtor. — Doherty, J. — Greene vs. Tobin, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 377. 5. L'engagement contracte par un failli, en vers un de ses crean- ciers, pour obtenir son consentement k I'acte de composition et decharge, de lui payer I'exc^dant de sa creance sur le dividende fixe, est nul, et un billet consenti par le failli, en faveur du creancier, pour Ic montant de tel exc^dant, et post-date, n'est pas recouvrable en loi. — C. R. — Garneau vs. Larivi^re, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 491. Note. For other cases relating to insolvent debtors giving notes to certain of their creditors in excess of t'le amount of their composition, see cases noted in this Supplement, attached at article 993. 3286. 1. La regie de droit posee par I'article 1961 de notre Code )ourra exiger le ale.— Pagnuelo, 1 de notre Code Consoiidated Supplement No. l.^Art. 2m. 609 (Amendment:— ^r7q/«ys.r/ / ., • ^■^cept in so far as such ^^o^it^^^ '^''T'' «- ^^-^-^. regard to hills of exchanne !L ^ V '' '''^"^'^ ^^ evidence in Vict., cap. 33.) ^ ' '^'''^"''' "^^ promissory notes.-D. f.l Civil, que le d^lai accordp nnr i^ „ ' •l^charge point la ^ZtV.^ ^l^ZTl ^\ '''^"- ^""^^P^^ - que. par I'article 2340 dumeme Code o"!^^ ^'^'''' '" '"*""' 'ie billets promissoires auTlofs d'An 7. '"''' '''°"''^' ^" '"'^tifer. lorsque des dispositions parUuHet'"' '" '°^^^ ''^ ^^ ^"^' l^^^- lets et lettres d'e change ne ont pTs "T™' •^P^'^-'-"-^ les bil- lesdites lois d'AngleLriaT^I , T "'' - Ji^Codo; or, pax- billets promissoires etTdeki nf T "''' P'^''^"^^ en nuxtiere de billet au prometteu;, a 'eft "e HbT T 'l P°''"" ^* "'--'- ^^ cip6 ^ lobtention de ce diki. ' '"^"^'^^"^ ^"' °'« P'^^ P-ti- , "I'e Court of Queen's Bench reverse.! H, • , ^v.p,nor Court ^CAIU.) as above n ^ /^ Judgment of the not proved._c^B. j.:;:jT.^:i-n^- ^^^^ ;:{ n'en pent exiger le paTemen ' ' '^"' '™P'' ^*^*'^^*^"'- '^t q"-'! f te contre 'proLr ts.t\r:rizi\"v^"^^ ""'^ ^'^"■- de mettre en cause celui a I'ordre du^ el ; f!f""'^ ""'°'^"-- adjuge, contradictoirement avec lui si . a ' P°"' ^'"''' '^^^'t le proprietaire de ce billet Jettk J 'V ''"^f «"^- -* veritablement p. 305. "^' '^ — V^^ndal vs. Douville, 20 K. L , ^ qufii^^;:;:;: ^::^t^ r ''--' ^^^ ^^^* ^ •'-^- ^e ccw ^'t que le poL'ur c^un te b 1 r LT^o '^^ ^"'""'"^"^ ^" '^'-- contre le faiseur.-LoRANOEuJ T T' " ^ P^' ^''''^ ^'action fraude avant la date oh ce billet Im « 'f . ' ^ connu cette transport lui soit fait par un premier e^ "^?''' ^"°'^"« «« MATHiEU,J.-5a,,,, J5JIP7;- r^--- de bonne foi.-_ • ?! 39 R. L. p. 360. 610 Consolidated Stipplevieiit No. I. — Art. ^387. I [ (Amendment :— Articles 2379 to 2^5 Jf., both inclusive, are repealed, except in so far as such articles, or any of them, relate to evidence i7> regard to bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes. — D. Bit Vict, cap. 33.) 2. A promissory note given by an insolvent to a creditor, to induce the latter to sign an agreement of composition, is null and void, and no action can be maintained thereon by a person to whom the note is transferred after maturity. — Wurtele, J. — Gervais vs. Dubi M. L. R., G S. C, p. 91 ; 20 R. L., p. 211. 3. Where a promissory note has been obtained by fraud and without any consideration received by the maker thereof, such note is absolutely void and a third party, who has become the holder in good faith, is not entitled to recover the amount thereof from the maker — De Lorimier, J. — Banque Jacques- Cartier vs. Leblanc, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 217 ; 20 R. L., p. 93. , The decision in the above case was reversed by the Court of Ajipeal which held as follows : — That a party who, before maturity, has become the holder of a promissory note, in good faith and without notice of any objection, for valuabh consideration, is entitled to recover the amount thereof from the person whose signature appears on the note as maker, even whore it is proved that the signature was obtained by artifice and fraud, and without any consideration being received by the pro- niissor. — Q. B. — Jacques-Cartier Bank & Leblanc R. J. Q., 1 B. R., p. 128. 4. Le tiers porteur d'un billet a ordre qui savait, au moment de prendre ce billet, que le titre de I'une des parties k icelui etait defec- tueux, n'a pas de recours contre cette partie. — Mathieu, J. — Rein- hardt vs. Shirley, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 11. 5. Celui qui se pretend porteur de bonne foi, pour I'avoir acquis avant I'^ch^ance et pou*- valeur, d'un billet entach^ de fraude et d'il- 16galit6, est tenu de prouver ce qu'il all^gue. — C. R. — Jacques Cartier Bank vs. Gagnon, R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 88.— Cimon, J.— R. J. Q., 5 C S. p. 499. 6. The sale and transfer of instruments of no intrinsic value, but evidences of value, as notes, bills of exchange, bank bills, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, bonds and debentures, is not subject to the Court of Consolidatea Supplement No. 1. -Arts. 2:i9^.m(J Gl 1 latter. The tact that, M-hen they were nledcred tho A. l. \ , ! ..;,U.ared and were past due, U "l^Material iS t, "Z! I'' ng tot ownership of those who, as the parties in si™' ^^ .J!:hit;::r:i:r^^^^^ by the drawee, and to charge thesan,e to the dZe "s ' 7"^ .»eh order, h/the dra'wee'n th ITeX^f ^ rt"„';';^ 1 w.thout a written aeceptance, and the subs'eqnent h^t C^!" '^f, ' drawer or assignor does not divest the payee of his rMj I , an,ouat. Verbal evidence is admissible t^ prove that the 1 prfaentation d„ billet. Q„'„ne denrande do paielnrs'l I tffl! 1.0RANGER. J.-Cotts^neatt vs. Lecours, M. L. K, 4 S. C, p. 249. 2. Que lorsquun billet est payable au domicile du o.v^ancior «t quapres lech ance. le chancier ne soit pas en position de rccev ^ lo' pai ment qui lui est offeH, parcequ'il aurait d'pose ce billet Jllurl •1 devient ensu.te payable g^neraleraent, et que. si ce cr^L c ier !n poursmt le montant en justice, sans en avoir faJt 1 del dt "u d^ " t ur U paiera les frais de poursuite, si ce debiteur depose T men: tant encour, sans ira,s.-Q. B. - Lessard & Genest. 33 I C J p oq ■ll 612 Consolidated Suj)plement No. J.— Arts. '2310-2311. (Amendment : — Articles ^2279 to 2354-, both inclusive, are repealed, except in so far as such articles, or any of them, relate to evidence iii. regard to bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes. — D. 5.! Vict., cap. 33.) 2310. 1. Decision number 18, noted at this article (Dupras hk. Lamoureux) was contirmed in Appeal — 19 R. L., p. 488. 2. Que la composition, consentie entre le creancier et I'endosseur d'un billet, ne libere pas le prometteui*. — C. R. — Ban que Nationals v.s. Betournay, 18 R. L., p. 175. 3. Under the circumstances of this case, the Plaintiff, though last endorser, could not recover from Defendant, a prior endorser, more than one half the amount of the promissory note sued upon, inas- much ns they were both accomodation endorsers, and so joint sureties, for the maker of the note. — C. R. — ValUe vs. Talbot, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 223. 4. Where a person has placed his name at the back of a note below the endor.sement of the payee, the fact that he did so solely for the accomodation of the maker, and to give liim credit with the party discounting, witliout having received any consideration, and without ever having been the holder of the note, is not sufficient to destroy the presumption arising from the position of the names on the back of the note, and to make him liable as warrantor. — Q. B. — Merchants Bank of Canada & Canningham,!^. J. Q., 1 B R., p. 33. 5. The maker of a promissory note cannot, by dilatory exception, stay the suit of the holder in order to call in the endorser e'H, garantic — Davidson, J. — Molson's Bank vs. Charlebois, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p 286. 6. Le debiteur .solidaire a I'exception dilatoire pour appeler son co-debiteur. — Routhier, J. — Demers vs. Harvey, 'R. J. Q., 5 C. S., p. 1. 3311. 1. Que sous le droit ant^riehr au Statut du Canada de 1890 (53 Vict., ch. 33) le donneur d'aval, d'un billet promissoire.netait pas decharge de son obligation, parcequ'il n'aurait pas eu avis du pro- tet du billet et que ce statut n'a pas modifie la loi antdrieure, quant aux billets faits avant la passation de ce statut. — Mathieu, J, — Fyfe vs. Boyce, 21 R. L., p. 4. '-'2311. ve, are repealed, 'i to evidence in, y notes. — D. 5,1 lie (Dupra8 '•«. 18. • et I'endosseur le Nationale vn. iff, though last endorser, more ued upon, inas- 3 joint sureties, I. J. Q., 1 C. S., lack of a note id so solely for with the party \, and without ient to destroy s on the back B. — Merchants 13. tory exception, ier en garantic Q., 2'C. S.,p XV appeler son 3., 5C.S.,p. 1. du Canada de aissoire, n'etait 3U avis du pro- ;6rieure, quant iiEU, J. — Fyfe Consolidated Supplement No. l.-Arts. 2;^16.^SJfi. (jiM (Amendment: — Art\c1e!i»>'yQt^(i-jri i ., regard to bUl, of exchc^n, 1. " i ' '■*"" '" "idence in Vict., cap. S3.) ' " ' *^"""' "'"' Vromi,>ory notes.-D. .r,l Tliat before tl,e passing of the Acl53 Vict (D ) d, 3-i .1 > i , ol a pr„,„,asory note was not boimd to give not ce „ •! , . .' u '' endorser yoMr aval, in order to bold h: , ! P'^"'""' '" ""e ™ade before tbe pa^sinjof the ltd rtnl"' ■ ff "' """""^ "*« thist„p^:-:t:r:rt-:,So:^.S^^^^^^^ co.r«hibtdirn?e":an::'^t':e.r"; ■''»°^™''''' p"^"^'» greffe avec le rapport de lacZn ,!!/ '•t'""' '" P'''"'"'=«™ " efface son nom et Itarait tmnsporte 4 L pr"L 70™% ■''°':"' duqnel se ferait le dit nrotSt „„ , "".P'^""';''""'. * h requisition d««>„rs sont decharg&l oV,MEr T p",","' "' ""' ■" '"' »' R. 6 S. C„ p. S31. ""'"T, J._ Pete^r m. Brosseaii, M. L. passo™?slnrt:i'sl?'''^''.'''^-°'''= ^ "^ ^». - P-U protest._a a-i>«i:::r.\rz:'a3Vct;tr '-''' ^Mss?p:Ltnt"a::::L".srd::isi:f:rbt^- ""«-°- - 2. Qu'en loi, un endosseur, porteur d'nn h,-li.+ • deiai an faisenr, .sans ,„ eonsenteint dTs tZ^'^X.:°;:^ 3™ f i >: 1 (il4 Consolidated Supiilement No. 1. — Art. 2341. ('Amendment : — Articles '2'279 to '235 J^, both inchisive, are re- pealed, except in so far as such articles, or any of them, relate to evidence in regard to bills of exchange, cheques and 2)fomissory ■notes. — D. 63 Vict, cap. 33.) rccours contre ces endosseurs, lesquelb so troavent UuiMET, ^.—Pelletier vs. Brosaeau, M. L. R., 6 S. C, p. 331 Jecharg^s. — 3. Que, dans I'onquete des faits sur action ou poursuite pour le recouvrement de billets promissoires, on doit avoir recours aux lois d'Angleterre qui etaient en force le 30 mai, 1849, et que d'apres ces lo.s on peut prouver par temoins que I'endossernent d'un billet pro- niissoire a ete donne h. ia demande, et pour I'accomodation du porteur, et non pour garantir le faiseur. — Davidson, J. — Northfield vs. Lau- ra nee, 21 R. L, p. 359. 4, That Art. 2340, C. C, which provides that " in all matters " relating to bills of exchange not provided for in this Code, recourse " must be had to the laws of England in force on the 30th May 1849. ' applies only to the form, negotiability and proof of the instrument, and not to matters of civil obligation resulting from the substance of the contract created thereby, — in regard to which recourse must be had to the provisions applicable thereto to be found in other parts of the Civil Code.— C. K—Guy vs. Pare, R. J. Q., 1 C. S., p. 443. 2341. 1. Que les regies de la preuve enoncees aux difi'i6rentes sections du liv. 3, tit. 3, ch. 9, du Code Civil, ne s'appliquent pas aux actions sur billets promissoires. pour lesquelles il n'y a pas d'autres que celles enoncees aux articles 2341 i > 2342 de ee code. Que I'article 145 du Code de Procedure, s'ajoute aussi bien a I'article 2341 qu'aux articles 1222, 1223 et 1224 du Code Civil ; mais que I'article 145 du Code de Procedure, n'attachant aucune presomption d'omission, ni aucune decheance a I'absence d'une denegation assermentee, la signa- ture devrait, memo sans celle-ci, etre prouvee. Que, une jurisprudence unii'orrae et constante, dans toute la province, depuis la mise en force du Code Civil, aj'ant conserve la r^gle qui faisaient la section 87 de la 20 Vict., ch. 44 et la section 86 du chapitre 83 des Statuts Refon- dus du Bas-Canada, I'interet public exige qu'elle ne soit pas changee, et i\ne, en I'absence d'une deposition assermentee, niant les signatures sur un billet, elles soient prises pour admises. — Casault, J. — Straas m. (Hlhert, 15 Q. L. R.. p, 59. elusive, are re- them, relate to nd promissory t decharg^s. — .331. jrsuite pour le scours aux lois jue d'apres ces I'un billet pro- ion du porteur, Ihfield vs. Lau- in all matters Code, recourse lOth May 1849. ' the instrument, be substance of 20urse must be I other parts of , p. 443. aux diff'i6rentes iquent pas aux pas d'autres que ;. Que I'article ie 2341 qu'aux 'article 145 du d'omission, ni jntee, la signa- le juri.sprudence a mise en force L section 87 do Statuts Refon- )it pas changce, t les signatures JLT, J. — Straas Consolidated Supplement No. /.—Art. 2,n/. (515 (Amendment: — Articles "^'rotn ">!■-> in- , ■ land in ^J'ttZZ til IZ'^Z' ^° "1'° '" ^ '< ^''■^■ England, parol ovidcnco i;ll„ 'fib, f'-.fTf'"? "' "'"-' '"" "f ship of the parties to „ l.ilK " '''''' *"= "•'■"' w'""""- circum,t„nceruuerwhi^ 7 °T " f "■!-»■■>• note, and the ^ca uiKier Winch it was endorsed.— Wuhtet f 1 at ti Md vs. Lawrence. M. L. R.. 7 S. C, p. 148.-C. R. - 15 L. N~f tl" eien.jcuis.— b. ii.~na7mlton vs. Pern,, RJD 'i r ^ r. Ta Pagnuelo, J.-R. J. Q., 3 0. s., p. 66 ^' ""^ -"■ '^•' ^ ^- '^- P' 76- 4. Le statut du Canada, 56 Vict oh qr n„f t^moins et la preuve s'apDliauP kV concernant les sur nn hJllcf ^*°*^^'^- *-" consequence, dans une action fondee sm un bdletpronnssoire, oh la defense k all^gue I'ill^ffalite de In 7 sideration du billet, comme representant le prix d f]^ 'v .1. pays par contrebande et en fraude des dro^s de tt ^ *"" temoin interroge ^ ce suiet hp n^nf • . couronno, un ,r.r^f;f . acesujet ne peut sexempter de r^nondrc nom- lo 5-«/c vs. Garjnon, R. J. Q„ 5 C. S.. p 251 -^ -'^«^^^«^-^'«'-^^«- '( f (516 CoriHolidatcd Supplf/ment No. 1. — Arts. :i3.^^-!2.lp. (Amendment :— Articles 2279 to 2,sr4, both inclusive, arv repealed, except m ^ofar as such articles, or any of them, relate to evidence in regard to hills of exchavrjc, cheques and promissory notes.— D. 6:1 Vict, cap. :i.i) —Quo la preuve tostiinonialo de cette condition n'est pas ndniissiblc rf vs. St-Cyr, 1 R. de J„ p. 2t6. 2344. 1. Que la promesse do payer, a son ^chdance, un billet escompt^ pour obtenir dcs fon.'s devant servir k piomouvoir I'^lection des nieinbres de I'assembkr legislative, est nulle. (S. R. Q., art, 425). Q. B.—St-Louis ASenical, 18 R. L., p. IGO. 2. Que I'alteration d'un billet promissoire, en substituant fi la dat<' qu'il portait une date posterieure, n'est pas, vis-^-vis du prometteur, une alteration importante, ayant I'effet de le lib^rer de son obligation de payer ce billet.— C. K— Canada Invest. Co. vs. Brown 19 R L n 364. ' ■ ■''■ 3. Jug4 (dans une cause anterieure a I'acto sur les lettres de change, 1890) :-Un billet, par lequel le faiseur proniet de payer une certain.' somme a son propre ordre, et qui n'est pas endoss6 par ce faiseur, n'est pas un billet promissoire, dans le sens dcs articles 2344 et 2345 du code civil, et partant, ceux qui ont endoss6 ce billet ne peuvent 6tro tenus soit comme endosseurs, soit comme donneurs d'aval, d'en payer le niontant, la nullito du billet entrainant celle des endossements.- Q. B.~Trenholme & Coutu, R. J. Q., 2 P. R., p. SS7.— Wurtele J M. L. R., 7 S. C, p. 146. 3346. See case of Dandurand vs. Rovlier, noted in this Sup- plement at article 2322. 2340. A cheque, which does not show consideration on its face, is not conclusive evidence of a debt due from the drawer to the payee but the Plaintiff must make proof of the consideration for which it was given. In the present case, such proof was found in tlie allega- tions of the plea and other promises of Defendant to pay.— Johnson, ,1.—Dufresne vs. St. Louis, M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 310. 2. A cheque payable to a certain person, or bearer, is equivalent to a cheque payable simply to bearer. The negociability of such n Consolv/nteU Sapplemmt No. t.-Art.. -J5l.S.i7l 617 (^>^RNl)ME}iT : — Art ides J 270 fn J i- 1 I ,i ■ , . regard to hu/n nf ^^..i . i ' •' ' '''"'' '" evidence %n net, cap. ^ ^ '"'^"'^^''' ^^^^'^"'^ '-'' /"-'--.^ noU..^l>. 5.1 a sumctnttitle to demand and receive payment tln.reof -.Ifttf ^^.-Exchange Bank vs. Quebec Bank, M. L. R. (i S C p 1 1 the president ot the pruicinal bant r ? ,. * '"I'S"-"" f'™" certain fnnds are at 1^3,^ ,' ''°'"'°'' ""'■°'"' *'«"(? «'"' .nd no le.aSr«n 1 1 ! " " '""* "' '"' ""J" '» '"«' »■ 3353. Que la remise d'un cheniip nnJ r,Vo+ ^ fcuepasun paiement et „ "" '^''^^"^ ^"^ "^st pas paye, ne consti- i.asa;titr:'J.:„i , ^rAScT '':r'"r ^''"'•' ""■'"■™'" chap. 3, da tit 2 du I v 4 I p ?'^- ",' * ' l'J'P'"l'eq»e montionnee an R L,p635.-c'R-ie b! L^p"'^^;'"'* '-*™'''* ''"»"'■ '« asra Erratum- The words ■• .lmenrf„,™, . ■■ Fe^rllVZt'^-Jt "■"';''\:^*- '"«*. -^"W hty -Article 2374 >kom he replaced % tl. fM,^^ "-^houid t "tS " "Jilt and be 618 Vonmlulated Supplement ^Vo. l.-~Arts. iW6-3Ml replaced hy tho following words — " Article 2S7J^ nhould t-ead an foUotva" : 987A, Qu'un vaisseau ciirfgiatro ft hypothequo no peut, an prejudice du cr^ancier hypothecaire, etre saisi, a la pour.suito d'uii creancier ordinaire du proprietaire du vaisseau. — Math lEU, J. — Filteau vh. Bouchervillc Naviiiat'ion Co., R. J. Q., I C. S., p. H7. 2»7«. Amendment.— Tlie I'ollowing article should be added :— " 2S370ff. If the interest of any mortgagee in a registered ship is tran.sniitted in consequence of death or insolvency, or in conseciuence of the marriage of a female mortgagee, or by any lawful means other than liy a transfer made under the I" ^^^ENT-Whereas by the custom of merchants, a bill of lading of goods being transferable by indorsement, the property in the goods may thereby pass to the indorsee, but nevertheless all rights m respect of the contract ccntained in the bill of ladinc. con- tmue in the original shipper or owner, and it is expedient that such rights should pass with the property : And, whereas it frequently hap- pens that the goods in respect of which bills of lading purport to be signed have not been laden on board, and it is proper that such bills of lading in the hands of a bond fide holder for value should not be questioned by the master or other person signing the same, on the ground of the goods not having been laden as aforesaid ; Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and' House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows ;— 1. Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading and every indorsee of a biL of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned passes upon or by reason of such consignment or endorse- ment, shall have and be vested with all such rights of action and be subiect to all such liabilities in respect of such goods as if the con- tract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself. 2. Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect any nglit of stoppage in transitu, or any right of an unpaid vendor under the Civil Code of Lower Canada, or any rigiit to claim freight against Consolidated Supplement No. J. -Art.. 2^8-2^9. 6'>] the original shipper or owner, or any liabilitv of f 1. Jorsee by reason or in consequence o^f L b n. u h c""^"" "' •"■ • lorsee, or of iiis receinf nF fL a u ^ ^^ consignee or n- •such consignn.enn:t,oLe^^^^^^^^^^^ '^ "^^^°" ^ ^" ^-^--e of vaiuii^^ j::::;^;^^;^^:^^^^^^^ : r^- - ^-^-e for I'oard a vessel or train shTlTh" ,^ *^ ^^^'^ ''^'^^ shipped on as against the mast^ o L ^^ ^^^^^ °^ -'^ shipment ing that such goods or some narfH T '• '"''""' »°twithstand- ped, unless such ho der Tthe bi 1 JT r"'^. "''' '^^" '''"" - '^hip- time of receiving thrsal at L Tl T ''*"^^ "°^^^^ ^^ ^^'^ on board or unless suchril of t f ^'^ "'* '" ^"^^ ^^'^ ''^den Provided, that the Itet^^^,^^^^^^^^^^^ himself in respect of su.f S ^ signing may oxone.-ate caused withou'tany deftir oXr f'" ^V ^\^o^:.^ that it was the shipper, or of the holder orJ ^^ ' '"^ "^°"^ ^^^ ^^^ ^-''^ of er claim'-D., 52 Vi' t lip '^ °' """ P^^^°" ^^^'^^ -'-- ^he hold- "charte-partie;-^,u,Iestst;;.!S an l^S;:^:^;-« 'T^ '^ gaison pour le paiement du fr^f «f 7 . P"vil^ge sur la car- prietaii^s et du cap taine e '"'''''"'^ '''^ ^^^'^^^^ ^^''^ P-" pour recouvrer et l^^; ar r^HLt'^:: ^^"^'!,"°^ ""^ P^'^^-^^'- ni6me s'il n'a pas le droit d'pnn . "''"' '^''' Propi-etaires pre nom.-CAL" /j C n rr^r".^ recouvrement en son pro-' carri^!^tea!^r:!:!^:;::rr'T^^r^^ ^^ ^^^-^*"« terminus of his route anT ^r 2 ^^^^^^^ ^1 I ' f ^ '' '"''"^^ *° *'- alone he received the frei^tl "tir J^t at th' '""'' '^ ''"''''' shipper, he undertook to deliver tl e lood! .u '''^"''^ "^ *^« Plete the transportation, doe ":>t ".fk! ^ Tl '-""'""' *° ^""■ for the delivery of the Jds at T , /'f earner responsible consequtcfltrS-roT':: ''t' 'T' — geable,in the passengers' baggage sen^ asho e '"h ''""' ""'^ ^^^^'^^^ ^^ the Plaintift's eZ7Z' 7^117 tZT' t ^'''f "P^^^^^" were damaged. The breaking of the chain Hi, 622 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Avti'. '2J,37-2458. according to the evidence, was not caused by any unusual strain, but by some flaw or weakness in it. Held : — Tiie breaking of the chain >vas not " a peril of navigation " such as to exempt the carrier from liability.— Archibald, J.— Dunning vs. The Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co., R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 129. 3437. Where no time is fi.xed for the bringing of freight along- side the ship, the carrier, according to the usage of trade in the port of Montreal, has a right to call for the freight when he needs it, in order to complete the loading of cargo in time for the regular sailing of the ship. So, where a steamship was to take a barge-load of deals and fair warning was given that 7 a. m., on a day named, would be the latest time permitted for the barge to come alongside, and the barge did not come alongside until half-past one in the afternoon, at which time the ship was preparing to take cattle on board to complete her cargo preparatory to sailing, it was held, that the carrier was justified in refusing to take the deals. — Davidson, J. — Taylor vs. Canada Shipping Co., M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 371. 244S. Decision number 2, noted at this article {Pickford vs. Dart), went to Appeal, and the holding of the Court of Queen's Bench, is noted at article 2383, decision number 29. The decision is also re- ported in the 32 L. C. J., p. 327. 3453. Que le voiturier, qui transporte par eau une certaine quantite de bois de sciage, a droit de retenir le bois transporte jusqu'au paicment du fret (C. C. 1679), et de pratiquer sur ce bois, apres qu'il i'a debarque sur le quai, une saisie conservatoire, pour assurer son privilege.— Mathieu, J.— Varietir vs. Rascony, 17 R. L., p. 105 ; M. M. L. R., 5 S. C, p. 123. 3454. Que le consignataire de marchandise, sous un connaisse- ment qui declare que le fret sera payable par le consignataire, ne pent, apre eception de ces marchandises, refuser de payer ce fret au maitre du navire, sous le pretexte que celui qui lui a consigne ces marchandises etait son d^biteur et devait payer le fret.— -Pagnuelo, J. — Ooss4in vs. Pr^fontaine, R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 308. cariroes. 3457. Amend7}ient. — As to the time allowed for discharging See Vol. II, p. 649. 345S. Lorsque le connaissement signe par le capitaine du vais- seau, comporte paiement du fret "et autres conditions d'apres lacharte for discharging Consoliduted Suppler>^ent No. l.-Arts. 2^-21^5. 623 partie," et qu'i! est stipule daus ccUe-ci nn x..\.\v pour le paiement du Li et de la s Ista L n ^^ ^' ",' '''■^"""' res et du capitaine, ce de.nier pe rconsti ue "' " P'^^"''"" recouvrer et la surestarie et le Jt au nom d "" . P'-^^"'-^"^ P""'" n a pas le droit d'en poursuivre l" r^cZlt t'?"'""'^' '"'™^ ^'" sontconstruites,etquelecreaneierlvnof}l '' ^'''"^■*^^' du proprietaire de ces batisses fli T^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ''^T' une autre compagDie d'assuraneV <,nn. i «»emes batisses, dans recouvrement du montant d» r.^suMnr',, ""»r''°" P»"r le prouve paa ,ue s« ..e,>e,„e„t, V^oM^Z^^;^^^ ^^^ "' assurance, sans avis prealable —OR n ^'Potneque et la deuxieme t^u^le centre le feu le RicLna' dZ^ZTv^ ""T'''"'' ''''- R. L., p. 461 ; 14 Q. L. R., p. 293. '^'''^"'"^'^ '^ Vamaska & Fee, 16 intitule " Acte concernant In, P^rv, ^"^''^f' *^ ^»«t-. ch. 51 ri882;, >e feu," peue ,tre iZ p u;re''ror«7" ™'"'""' ™'^^ police d'assurance e rparSl':;?"''^;;" ■'*°J ^- '« 1-urf aux eouditiona de .TJp .t !q ^'t""? "° '^ T' * & Co., the insurer. rDef.nd„nf/i , . . ^''^-'^chlan Brothers s.oooo, wiudu ooi;f:[:;:":n:;; -': :."^,te7 "^ ^-^ -' ..nc. ot the persons immed 624 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. ^4^8. in the policy, to the surviving representative. of the firm. By one of the provisions of the policy, it was stipulated that, when a member left the firm, the insurance should cease on his person. J. S. McLachlan ceased to be a partner seven months before his death, by drowning, and the dissolution was duly registered. In answer to one of the questions submitted, the jury found that the firm was dissolved "but " J. S. McLachlan had a continued and active interest in the business." Hela, that the insurance, as far as J. S. McLachlan was concerned, lapsed at the date of the dissolution of the partnership, and the fact that he continued to have an interest in the business, did not entitle the other partners to maintain an action upon the policy. — C. R. — McLachlan vs. Accident Insurance Co7npany of North America, M. L R., 4 S. C, p. 365. The above case was taken to Appeal, where a new trial was order- ed, on the ground that the verdict of the jury did not pass upon the real question in the case, namely, whether 6r not McLachlan had quitted the firm.— 34 L. C. J., p. 43 ; M L. R., 6 Q. B., p. 39. 2478. 1. Decision number 26 noted at this article (Allen tf- Merchants Marine. Insurance Co.) is also reported in the 33 L. C. J., p. 51 This decision was confirmed by the f ,")reme Court, the holding of which is noted in this Supplement at ar'. ii 2184, decision number 1. 2. Que le refus par I'assui-eur do considerer la perte de I'assure est une renonciation de sa part k son droit d'exiger de I'assure les details de ses pertes, avant que ce dernier poursuive. — Q. B. Aqri- cidtural Insurance Co. of Watcrtown d- Anslei/, 17 R. L., p. 108 ; 15 Q. L. R., p. 256.— C. R.— 14 Q. L. R., p. 183. 3. Quo la personne a qui le montant d'une assurance contre le feu est payable, pent donuer a I'assureur avis du sinistre, au meme efi'et que le propridtaire des batisses assurers.— Q. B.— National Ins^irance Go. of Ireland & Hanns, 17 R. L, p. 230 ; M. L. R. 5 Q. B. p. 345. 4. A condition of the policy, requiring do'-op ,f loss to be given and a particular statement thereof to be < ., v . j by the insured, within fifteen days after the fire, may be wj iv' and dispensed with, by a distinct denial of liability and refusal to pay on the part of the Company. — JonifsO}i,J.—HeraldGomp:ny vs. Northern Assurance Co., M. L. R., 4 S. C, p. 254. Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Art. 3^78. 625 les conditions de la police pour faire la preuve des pertos nie son pr6tendant quo la police d'assurance ne couvre pas touto la r^cla matron de 1 assure, et se declare disposee k payer lo reste r..„„nce MATHIM7, J.-Ommet vs. Glasgow & Londoro^Insce. Co., lU R. L,. p. )i(! in death 6. An accident policy, issued by the Appellants, was naval case, ^nter aha, " the bodily injuries ilonp Xm k„ ■ . " w.-fj,;^ • i. 1 ,. -^ injuries alone ahalJ have occasioncf death vvithin ninety days from the happening thereof, and provid d a the insurance should not extend to hernia, .^c, nor to a y !, llv "jury happening directly orindircctly i„ consequence ofdil^: „' ^ « part bv b n " r'f ^ "''^'^ "'^^ ^^^« ''-^ --J who ; ;" n part by bodily inhrmities or disease, existing prior or subsoqu^.,1 o he date oi this contract, or by the taking ot>ison or by Z^. ca opera ion or medical or mechanical treatment, nor'^to VyZ. except where the injury aforesaid is the proximate or sole cause of the disability or death." The policy also provided that, in the e nt of any accident or injury for which claim may be made uider L .olLy imm diate notice must be given in writing, addressed to the "^^01' aTdres of'tr""^ at Montreal, stating full name, occupat Liand address of the insured, with full particulars of the accident and diTiri '""" 1 'K' ^"^^ ^'""^^^•^^^ -"^^- notice : t:^ date all claims under the policy. On the 21st of March ]8a( the m.sured was accidently wounded in the leg by falling fro m a v'-rln on the 13th of April following. The local agent of the company at 'ent to f. " "°'"*^ °' ''^ ^^^"^^'^^ '^"d ^'-th was on^ 1 V/J"7T '" *'^' ^^'^ ^P^'"' '^"d *he notice was only received at Montreal on the 1st of May. The manager of the am pany acknowledged receipt of proofs of d.ath, whfch v^ere „, b quently sent, without complaining of want of notice, and .Iti, a Jy dtl a ,7 '7 ^'T "" *'^ -^^'^ '''^' *•- <^^'^^'^ -- -'-^ 'y At thT; ? t ''" '""P^"-^ ^""'-^ "^*^ -««"'"- the-- 'i'^'-lity At the trial there was some conflicting evidence as to whether tlie STbT.r''"*-"!^^^ '"" *'^ "^"'^^' b"* the court found < th facts^that the erysipelas followed as a direct result from the external 626 Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Arts. 2483-^85. injury. On appeal to tiie Supreme Court. Jleld, (rworsi^r ihe j«.l.r- ment of the court below, Fuurnicr A Patterson, JJ. ,lis.semin^/; ti at the company ha,i not received sufficient notice of the death to set- < ,' the requ.remonts of the policy and that, by deeUiuug to pav the <^;,) on on other grounds, there had been no vv.,iver of any objoetion wi, ,-h they had a right lo urge in tiiis wc^anl-Per Stmngd- Patterson J J that the external injury was the proximate or sole cau.se of death' within the meaning ci- the policy. -SupuEME CovuT.—The AcciJj'vt Insurance Co., of Xorth America d- Yoang, 20 S. G. R p '>8(f • 15 L. N., p. 150.-Q. B.-M. L. R., 7 (^ B., p. -147 -Tellier. "j.-ii. L K., 5 b. C., p. 4. _ 7. The Plaintiffs (Respondents), had in,sured thch .ship with the l.Hi^^endunt8 (Appellants; and, a loss having occurred, the matter was submitted to arbitrators and amiahles compositeurs appointed The Respur.'rnts contended that the following clause :— " It is expressly ^^ und.,r.sr_.o.] that this appraisement is for the purpose of ascertainin.r and frnng the amount of sai.l loss and datnnge only, to thb property Jiereafter described, and shall not determi... any other ri-ht or " rights of either party to this agreement,'' had not the effect of relieving the Plaintiffs from any of the conditions of the policy Held that whatever the effect of the clause quoted, the fact that the Respondents submitted the matter to arbitration, was an admission that the hre had taken place and that a loss had been suffered by the Plaintiffs and that this admission supplied the notice and proof of loss called for by the conditions of the policy.-Q. B.~Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co., d; Commercial Union Assce. Co. R J O 3 B. R. p. 410- ' • S5-. 2483._Decision number 5 noted at this article {McDonald c^ Messier) wa.s conhrmed by the Court of Queen's Bench, and is reported m full in this Supplement at article 2576. 2485 1. The failure to disclose all existing mortgages upon the property in.sured, in answer to a specific question upon the subject even in the absence of an express condition in the policy, is a cau.se of nullity^--C^R. i/ac/.a^ vs. Glasgow and Londo.^, Insurance Co. M ii. K., 4 S. C, p. 124. 2 A po'.-cy of insurance was effectr -1 on , ds of the insured in No. 319 an. - , . insurance was afterward .d, without variation ot Its origu. .; conditions. Before the r. .. .ai, the insured had ex- ■U85. rsinf^ the judif- s.sen;,iuf/J, ti.at eath to satis I y ) pay thec;,),i(i> :>jf'efcion wiiicli Patterson J J., cause of deatli -The Accidovt '', p. 28(f; 15 [EU. J.---M. L. ship with the e matter was pointed. The i is expressly •f ascertaining > thfe property ilier right or the effect of policy. Held, 'act that the an admission iffered by the and proof of -Richelieu S 7o., R. J. Q., 3 [McDonald tfe id is reported 'ges upon tlie the subject, , is a cause of ^ance Co., M. B insured in 5ut variation red had ex- Consolidated Supplement No. I— Art. 'i487. 627 tended his premises into No. 315 and fho p^. the establishment and saw the no ition of wf -r^ ' "^""' "'^''^ the insured and the goods colC til n ' a" t" d 7"'^f ^' goods in No. 315 and slightly injured 1 in No 'l T °^"^ ''^'' ty in wiHcn tJie goods wore represented to bo — O R r^.V.V.^ against this article). ''''*^'' ^^- '^ ^^««'"'^- ben^S ^I^csmn number 7 29 ru'e WilHam ' '""", '" '^""'''^"^ ^^^'^ demandeurs. situee au No vLf ,^'"/.^'"^' ^^^^ l°s n^eubles ot le .nateriol. Lament n'a nas visite les henx, et le commis des demandeur. qui lui a don^" vernir les meubles etait dans les etages sup^rieurs des nunieros 25 et dnn! If ' '~^ ''^ P''^^'^ "^ ''«"^^*^'*^ pas les marchandises dans les etages supeneurs du No. 25. parceque la Compagnie n^ "« Se7o" 27-P o^r^^^^^^^^^ '- T ''''-' ^-'-^^ '^- de J., p. 82 ^^''''' '^—W^i'i^r vs. PJujemx Insurance Co., 1 R. favor^oT^.;^'; ""^^'^^^^^^^l P«li«y of Hfe insurance was issued in favor of a third party, creditor of the assured. •' upon the repreLntl tions agreements and stipulations " contained in theappli a ioTfl; he pohcy signed by the assured, one of which was 'th t • f at •'gTenTrrtHhr rt '^ ^'^ ^pp^^^^"^ ^^- -^™^ --- given by him to the medical examiner of the company, then, in such a case the premiums paid would become forfeited and the policv be null and void." Upon the death of the assured, the person tJ whom the pohcy was made payable sued the company anHt the Sh "" ^T^ T ''^ '^"^"^^^ ^^^- by the applLnt as to hi health were untrue, the insurer's own medical attendant stating tha the assured s was a life not insurable. Held .- Th«f f.h. noi;1 1 - 628 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 2^90. thereby made void ah initio and the insurer could invoke such nullity against the person in whose favor the policy was made payable and was not obliged to return any part of the premium paid. That the statements misrepresented, being referred to in express terms in the body of the policy, the provisions of sees. 27 and 28 II. S. G, ch ^24 could not be relied on to validatr the policy, assuming such enact- ments to be iiitra vires of tlie Parliament of Canada, upon which point it was not necessary to decide.— Supreme Court.— Venner & Sun Life Ins. Co., 13 L. N., p. 217 ; 17 S. C. R, p. 394. 2490. 1. Decision number 29, noted at this article (Allen & Mer- chants' Marine Insurance Co.) is also reported in the 33 L. C. J., p 51 This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, the holding of which Court is noted in this Supplement at article 2184, decision number 1. Decision number 37, noted at this article, was confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench, where it was held as follows : 2. Que Tavis donn^, k I'agent local d'une compagnie d'assurance qu'une maison assur^e comme maison habitue, sera a I'avenir inhabitee' est suffisant, m^me si, par une des clauses de la police, il est dit que la police sera nulle a la maison assuree est laiss^e inhabitee, sans le coi - sentement par ecrit de la compagnie sur la police.— Q. B.— Agricul- tural Insurance Co. of Watertown & Ansley, 17 R L p 108— C R —14 Q. L. R., p. 183 ; 15 Q. L R., p. 256. 3. Decision number 39, noted at this article (Compagnie d'Assu- rance Mutuelle de Montmagny c& Carbomieau), is also reported in the 15 Q. L. R, p. 86. 4. En dehors de conventions formelles, I'assur^ n'est pas tenu de d^noncer k I'assureur le fait qu'il a consenti, subsequemment k I'assu- rance, une hypoth^que sur I'immeuble assure, ou sur lequel se trou- vent les choses assurdes.— Q. B.— Compagnie d' Assurance Mutuelle contre le feu de Richmond, Drummond and Yamaska & Fee 14 Q. L. R, p. 293 ; 16 R L., p. 461. 5. Qu'une assurance, payable a un tiers, qui a un interet assurable sur les batisses assur^es, n'est pas affectee parceque le propri^taire des batisses les auraieut vendues ou assurees k une autre compagnie, contrairement aux conditions de la police.— Q. B.~National Insu- ance Co. of Ireland & Harris, 17 R L., p. 230 ; M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 345. Consolidated Supplement No. l.^Art. 3490. 62J) ^onmI!::j2f^;r^:l^:^' ^-— . ^^ vication of thl ed insurance was effected bvaH , " '^' '"^'^ ^^^" '^'^ "^di^'^lo^- 'edge of it, and 1 e wi be - w ^r""' ^*" ''" '"^"'•'^^ '''^J ^now- ^ieed bound hi.n tot LroTr m" '"°"'"'^^ °*" ^^ ^^ere his Paypremiurns-C R 1 ^'^^"''^^^ '"« vendor, or. in default, to to .iie ;!iJ^^r;;^;:r :: rr""''' 'r' ^^^"^^^^ "^« -p'^^- of the employee, entail in. los. f ^'T'!'"'' "^ ""^ "''"""^^^ °ff^"ce made under the b^nd and t ^ "^ "'^'"^' ' "'"'" ^^^ '''^^'^ *« be tion on the 25th did nof.it '?'°^"' '^'^'"""'^ ^"-''^ "^ '^ ^efalca- after the employee JLTwr "^ ^"r^^*- -til the 27th. forfeited.-TAsc„ERLA T i) '"""*'^' *'^' ^""^' ^^' ''<^' ^ *« be " sober and temperate ? A Ye7 « "'''''' "'' = " ^'^ >•' '''■ '''^bits become as to haUts so tJm:^ZZTnT ^'f;^'"""' "" ^^P^''^^"* then represented to be n. In . condition in which ht ., policy should beco . LlU d"v:irri 'f ^" "^^ ^'^^ "'''''''' "'^ " the declarations or staf e r f , ^"'''^ ''^*''*'^^' *^'^* " ''f any of opinion was divided a o w'h ' P«o«iMghis death, but medical rially increased <^'Ztu:^^ZZ:t^7r° '"'f' ■"»'^- change of habit wl^icl n ! . !'" """' '""'''°'™' «--™' ' " "' a snred: tc avoid thoelac 'C' I""""'' "'" *" ■"■ '"» "f" »■ Bench, ^reported at C C 2588 do i *™° V"' *"= "^o"^' °'^ Q"-"'" irregjlarit^s dans les Pomnf ^ d informer I'assureur des monitions de >a :„::„::, ^^^ rdrntfet"-"'" ■"■'™"' ^"' -'iS li-.f 630 Consolidatad Supjilemput No. J.— Art. ^90. contre lui. The Commp-rcial Mutual Buildivg Society of Montmi> ,^ 'ii.r London Quarantee and Accident Co., 21 R L d 275. ■ ■' ^ 10. Tho insured cannot be held to a compliance with any condi- tions of the regular policy issued by the insurance company, which enlarge ur vary tho terms of th.^ i-'-rim contract, so long as tl>e com- pany has neither ropnd^ujaaor caiicellc . the interim" receipt, nor substituted a regular policy for it. -- C. R. — Citizens In^ce. Co. &. Le/ran^ois, R. .). Q., 2 B. R., p. 550. 11. M., who was described in the application for insurance as " Superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway," was insured by the company App(;llant, against accidents. By one of the conditions of the policy it was stipulated as follows :— " the insured must at all " times observe due diligence for personal safety and pr.jtection, and " in no case will this insuiance be held to, cover either death or injuries " occurring from voluntary exposure to unnecessary orobvious danger " of any kind, nor deatli or d.sablement. . . .from gcttin.r or attemptfng " to get on or off any railway train, etc.. while the sa.iie is in motion." M., when travelling on the business of his railway, was killed while getting on a train in motion. Held :- That inasmuch as M was insured ns superintendent of a railway, and there was evidence that his duties required him to get on and off trains in motion, of which facts the insurer had knowledge, the condition did not ripply, and the company was liable. — Q. B. — Accident Insce. Co. of North America S McFee, M. L. R., ; Q. B., p. 255. 12. B^ 1 condition of the policy, it was provided that the company should make good to the employer such pecuniary loss as might be pikI, ■ ed by him by reason .^i the dishonesty of the employees " committed and 'Lscovered during the continuance of this " agreement, and within three montiis from the (ieath, dismi.ssal, or " retirement of the employee." ' he policy lapsed and i defalcation was discovered four ni' 'is aft. rwards. Held ;— (By the Superior Court;. That the com- v not liable in respect of suci. defalca- tion, inasmuch o.s it wa- )t a,.,overed as well as committed during the continuance of the agi eement.— The policy a! contained a clause that, on the discovery of any fraud or dishonesty on ' he part of the employee, the employer should immediately give notice to the company. A defalcation was discovered April 6, and the company was not notified until April 17, when the employee had left the CooHolidated Supphmmt No. l.^Art U90. 631 country. Hdd :--(By tl.e Court of Queen's Bench ) fU.i fJ was not entitle to recover under the polly^oT r ''"'^^'^ Mutual Building Hoctety of Montreal d- Lnlf^' ^— ^^'""^^^•'"^ dent Co., M. L. K^ 7 Q. R, p. Ij07 «««'-a«nsurer. who denies all liability such 1" '"■'"'' '''' '^'' condition of the policy n.nuirinl' Zof "If ' "''''''' "^' ""^ Montrral Herald Co n^puZn^^^^ Joss.-Johnson. J._rA« J., p. 51 ; M. L. R, 4 S C. p. ^4 '^'"''^ ^««um«.. Co., 'A5 L. C. !•'• A guarante, j,olicy, insuring tlie honestv of W n was grafted upon the e.xpre.ss conditions t nt t, ^ , ' " '"'P'"^"^' in the application contained « tm . ''"'' ''""^"i^ed the business was con n 1 ^t^teinent of the u.anner in which be so kept Tnd 1^7,: !" V^'f ''^^'' '^"^' ^'''^* *''^'>' ^-'^ becoming kn^wn to tin ''"';' "'""' """'-^^'^^^''^ "l-n its en.pl.ye: harbec ae J^ uf ! V"'"^ *^^''^ ^"--'t"- that the lik ly to'entail 1 ,'1,?^ , '"^ ''""'"'^' ''^'^^'^ ^"tailing, or to be'madeul l; r^^?^'-'" ^"' ^77'-'-^ ^•'-- -asHable Hud the evidence sow^th f ^^""'^ ^'^'^ '^ defalcation in Wsaccounts. c-isod over W ^b Js ^ t'" '"'"; ■"^"''^'^'" '^'^" ^'-" --- week after employers ha "nil I ^""T T^'" ""^ ""*^«'^'^- ""'^' ^ -I left the count.^ //r r" "^°' ^'^^ ^''•'''^'^'^^'"» ^^ W. -low,thatasthe Jplo^'r!; TT^ ^'^ J^d^^-nt of the Court vi.sion over W andS T "^ """'"'''''^ ^^' ^"P^'-^t^^ «"P'^r- they were notintiti .1 " ^"' ^'"'""''"*^ "^^'^^ «*" ^'^ ^l^falcatln -£«e narboiir Conumssioners of Monlvfinl / v; /> '''-'"l"^- "/^o.//. ^».™, 2, ,s. c. R., p. iJ'xt- . 7%'^.":T °t — Malhiot, J.— 20 R. L. p. 14 ^•' " ^-^^V- 6 pre.„.L was CxT'^^^^ZHZ' ^Z wit,'. I:'.' T'T deceive, vitiates a policy howevi f.,-„- 1 ' ^^' '"*^"* ^ may be ; if honestlv LV^ f , ''' '™''"^'^«'-''^l *« the risk it vessel insurL.rb' It -I'^oT"'^^^^^^ P°'-^ *hat the vessel, extensivefy ,:;:i;:drd ^1^" '"' "" ''*^^ ^' "'^^^'^^^^^ •containing the onginarenle h.? ^ "'"! °*™' ^"^ ^^S''^'^^'-' ^ut old mateLl. i! f ^tXl' ^ "' ""'"^ . - m,.....p...,s...,,uou ana avoids the policy, whether 632 Consoliflated Supplement No. J. —Arts. S600-S521. made with intent to deceive or not.— (Tascheheal', J., dissenting) — Supreme Court. - -(On appeal fron. the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.)— r/te Nova Scotia Marine Insurance Co. & Stevenson 23 S. C. R. p 197. 17. A con.lition in a policy of life insurance provided that if any premium, or note, etc., given therefor, was not paid when due, the policy should be void. Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, that where a note given for a premium under said policy was partly paid when duo and renewed, and the renewal was overdue and unpaid at the death of the assured, the policy was void. Held, fur- ther, that a demand for payment after the maturity of the renewal was not a waiver of the breach of the condition so as to keep the policy in force. -Supreme CouRT.-(On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Ontario). -il/c-^eac/iie & The North American Life Imce Co., 23 S. C. R., p. 148. 18. A policy of insurance against fire provided that in the event of any sale, transfer or chan^^e of title in the p-operty insured, the liability of the company should thenceforth cease ; and -that' the policy should not be assigna.l)le, without the consent of the company indorsed thereon, and all incumbrances effected by the assured must be notified within fifteen days therefrom. Held, that giving a chattel mortgage on the property insured was not a sale or transfer, within the meaning of this condition, but it was a "change of title" which avoided the iw\\cy.—{Soverei(ia Ins. Co. & Peters, 12 S. C R p 33 distinguished) Ildd, further, that it was an incumbrance even if the con htion meant an incumbrance on the policy.— Supreme Court - (On Appeal from the Supremii Court of Nova Scotia.)-2%e Citizens Insurance Go. of Canada d- Salterio, 23 S. C. R, p. 155. 19. See also case of The Accident Ins-^e. Co., of North America & Yoang, noted in this Supplement at article 2478,'decision number 6. 20. See also case of Richelieu, & Ontario Navigation Co., <& Com- mercial Union Assce. Co., noted in this Supplement at article 2478, decision number 7. 2505. Decision number 8, noted at this article, (Western Assce. Co., (& Scanlan) is also reported in the 33 L. C. J., p. 301. 2531. 1. Decision number 4, not^d at this article, ( Western Assce. Co. cfe Scanlan) is also reported in tli J3 L. C. J., p. 301. L, dissenting). — Conrt of Nova & iStevenaon, 23 rovided that if d when due, the of the Court of said policy was fas overdue and id. Held, fur- of the renewal, IS to keep the 1 thd Court of ia« Life Jnsce. it in the event ;y insured, the and -that the ^ the company ! assured must iving a chattel ansfer. within f title " which . C. R., p. 33. C5e even if the EME Court.— — 2Vte Citizens 5. orth America don number 6. ■)nCo.,<&Com- article 2478, ^estern Assce. 1. Vestern Assce. I. Consolidated Supj,lement No. J -Arts. 2625.26S8. 633 2. That the voasel having been stranded only and there beinLmn «a .sfuetory proof that .she could not have been rLu 1. and r!„^^^^^^^^^^ Jnsce Co. °''»'"f°" "' f"'"' ■" ""^^ North sl,orol,„ra col wmno '"rZ^^^^^^^ ''""Sli-o" ---OSS the rive"r and service, appear to bo worth are allowed to the salvor, as an en enfoS^ .' i "'" 'S'""'™' « exorbitant, the Conrt will refuse to 2. Le propri^taire du vaisseau qui a op^r^ le sanvpfnrr. „ .icrcs mteressus, savcir. le capi- 634 Consolidated Supplement No. J. — Art. 12544^ taine et I'^quipage, son action sera renvoy^e sur exception k la forme. RouTHlER, J.— Chabot vs. Quebec Steamship Co., R. J. Q., 2 C. S., p. 481. 3. D. a tug, undertook to tow a ship, out of the Harbor of Quebec to the foot of tlie Traverse, for $70. Whem tliey had proceeded part of the way, the weather became bad, and the ship ancliored and D. returned to the harbor. During the night, the ship dragged her anchors and went ashore. B., another tug, went to tlie ship in the morning, and shortly afterwards D. returned to her and, after some bargaining, the ship a,a-eed to pay each of them $600 to pull the ship off and tow it back to Quebec. On a claim being made by D. and B. for the above amount, it was resisteil oa the ground that it was obtained from the master of the ship when he was alarmed for her safety, and that the claim was an exorbitant one, and the tug should be paid only what the service was reasonably worth. Held : — That D.'s claim was a claim for salvage and not towage, but that D. sliould have stood by the ship and was bound to do so, and render all necessary assistance, subject to the proper value of her services being afterwai-ds paid. That although B. was under no obligation to stand by the ship, as was D., yet the master of the ship was misled by the urgency of the pilot in insisting upon his securing the services of the tug, and that the change was an exorbitant one. That, in the cir- cumstances, the offer of $150 each made by the ship for the services was sufBcient, and would be maintained. — Vice-Admiralty Court — Irvine. J. — The "Dauntless " vs. The Ship "Ismir," 35 L C. J., p. 46. 4. La feuille du navire {register) est la .seule preuve, vis-k-vis des tiers, de la propriete du vaisseau. L'absence d'articles d'engage- ment, bien qu'une infraction a la loi, ne suffit pas a faire perdre a I'equipage son droit a une pait du sauvetage ; il n'est pas meme necessaire qu'ils soient regulierement engages pour y avoir droit, du moment qu'il est prouve (ju'ils y ont pris part. Lo defaut par le sauveteur de faire un protet relatant tous les faits du sauvetao-e, n'enleve pas le droit d'action. Dans I'espece, la preuve deraontre up sauvetage et non un touage ordniaire, les offres de $1,000 sont decla- rees insuffisantes, et la somme de $1,500 est accordee, a etre partagee, $1,200 au proprietaire, $100 au maitre et $200 k I'equipage, avec tous les d^pens. — Routhier, J. — Chabot vs. Quebec Steamship Co., R. J. Q., 6 C. S., p. 214. 2JS44. The decision noted at this article (Western Assce. Co., & Scanlan) is also reported in the 33 L. C. J., p. 301. tion a la forme, r. Q., 2 C. S., p. irbor of Quebec proceeded part .ncliored and D. p dragged her he ship in the md, after some to pull the ship le by D. and B. nd that it was ilarmeil for her the tug should Held ;— That thatD. should md render all ■ services being Ration to stand misled by the services of the hat, in the cir- 3r the services ALTY Court— L. C. J., p. 46. 'euve, vis-k-vis icles d'engage- faire perdre a est pas meme ivoir droit, du defaut par le du sauvetase, demontre un DO sont decla- etre partagee, )age, avec tous p Co., R. J. Q., I Ansce. Co., & Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Arts. 'M66-2576. 635 nwnf ^**," '^^t P"J"'^^' ^°^ "^^^^ °^ ^"^^^^t^^" '^'^c^rded to the bird .r .""'! ?u "" "''''^' ^^ ^''- ^^^^ ^- C- "P«» '^^- goods on boa d the ship or the amount of contribution for which tLe are hable IS subject to the terms of the bill of lading, and wher. it is stipulated therein that, in case of contribution, "average bond to be given wiWi value therein, or sufficient security to be ^iven as required by the master " the latter is not entitled to f xact a cash deposit of the alleged amount of contribution before delivrTng he goods to the consignees, but the latter are entitled, under th! rmso article 8Gf) of the Code of Procedure, to get possession o the goods on giving good and sufficient security for the payment of the amount of the claim when .nally adjuste'd.-DE LoLm ^J ~ Laio vs. AlumUrlok, R. J. Q., 4 C. S.. p. 450. ^^^'^ Where the insurance runs from -me day named in the pohcy to another day named therein, both inclusive, the contract doe not expire untd midnight on the last day. This ruie could o.ily be rebutted by evidence of a clearly established and invariable custom JOHNSON J.-Herald Company vs. Northern Assurance Co., M L K., 4 S. C, p. 254 ; 35 L. C. J. p. 51. f'/ wf*' ^" ^^^'7 " '^"^ber 3. noted at this article (Sovereign f I, e Insurance Go. S Moir) is also reported in the 14 S. C. R., p. 612. 2 Qu'un mculin a scie, assure comme tel, contre I'incendie. n'est pas detourne del usage auquel il est destin^, parce quil sert a scier du bardeau, le ri.sque nen ^tantpas augment^.-LARUE. J. - Tessier vs. Lie dAssce. Mutuelle de Rimouski, 19 R. L., p. 145. 2ii7«. If the evidence leaves a certain amount of doubt as to the actual value of the buildings destroyed, the balance should be turned against the insurance company rather than against the insured Insurers should exercise vigilance as to over-valuations uhen they are taking the risks and accepting the premiums, rather than after the loss occurs and they are called upon to discharge their part of the obhgation.-Q. B.-CUizens Insee.Co. & Lefran^ois, R J. Q„ 2 B. R.. 257«. 1 Qu'une assurance payable k un tiers, qui a un intdrSt assurable sur les batisse.. assuree., n'est pas affect<^e parce que le pro- pnetaire des batisses les auraient vendue.s on «.cnr^es ^ -m- Z-- 636 Consolidated Supplement No. J.— Arts. S583-2684. *-; !.'!■' compagnie, contrairement aux conditions de la police.— Q. B.— National Insurance Company of Ireland & Harris 17 R L p 230 • M. L. R, 5 Q. B., p. 345. ' ' ^' ^ 2. Que la propri(^t6 assuree et qui est vendue, cesse d'etre cou- verte par la police, s'il n'en est fait un transport h I'acheteur.— Q. B. —McDonald & Messier, 35 L. C. J., p. 17. 2553. Where, by a condition of the policy, the insurers are in no case to be liable for any greater proportion of the loss than the amount insured by them bears to the total insurance on the property, they are entitled to have the claim reduced in accordance with such clause, though the other insurance be still unpaid and a contestation in relation thereto be still pending.— Johnson, 3.— Heron vs. Hartford Insurance Co., M. L R., 4 S. C, p. 388. 2554. 1. Qu'une compagnie de cliemin de fer est responsable des dommages causes par une de ses locomotives, qui, en trainant un de ses convois, met le feu a des bdtisses pres de son chemin et qu'une meme action pent etre intentee pour ces dommages par le proprietaire de ces batisses et par la compagnie d'assurance, qui lui a ete subrogee pour partie des dommages quelle a pay^e.— Q. B.— North Shore Ry cfe McWilley, 17 B L., p. 367 ; M. L. R., 5 Q. B. p. 122 ; 34 L. C J p. 55. The decision in the above case was confirmed by the Supreme Court.— 17 S. C. R., p. 511 ; 13 L. N., p. 217. 2. Aucune cession des droits de I'assur^ n'ayant et6 faite ^I'assu- reuv lors du paiement de I'assurance, ce dernier' ne peut pasinvoquer, contre I'autcur du sinistrc, le benefice de I'art. 2584. C. C. L'assureur qui a paye le montant de I'assurance a I'assure, a, pour se faire rem- bourser, contre I'auteur du sinistre, le recours en dommages de I'art 1053 C. C— Q. K— Cedar Shingle Co. & Rimouski Assce. Co., R. J Q., 2 B. R., p. 379. 3. To give rise to an action en garantie simple, not only must there be connexity between it and the principal demand, but the two actions must be identical in their nature and based upon similar legal principles. So, where an insurance company is sued upon a policy of lire insurance for the amount of a loss, an action en garantie by the insurance company, will not lie against a railway company, through whose alleged fault and negligence the fire occurred, the liability on "^3-2681 police. — Q. B. — 17R. L., p. 230: cesse d'etre cou- acheteur. — Q. B. nsurers are in no than the amount le property, they with such clause, contestation in on vs. Hartford t responsable des n trainant un de ihemin et qu'une ir le propri^taire li a ete subrofjfee lorth Shore Ry 22 ; 34 L. C. J ay the Supreme te faite k I'assu- ut pas invoquer, X C. L'assureur r se faire rem- nmagos de I'art. Assce. Co., R. J. , not only must ad, but the two on similar legal ipon a policy of arantie by the ipany, through be liability on Consoluiated Sapfle^eM No. l.-Arts. USSS-ms 637 Supremo Court, the l,„ldi„g of whifhTs ul i ,,°°t''"'''' ''^ ">" article 2490, decision numlSr 8. "'" S-Pplsment at •«o.>l. 1. L, insured his life fnr »' on some special ground, such., the doubtwT„,„o^^ ■'""""' ao,u.red technical meaning o, the langute ^^''^ll-lrS 638 Consolidated Supplement No. 1. — Art. 2613. Council. — Robinson & Canadian Pacific Ry., L. R., ('1892J Ap. Cas., p. 481. 3. The effect of words in the Code being indicated as new law, by being placed in brackets, was discussed in the case of — Q. B. — Stewart <£; Molsons Bank, R. J. Q., 4 B. R , p. 15 et seq. 613. C1892;Ap- Gas- bed as new law, iase of — Q. B. — INDEX TO CASES Allan & Monpena is " vs. Paie Art. Caw. 1676 6 2110 Accidenl, I„.. Co. „f North ^"' '^"• Aruenca vs. McLachk,, . . . 1835 j Accident Ins. Co. of North ^^"^^ '\ I' * Merchants Marino Aiuerica & McFee o.n. In^cc-. Co. ... " , Accident In. Co. of ' North '''' ''\^^-^^ ^Tonrvm..:, ^^g J Anaerica&Youn}. . ,^on .„ I " " . ^ ' ' vs. Lapoin(o. ,!~ 1732 28! 2478 6 1 vs. Richard . 1530 Adaras vs. Montreal ■ City ^^'° ''I..." -^•'^^^a::: El '' Pass. Ry. Adams vs. Boucher. J°f ^ I Allen & Hansen . \ E!J * vs. Brunet. ^tnaLifeIns:;^-&3,„,.^_ ;Jg6 1035 3 1 Ins. Co. *^''''''"'"''" *^'"'"" 368 I " & Gosselin \9({K 7 ah . , &Brodie. 12S ir^^y^^Trenholme gncultural Ins.Co. of ' Watertown&Ansley... 2478 2 Ahern & the United S.ates '''' ' Life Ins. Co. Aimong vs. Cassidy S f ., ' 1621 1 2184 I 2478 1 2490 1 1242 24 American Rattan Co; v. Char.'''' " American Bag Loaning Co. vs ^' " Steidlemau Amyottevs.McGowan;. ^S f „ • 005 1 520 I Aitken vs. Galbraif h . . ^ i I •• 2000 i 986 7 " &Labrecaue ■ ^ 1 Akern,anvs.Leblanc:: 1^ frv''"' '^°''^-*^' ^' "-P- of. vs' '^'^ '' Alexander & Nnr it,.- "^^ ^ Voyer '^ ' *^^- " "•^*N°'^^e,n,er. .. 17 9 Anderson vs. Pictou n„ u ^^^ ' Allaire vs. Beaubien -''^ « : - bS.^^"'^-- JJg 20 1756 21 " ;; 419 2 Allan vs. Par6. .... ^^97 | Angers vs. Pagea., " JJ^2 ' vs. Bernard . vs. City of Montreal. 204 vs. Swift. &Par/. """'•• 407 26 vs. Devereux ^ : & Pratt ^2 2 Anglo-Canadian AsbeetoB Co' vs. Mireau ^^'^ ^' ^^'^'^ — 2168 7 • 1234 « • 1827 2 1928 2 1(^ 2 1 vs. Garon - 1628 If) 1612 9 1 Anglo Cent. G,-- - - "'■•:• ^0^4 17 fi^™»« ,^ ^ "'*''° Works & .^, i-uosphatfc Co.. 504 10 610 Index to cases. Art. Case Anglo Cont. Quano Works & Emerald Phosphate Co 504 14 Angu8 & Watson 1599 Ansley & Agricultural Ins.Co. 2478 2 " 2490 2 " '< " " " 730 1 Antille vs. Marcotte 290 4 1053 153 Arbec vs. Lamarre 918 4 947 2 949 1 Archambault & Bourgeois... 2193 3 " vs. Corp. de la ville des Laurentides 1042 2 Archambault vs. , Dominion Barb Wire Co 1054 Archambault & Great North Western Tel. Co 1053 103 1053 149 Archambault vs. Julien 1948 Archambault vs. Labelle 400 11 " 540 3 vs. Lalonde 1190 8 V3. Michaud 1026 •• 1035 4 " 1036 5 " 1474 6 & Poitras 443 2 " 503 5 " 689 3 &Thouin 2083 3 '• 2098 6 " 2100 3 " 2130 2 vs. Valiquette.. 1065 9 ... 1476 7 .1536 6 vs. Viger 743 " 891 1 " 1899 1 Armstrong vs. Damien 1152 2 Aronson, in re 44 1 Artisans Permanent Building Society vs. Lemieux 176 2 " " " 1203 3 '• " " 1301 3 Archer & De Sola 2260 2 Assurance Canadienno sur la vie vs . Perrault 2469 Assurance, Equitable Life So- ciety & Laberge 1670 10 Art. CaK. Assce. Mutuelle de Rimouski vs. Tessier 2574 2 Assce. Mutuelle contre le feu de Richmond, etc, & Fee... 2490 4 Assce. Mutuelle de Montma- gny & Carbonneau 2490 3 Atkinson vs. Couture 400 14 " vs. Dade 29 8 " vs. Queen 1241 7 " 1535 3 & Stewart 1507 2 Atlantic & N. W. Ry. vs. Ben- ning 407 8 " " "&Brons- don 1053 126 " " " vs. Des- cartes 2 9 " vs. Des- carries 408 18 Atlantic & North We.st Ry. vs. Gov. of Quebec 407 5 ' 1534 2 t« ti »» 44 & Judah 2 5 t( (( (I *4 VS Judah 407 17 vs. L'Eglise du Calvaire . . 407 10 &Leeming 407 22 Atlantic & N. W. Ry. vs. Mills 2 1 407 6 " 1241 3 Atlantic & North West By. vs. Morin..... 1054 32 " ' 1053 15 vs. Pominville 2 4 vs. Prud'homme 2 2 ' 407 10 Atlantic & North West Ry. vs. Smith 407 8 " " " " " 2261 8 vs. Trenholme. 3 & Wood 407 21 Aubert-Gallion, Corp. de, vs. Thibodeau 366 3 Index to cases. 641 Aubin vs. Dubord . . i^V'""; I „ ^^^^ ^ ^a'moral Hotel Pn „o T ,.„ '^"- ^«<^ " V9. Edmond . fJ^ ,„„ nca& Stewart, . o^ . Aubryvs.Lelebvre::::: ?g 'SJ " •' •. .V ' " f! ' 1898 'A Mr n^ ■ ■ " Audair vs. Letanij ^^^. ' " " "38 3 A.ig6vs.i3oisvert.. i^f J »am *"o. Auger &Cornel,le,...........: 1^2 sl ''rl:;'^'^"'^'^'"^"°^'^«---ce; """ ' 17on ,, * ^'tevenson . . . . ,„.. Augdvs.Daoust. S f '• '• •• ^^^ '^ " J^ ; '• .. .. " 1036 4 Auger v.. T..reotte:; : : ^^ ^ ^i ^^ 1"^^^ ^ ^ ^ Aylen vs. M.iillpf ^ ^"^ „„;. ,^ * ^'^*- Savings, Ayhv,nvs.:?.;;r:,Mo„trea,. SS.,^ T ^-'r^ B.. oH Wda 19V2 1 BHchand vs. Liggett S ? Geddes. . . Bacon & Di.ssault ::r. __^l " .. 360 Baggvs. Duchesn eaii. 142:3 2 1053 110 1612 5 1613 7 1889 1971 8 7 4 :; vs. Mittelberger: ::;•..:..: ^^^ iP-^ Eastern Township;, & ^'^^ ^ Baie des Chaleurs Ry. vs. Mac- ^^ ^ ' ./'"'' 1032 farlane . Baile vs. Baile... vs. Maguire. . BaJUy vs. Richelieu ■&■ Ont Nav. Co 1975 6 1898 4 1998 2000 Bank Exchange, of Canada vs. Fletcher... 1065 41 1675 6 1 529 1225 2090 14 364 1971 s. City & District Savings Bainvs.Monteith .. 'q^ "| «' , Baker vs. Demers... 9^ J ^^""^ 1972 '^^'^^?!- . . 2^ J ^?^ Exchange &Gil™an. 124212a Baker & Metropolitan Build. "^^ ^^' ^-^^*- ""'" - ^ ^''^^ 360 fl iSociety. " .. oou o .. ■ 1245 Bank i7^„u 1536 5 " 2202 4 Ba,k°^« ^«- Quebec 2251 8 Bank HnijV" ;j x", 2349 2 Baker V.R " 2253 r?''' f^l^^^^ & Johnson. .. . 989 8 Baker vs, Ross , of Hochelaga vs. East- Baldwin & Corp. de Barnston. iS 2t4 R ^T ^^^"^hips Bank iggy :: -- Taussig }^ -^^ Bank. Hochelaga & Hodgson. Im 100 1740 2 .' .. &Jodoin. 181 .. „, ^ , ;; 1745 2 .. .. " 1203 22 BalnioralLTaTr ■;. 1927 5 .. ' " ^^OllS 'I'morai Hotel Co, vs. McEl- tt • t, " 1483 2 "?r ;; 1814 ■,rT^^t''''^-^^'^^---^--S .. " " 101C I _ & Loudon *1 ''-'■'" ' ""a«antee& Accident Co,. 1935 1 2 642 ■I Bank Jaciues-Oartiec vs. Du Ruay 1220 6 V8. Ga- KHon 2 18 " " " " 990 22 1203 23 Index to caaee. An. Caie, 1866 2287 2341 " <• .. yg_ Gov. of Province of Quebec 1670 " " " vs. Le- hlanc 993 5 " " " 2287 3 " " " vs. Ques- nel 358 5 364 2 " " " " 1242 14 Bank Jacques-Cartier & Reli- gieuses de I'Hdtel-Dieu d'Ar- thabaska 358 8 Bank Jacques-Cartier & Ro- billard 347 " " 1241 4 Bank, Maritime vs. Queen 1994 2 " " vs. Union Bk. of Canada 2351 Bank, Merchants of Cansda & Cunningham 2310 4 Bank, Merchant's & McLaren. 1265 5 1835 2 " of Montreal vs. O'Hagan 1220 3 & Sweeny. 1727 " & Woolrich 218 1 " , Molsons & Brush 1916 7 " Oharlebois.. 1953 2 vs. " .. 2310 5 " " vs. Guarantee Go. of North America 2490 7 Bank, Molsons & Rochctte.. .. 1488 " " " .... 1970 12 & Stewart 931 1 •' " '• 952 " vs. " 1727 lf> Stoddart . . 1716 2 . . 1889 5 & Thompson .. 1031 1 . 1975 3 Bank, National vs. Betournay 1179 . 1959 2 " " . 2310 2 " vs. Guy 1301 11 Bank, National & Richard . " " vs. Ricard. Art. Case 990 21 1203 19 " 1301 14 Bank of Nova Scotia vs. Le- page 1053 257 " 1727 » Bank of Ontario & Chaplin. . . 1138 2 " . 1976 3 " & Cross 1019 S •' vs. Foster. .. 29 7 " vs. Lafiamme 1041 « Bank du Peuple & Bryant... 1728 " vs. Ethier.... 2286 3 "vs. McCaffrey 990 20 " & Pacaud. ... 1084 1 «• kt (( 1961 6 (( t« i« 1975 5 " V8. Provost.. 85 2 Bank, Quebec vs. Bryant — 2 6 2 1704 7 t. (t >t 1730 10 " " VS. Cook 919 4 " '• vs. Exchange Bank 2349 *> Bank of St. Hyacinthe vs. Jeannottte 1036 \\ Bank of St. Hyacinthe vs. Sarrazin 364 () .. .4 4( 990 18 1. 14 44 1047 4 44 4. 44 1047 4 Bank, Union, of British North America vs. Chinic 1188 (i Bank, Union of Canada vs. Bryant 989 ,) " " " vs. Hirschfeldt 1972 I 44 44 44 1979 :i Bank, Union of Canada & Corp. of Wickham 357 •> 4. 44 44 44 1190 11 Bank, Union & Gagnon 1039 1 44 44 (4 1203 o 44 44 44 1301 4 " " of Lower Cana- da & Hochelaga Bank 2023 1 Bank, Union vs. Maritime Bank of Canada 2351 Bank Yillle-Marie vs. Lamarr che 1582 2 Index to aunes. .ichard. . Ricard . . :ia vs. Le Chaplin. . it CroBB .... . Booster. . Laflamm Bryant. . Ethier. . . McCafifrey Pacaud. Pr6vost , (ryant . . Jook Exchange inthe vs, :inthe vs Art. Case 990 21 1203 10 1301 14 1053 257 1727 » 1138 2 1976 8 1019 S 29 7 1041 (i 1728 2286 :i 990 20 1084 1 1961 6 1975 5 85 2 2 6 2 7 1704 1730 10 919 4 tish North lie !anada vs. 2349 2 1036 :^ 364 <1 990 IS 1047 t 1047 I 1188 li " V9. 1972 I 1979 i Canada & m 357 •-' " 1190 II ;non 1039 i 1203 '^ 1301 1 wer Cana- Jank 2023 1 Maritime 2351 Erg. Lamarr 1582 2 Bank Ville-Marie & Mallette IMl !' •• 2286 Art. Case. 1 " .. ^ " 2340 & Montplaisir. 993 V8, Morrison,. 1508 J „., " '^^' Religieuses de IHdtel-Dieu de Mon- treal ^ ■■■■■■■ -» Banner-man & Hamelin ^503 » " 1486 „^ " 1508 vs. Thompson I634 Baptist* Baptist. oof Barbeau vs. Corp.de Laprai.ie 409 ..' &Labelle i272 Barclay vs. McCullogh \.....^^ Barclay vs. Ritchie.. iq^ Baril vs. Collins .;.;; „!„ Barnard vs. Barnard vs. Molson .. . Barrington vs. Dwyer. vs. McCaw 648 Art. Case. & Barnes vs. Brown. 990 10 2098 2 1053 160 1732 .32 1994 1995 2009 6 ;; 168 ^ . 1057 vs. Cousineau 1334 5 Barnstou.Corp. of, & Baldwin 1Q53 244 Barr6 vs. B6chard 2263 4 !'. „ '' 2267 4 vs. Bertrand 157J vs. D^patie 1147 2129 vs. Lioiseau J243 vs. Stuart ,.. . J423 Barrette & Corp. St. Barthe^ 1670 1613 " Ifi.'M Barrow & City Bank 1740 Barsalou vs. Mainville . . iggo Bartel vs. Desrochers jgSS " vs. Thurber.... i«>q Barthe & Guertin • . .^ ^ 1040 Bartley & Breakey ." .' . .' . . J^ Bastien vs. Labrie... ,.....' J^j Biittie & Anderson '.'.'. JS'^ Baxter vs. Bruneau . .' 2287 vs. Grau J242 vs. Larochelle ' 104J " & Phillips. ■■; •^^ ;; ^^•?°^'b 689 .. "^s. Ross 1301 „" ;; 1727 vs. S erhng 27 vs. Vallif'res.. . 1030 Baynes vs. Hudson 1045 „ ." 1635 vs. Price 2260 Bazin vs. Ruck wart. yjc: Bazinet & Gadoury ,, 499 .'.' 503 ,. 503 393 7 2 2 1 4 4 I 1 14 2 1 .5 .5 8 vs. Roy . Beaubien vs. Allaire Beaucaire vs. Whelan l^my. vs. Lallier. vs. Palmer vs. Palmer Barrie & Pr^f ontnine Harrington vs. City of Mon- trcAl .... ... 2168 306 462 1092 2002 1613 1641 1032 12 1292 1294 1298 2 1232 1732 1053 1055 1053 Beauchamp & Champagne. .. vs. City of Mon- ''''^ , 404 vs. Landry nyi " vs. Loranger inM iqs Beauchene&Couillard.... mAt Beaudet vs. B61anger iggs g o , ^^ " 1088 2 < Beaudette vs. Cormier 1535 7 ,1., '' " 2150 3 ■ i eaudom va. Benoit 1577 2 8 8 ] 8 \i 1 8 2 3 12 2 1 1 .S 8 .3 44 .5 98 I r Bernard vs. Allaire iggy " vs. Bernard. . , 2014 2 " 2094 " 2168 2 vs. Bertoni , 1053 241 . 1053 2K'< vs. Cotri 1612 7 vs. El lion 1732 20 vs. Lalondc . 1720 vs. Lucas 1063 274 7 15 3 I Hornier vs. Botiitissu " vs. Briizeau & Church 1732 & Thibaudeau 1^33 1971 ^ . " 1976 Uenoit vs. Beaudoln I877 " vs. Benoit . 471 748 ;: ;• *• 1190 * Long 1Q7J " 1149 vs. Ouinaet 944 1171 1472 1174 1139 1025 1472 17 1474 » & Qendroii . 1241 id 1292 3 1312 3 vs. Proulx 1292 2 Berthelot vs. Goyette. 1053 111 & 947 956 1290 ,, " ••• 1374 uenson vs. Valli^res I614 Bently vs. Stock 1203 n " '' 1220 Berger vs. Pratt 1331 Bergeron vs. Cot6 1203 & Drummond Coun- ty % & Dufresne. . . . & Montreal St. Ry Co ^ 407 1065 1053 407 545 1485 „ ■" " 1583 Bernard vs. Allaire i75g 4a Bergevin ABeauharnois June Ry Bergevin dlt Lapierre vs. Matthews Bergevin dit Lapierre & Mas- son " 2272 4 vb. Trudel 1053 8(> Berthiaume vs. Brunean 1021 3 " . . 1622 2 " vs. Brunei. 1608 V8 Cie. d'Imp. de la Minerve . 1626 8 vs. FuUertoii . 1053 I'M vs. Lefebvre 990 4 2285 1 vs. McCone . 1054 3J> 1055 13 ' ' vs. New England Paper Co 1053 304 1066 5 Bertin vs. Th^roux 1190 4 Bartoni vs. Bernard 1053 241 1053 283 Bertrand vs. Barrd 1671 15 vs. Dubois 1079 2 " 1532 1 ■^. Filion 929 3 " 930 2 " 1636 15 & Montreal & Otta- wa Ry. Co 1053 307 2 B6rub6 vs. Carsley 1053 178 2 j Bessette & Rocheleau 1169 7 - " " 1241 14 10 I 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 4 ij 1 21 24 3 72 2 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) ^ /> v.. 11.25 1^ i^ IIIIIM 1^ 1^ IIIIIM us IS 1. ^ Wuu 1^ IIIIM U il.6 riiuujgrapiuL Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ■^ ,<* .^>^ ayne8 2260 Brignon Jit Lapiorre vs. Mat- thev^s 2116 " " " " 2116« •' 2172 " 2173 Brien dit Durocher vs. Du- fresne 1535 Brifere & Robin 1732 " dit Lapointe . 1802 Brisebois vs. Simaid 176 " 1298 Brisson vs. Goyette 1204 ■' vs. •' 1233 & Plourdf 1537 " & " 1538 " vs. Renauci 1053 British North America, Bank of, & Cbinic 1133 " 1976 Brosseau vs. Pelletier & Stewart 27 Brizard dit St. Germain vs. Sylvestre 1053 179 " 1138 18 Brochu vs; Gagnon 1959 3 2071 Brock & Gourley 1472 10 " vs. " 1727 13 Brodeur & Bourgeaii 2260 vs. CoUette 2227 .'i vs. " 2227 9 Brodie & ^tna Life Insce. Co. 1233 1 " vs. " '• 1234 1 " vs. Montreal & Ottawa Ry 1726 3 " vs. Th6rien 360 7 " 1715 2 Bronsdon & Atlantic & N. W. By- Co 1053 120 Brooks vs. Green 1220 2 Brophy vs. Fitch 1031 6 Brossard & Dupras 1032 17 " 1040 6 Brosseau vs. Pelletier 1209 " 1961 2 Art. C;ise. 2320 " 2340 2 &Pignolet 1624 9 " .- 1626 7 Brouillet vs. Campeaii. 2034 1 Brousseau vs. B^langer 1054 21 " 1055 12 " 1254 " vs. Trottier 1196 Brown °: Barnes 6 " vs. •' 168 " 1057 " vs. Canada Invest. Co. 2344 Brown vs. City of Montreal 356 " vs. Cie de Sauvetage de la Puissance ... 1889 & Darling 1222 vs. Holland 503 105:5 i!)r> 1106 2 " & Leclerc 1054 " • 1054 vs. Lefebvro 1070 1169 " vs. Marnier 176 vs. McArthtir 504 vs. McDonald 1722 A: T- ')nll IJ7 & H)re 1716 Bruce vs. i.._ cry 1233 " & Rowiit 919 I Bruchesi vs. Desjardins ,519 vs. Lamarche 1053 1 12 4 2 4 3 H I 4 2t> 12 10 11 10 1 3 2 (! I Brul6& Pr6vost ■ ' I. Bruneau vs. Baxter " vs. Berthiaume. 1242 22 2360 2383 2 2287 I 1621 :i 1632 2 " vs. Gosselin 1031 3 " vs. Paquette 990 S Bruiielle 2 " vs. Demeis 1231 5 & Fraser 567 2 vs. Herron 1031 5 Art. Cu.se. tier 2320 ' 2340 2 et 1624 9 1626 7 'ean 2034 1 mger 1054 21 " 1055 12 " 1254 4 tier 1196 2 6 4 168 :^ 1057 Invest. Co. 2344 2 Montreal 356 luvetage de ". 1889 H 1222 I 503 4 Um !!)-> 11C6 2 1054 2!) 1054 12 ' 1070 10 1169 11 176 10 • '■ 504 1 I'l 1722 :< I 187 2 •'- 1716 (i 1233 I 919 I :diii- .51!) fche 1053 1 12 1242 22 2360 2383 1! • 2287 I aiime 1621 'i 1632 2 in 1031 -.i tte 990 S 990 25 993 1 le ... 1223 -2 1716 I me 1608 ip. du Ca- 1053 i)2 1231 T) 567 2 1031 r, Index to cases. 64f» Brunefc vs. Letang . vs. Monnet Ry vs. Montreal &Otta\vt Art. Case. 167 3 • 327 • 412 419 1188 1276 1338 P202 Burroughs vs. Corp chute of La An. C;..ie. 2 1ft 1042 4 tt 1232 » 1732 5 1732 3H pelle •fePersillierditLacha- vs. Rastoul vs. Queen. Brush & Molsons Bank 407 2058 457 760 1190 1486 562 1732 Bryant &BanqueduP;uple.; i?^ vs. Quebec Bank. . 2 27 4 1 4 6 1 2 56 7 I vs. Tessier oflll Burrows vs. Ranson .. ,n" Bury vs Ro • 1053 229 "^'•^^^r" 1472 10 1 •' vs.Poor8yth :; }^ Busby vs. Ford 1054 nada vs. Union Bank of Ca- Brvson vs. CuUen " & Menard dit Bon- enfant Building Soc. Artisans Per vs. Lemieux Bussiere vs. Proiilx 2 1728 1720 999 1728 2260 Cadorette vs. St. Germain.' Cadieux vs. Gingras. vs, Rawlinson 1437 1597 1046 Cadotte vs. Osborne Sf Cadrain vs. Th^berge. om Caisse d'Economie vs. Langlais 364 1047 17 8 604 1053 23B 1207 1242 534 o 23 6 Cadot va. Forest 7 10 3 vs. & Petry rm. dean . , & Bilo- 1612 a 176 2 17612-13 183 7 BuUis vs. Cross .... Bulmer & Cridiford Bureau & Vachon Burke vs. Thibaudeau Burland vs. Caverhill Burnett vs. Mitcheson. Burns vs. Forbes 43 vs, Scrosr, •gie 807 1032 1234 989 • 503 . 1.301 993 1623 622 1105 1188 1508 1512 993 11 3 2 20 9 2 8 1048 931 939 & Rolland. 364 990 1047 son 2184 1019 1961 1222 ;; 1242 Calhoun vs. Windsor Hotel Co 1053 8 3 4 10 5 2 5 5 5 3 Caledonian Ins. Co. & Simp Caldwell & Friedman. & Shaw 407 3 4 3 24 5 9 Cameron & Reeves vs. Campbell vs. Bell 850 ■ 854 855 291 8 1078 1053 25 919 5 1968 3 1972 7 24 2 4 8 2 1 1 74 19 3 & Grand Trunk Ry. vs. Henderson, 630 Index to cases. m I' Si i Art. Case. ( " Atlantic Ry. & Sauv6.. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. vs. Andrews "vs. Beaumont. " &Chalifoux.. " & Charbon- neau. & Cross vs. Daoust. . . vs. Duudelin. vs. D^y 1035 .5 1036 4 1169 r,i 1966a 1203 9 1675 I 1053170 419 2 1640 1 1676 3 1053 1 1676 4 1053 18 1053 28a 1054 29 1053 20 Index to cases. Art. Case. ^s. Jute 1668 1 Ry. of, vs. 297 6 3. VS. John- 1053 310 o. vs. Beau- 440 roundry Co. 1204 5 " 1207 6 Jie. de Pub. >re 1053 07 " 1053 139 " 1053 169 r Co. vs. Da- 1232 4 " 1233 10 " 1675 5 " 1676 9 • 1675 11 " 1677 •' 1813 vs. 1053 V.o & 1675 » " 2429 1 " vs. 1673 2 •' 2437 Ass. Co. of, 1823 •^ t Commerce 1035 .5 1036 4 1169 l.S 1966a Co. & Oui- 1203 » •' 1675 1 y. & Sauv6,. 1053 17a 1^8. Andrews 419 2 1640 1 Beaumont. 1676 3 Chalifoux.. 1053 1 Charbon- 1676 4 Uross 1053 18 . Daoust. . . . 1053 28a Daudelin.. 1054 29 D^y 1053 20 651 "Jan. Pac. Ry Co.& Palardeau. .] " * Gauthier. . , vs. Gendron.. "vs. Glasgow & Liondon Ins'ce Co " vs. Griffith . . vs. Groulx.. " vs. Giiilbault. . An. C.ise 1053 I 1676 7 1053 12 & .Johnson. . vs. Kimpton. 6 1053 1053 504 1067 1053 990 1080 1053 1053 vs. Langevin vs. Leonard . vs. McKenzie. 1053 1053 McRae... Packard Pellant . . & vs, vs, V8, 2 27 19 9 3 2 23 29 22 26 1 1 2 1673 1676 1071 1200 1802 3 1203 14 1232 5 1675 8 1675 14 Perrault . 1054 35 1673 3 vs. Provencher 1053 294 Carbonneau& Cied'Assurance MutuelledeMontmaRny... 2490 " & Montmagny Mutual Insurance Co 2471 vs. Lain^ io54 vs. Machab^e. . 1695 Carbray vs. Lynch.... ' ''JIJ Cardinal vs. BeauharnoisJct. Ry vs. Longpr^ (feP^loquin & Ritchot Carle & Parent Caron vs. Fortin Art. Case 2 19 2 7 4 vs. Guay. . vs. Houle. & vs. & vs. vs. James. 407 1624 183 1732 1736 1716 1727 1053 253 1592 3 2168 1054 16 4 5 60 1 8 17 vs. vs. Robinson. 1673 12 1056 2188 2613 " & " vs. " " & vs. '■ " " vs. Schiller. &Trester. .. (' nadian Subscription Co. vs '^^''^''y 1472 2262 2267 1207 1675 2 7 3 1 2 6 4 1 3 10 p ••:• 1242 Perreault i^ .'.' 2042 2029 vs. Queen „„ " vs.R^gina ^c5L Carreauvs. Bonneau. 17,0 Carri6re vs. Beaudry .; ^ 173(j " & Montreal St. Ry Co Carrier & Bender " vs. Valli6re..!! 3 38 18 2 7 1487 2469 1670 Canadienne, Cie. d'Assurance sur la vie, vs. Perreault. Cannon vs. Valine Canfleld & Coram, d'ficole Pa roisse St. George de Cla- renceviUe ... Cantlie&Coaticook Cotton Co ITOB Cap Gibraltar. Cie. du, vs. La- !°°**"-;; 1889 Carpenter vs. Leboutillier Carslake vs. City of Montreal Larsley vs. B^rub6 " vs. Prunier Carter vs. Grant & Holmes 1673 1522 1622 2000 1053 17 1053 178 29 18 1836 1203 1241 8 4 4 5 3 62 4 Cartier vs. Lamarche. 8 8 14 3 1668 Hugh vs. es. 1889 & McCaffrey ggg . 1265 83 :: 175 5 ^ . 1032 19 vs. Liamirande 1053 3^5 " • ■ • 1472 12 Oasgrain vs. Dominion Bur- glary Guarantee Co jggg j^ vs. Langeliev. jogg j^g Leblanc 1241 15 vs. 652 Index to canes. Art. Case. Casgrain vs. Pacaud IO47 3 " vs. Provost 1169 2242 Oassidy vs. Aimong 1621 1638 & City of Montkeal. . 1121 vs. Montreal Fish & Oame Club 1739 vs. Watters 1233 " * •' 1548 2100 Cassils vs. Gourdeau. 1736 Castonguay vs. Tremblay . 290 304 Catelli vs. Ferland. 176 7 23 Art. Case. Catudal vs. Morrissette. Caverhill vs. Burland Caty vs. Perrault Cedar Shingle Co. & Cie. d' As- surance de Rimoiiiski 2261 2262 993 251 951 1053 268 1053 33 1155 2 1208 3 2584 2 Central Vermont By. & City of St. John 1048 " vs. Da- vi Champagne & Beauchamp ., 1053 1)8 " & Evans . 1472 17 vs. Latour. 1732 t la Champoux vs. Paradis 1234 ]() /S.Racine ggo 12 2285 H Chantigny vs. Graham 735 2 875 " 1152 (i Chapleau & Irving iggg H " vs. McKenzic 1472 7 1998 3 Chaplin & Bank of Ontario. . 1138 2 " . . 1976 :{ & Hathway. ... 1204 5 " & Johansen 364 l Cbaput vs. Chapnt, 92 " vs. Steele 1053 155 " 1053 291 Charbonneau & Can. Pac. Ry ^■*' 1676 » vs. Houle 1638 2 & Pratt 1053 175 1053 .'^Ol Charby vs. Charby 1732 jjj) " 1732 r,,S Charest vs. Bi^land 1584 2 vs. Hurtubise 1053 125 1053 107 •• vs. Murphy 1235 s Charlebois vs. American Rat- tan Co 29 18 vs. Bourassa 1053 220 Charron vs. Corp. de St. Hu- BtTt 1053 38 8<» Charlebois vs. Lepine 1171 2 &MolsonsBank. .. 1953 2 vs. " "... 2310 .^> vs. Perreault 1280 3 1290 1 1301 7 I ■' vs. Ross 917 8 " Chartrand vs. Campeau 2275 1 vs. Cityof Sorel... 1582 3 ... 1584 3 vs. Robert 1690 3 Chartr6 & Price 40O 8 Chase vs. Maloney 1063 102 Chauret vs. Ueuiers 1476 6 13 2 4 4 121 8 4 59 i Art. Case. ('o, & Ful- 406 3 luehanip .. 1053 08 ms 1472 17 'tour 1732 ila adis 1234 10 ''If 990 12 2285 » ham 735 2 875 " 1152 (i 1998 3 nzic 1472 7 1998 3 Ontario. . . 1138 2 • . 1976 3 y 1204 5 ■" 364 1 92 1053 155 1053 291 n. Pac. Ry 1676 4 Hile 1638 2 tt 1053 175 1053 301 1732 Hi) 1732 53 1584 2 ise 1053 125 1053 107 ' 1235 X rican Rat- 29 13 assa 1053 220 le St. Hu- 1053 38 3!» ie 1171 2 IS Bank... 1953 2 "... 2310 5 aiilt 1280 3 1290 1 1301 7 917 3 >eau 2275 1 >fSorel... 1582 3 ... 1584 3 ■t 1690 3 400 8 1053 102 1476 6 /ndex to caaea. ^tei^^- Christin dlt St. Art. Case. Am our 1619 7 „ ^ „" " 1623 r\f^"«"e 1622 7 Christin dit St. Amour (^nau8S(^(> fl5H Art. C»ie, V8. 1619 1623 7 vs. (Jhef dit VadebonccEur Inivierge 1054 3 vs. Ch^nier vs. AfcCuaig. Ohenette vs. Guy. ('herrier vs. Mesay 945 951 953 499 646 1053 m) 1571 13 (Mty of Montreal. 1053,,^ .. t}^T^'' 1732 :« uu at. Amour vs Morin •^ Church & Bernicr Chevalier vs. Beausoleil vs. Gauthier vs. Latraversc. vs, Rivest Childs vs. City of Montreal " vs. Libbr ' vs. Thibault " 1. " Hardware Co. vs. Lau- rent . . . 1522 1105 1732 1799 1804 1203 1188 379 1039 1472 1970 2017 1732 2023 409 1280 1301 1878 1878 1138 1976 2 4 04 11 20 4 3 « 3 3 24 2 12 5 13 1 o & R^livean Chiirchild vs. McKay Cimon& Queen Circo & Ronneaii Citiz.,ns [nsce. & Invest. (!o. it La join • > ,1 iV Lefranrois .-ca.fe^teS:,':^^-^™- ex'part:^*^"^°^^°°*'-^'^'- 'ity Hunk and Barrow Ged^le^s'''* *^'''"''^' ^*"'' ^«- 2148 1026 1474 1472 .504 1732 1079 189 2485 2490 2575 4 IS 12 10 5 1 10 2490 IS 1241 1740 360 1710 1889 1971 2242 vs. Exchange B'k of Canada 1972 " P'lntingOo. vs.Gremore 1670 Clancy vs. Hogan (Jlarke vs. State Claude vs. Lortii-. vs. Tr6panier vs. Weir & 376 2 417 7 2013^ 2 ...,". " 2103 1 « Lefaivre jigo . ^- 'i „vs. Union Bank of Bri- tish North America. 1,00 «i Ohoquette & Belleau " inS u? L. . " & Hubert .... Im l\ P '"''"° o- ^'°"" ^^"^ 2 Clay vs. Russell 1233 29) " ,Stf„^r.r'- 1048 3 1203 71 1053 60 1534 1622 1053 2<)5 1054 .37 1100 () 1242 17 241 4 232 2 1053 194 !> I :i I 7 4 2 I 2 I 3 Christie vs. Belden . ACn-yof S'c John. ''we*nttdS"'^^^"'P«^- 503 1622 1616 1618 1634 1 e 3 3 6 vs. Francia. 44 1053 210 309 343 4 654 Index to ataes. Art. Cadc. CWment vs. Montreal St. Ry 1053 « vs. PhcBnix Ins. Co. 1668 10 VH. Rousseau 1054 16 Olerk vs. Brais 1927 fl (^l^roujt vs. Pigeon 1069 1 1077 2 Cleveland vs. Mace 29 10 Clouet vs. Langlois 1732 10 Cloyes vs. Darling 17 2 373a 1889 2 Club Fish & Game, vs. Gourd. 360 5 Coallier& Dominion Oil Cloth <'o 1054 12 Coaticook Cotton Co. & Cant- lie 1756 1 Contant vs. Mercier 917 4 918 7 Cook & Bank of Quebec. 919 4 " & Curwin 2058 3 " vs. Royal Ins. Co 1634 5 Cooper & Mclndoe 366 Corbeil & Mainville 166 1105 1 vs. Valade 214 1 215 Corbeille vs. Ethier 1577 2 1709 2 Cormier vs. Beaudette 1535 7 2150 3 Corriveau & Corp. de St. Va- lier 400 2 Cornellier & Auger 1042 3 vs. " 1726 2 Corriveau vs. Roy 1690 2 Cossette & Dun . . 1053 '04 " 1053 lOS " 1053 118 '• 1053 'M) (;ot6 vs. Bernard 1612 7 " vs. Bergeron 1203 21 Cochrane vs. May 179 1 " 1758 CofiBn vs. Quinn 569 " 578 Coghlin vs. Par(5 1635 3 College des Medecins & Pav- lides 15 CoUette vs. Brodeur 2227 3 2227 9 vs. Lewis 1053 295 1497 1 (/ollins vs. Baril. " & VVaterouB Engine Works Co Art. Cum. 990 10 1053 280 " 1472 13 Colombe vs. lliais 2266 3 Commercial Mutual Building Horiefy of Montreal & Lon- don Guarantee & Accident Co 2490 9 2490 12 (Commercial Union Assce. Co. & Richelieu & Ontario Navi- gation Co 2478 7 2490 20 Cong, des Petits Fr^res de Ste Marie vs. Martineau 245 Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. vs. Kavanagh 1735 Connolly & B^dard 1522 6 Cot6 vs. Corp. de Notre-Dame dela Victoire. 776 5 " vs. Dumas 1169 2 1208 1 2264 1 " vs. Girard 415 2 2192 " & Houle 1522 I 1530 1 ■' vs. Laroche 1074 2 1522 3 " vs. Leclaire 1032 14 1233 ;jc 1243 « CAte St. Antoine, Corp. of, vs. Mills 1053 aj Cottingham vs. Grand Trunk Ry Co 1675 13 Couillard & Beauchfine 1053 108 & Jeannotte 1053 2(iH 1053 HIS 1106 S Coulombe vs.Bl ais 2250 fj " vs. Boulanger 1233 20 & Nadeau 169 ] 1921 1 Coulson & Mclver 1571 16 Courcelles vs. City of Mont- real 1053 183 Cournoyer vs. Cournoyer 815 2 Courville vs. Kennedy 1055 7 Cousineau vs. Barnes 1834 Ci " vs. Beauvais 1233 Indtx to caneH, U8 Engine An. Cuae. 990 10 1053 280 " 1472 13 2265 3 il Bnikling eal & Lon- 1^ Accident 2490 9 2490 12 Assce. Co. tario Navi- 2478 7 2490 20 'feres de Ste >au 245 U8. (Jo. vs. 1735 1522 6 btre-Dame 776 5 1169 2 1208 1 2264 1 415 2 2192 1522 1 1530 I 1074 2 1522 3 1032 14 1233 :«5 1243 « !orp. of, vs. 1053 5(J and Trunk 1675 i:{ i6ne 1053 168 tte 1053 263 1053 ;^15 1106 S 2250 .0 anger 1233 20 lu 169 1 1921 1 1571 16 ' of Mont- 1053 183 •noyer 815 2 dy 1055 7 es 1834 5 ivais 1233 (t 61^5 Oousineau vs. Leco.irs . vs. Vdlado , An. liise. 2306 128 Ififi tJoiitu vs. Giif^viviuont. . . i867 & Trenlioline 2344 Couture vs. Atkinson ' 490 1641 5 nil' 1188 15 1265 2 tt.' .1234 1 londdii 928 7 937 1 HI 1220 H 684 2 [ontreal.. 2 17 2240 2 r 17 -) 1732 11) 1053 Kir> i 1070 r, 868 1 932 1 992 (1 1188 22 1571 olettf.. 1853 2 ••• 1898 7 2383 I er 1190 2(1 1231 5 1476 « 1510 I 2310 « 1053 0.'l )n 1235 inger . 1641 » nier . . 1668 12 Brt- 1053 ltt'5 1063 223 1074 1 1053 07 667 • )unni8town vh. Qii«en IVrothe va. ()aKn»< I'uroine vs. Tncht^ IJ^patle vs. Barn- .4 VS. Htiachuii 'Wsaulnlers vs. Drew D^saiitels vs. D^santelb va. Filiatraiilt vs. Hoiile vs Parker An. Cum. 1233 1,S 54& • 648 1 657 I 2116a 1 990 10 1147 2129 1623 7 2240 a 2220 1226 1053 220 1918 a 2272 DosrochoH vs. Corp. du t!ouit6 '« llochula^a •' vs. (Jorp. deSt. Ba- •''IIb Io Grand Dt'srf.siers vs. Uaoiist. Art. Cm 1063 2»7 v«. Meilleur Boston vs, Descaries vs. Atlantic.^ Nortji West Kv 1478 1497 DoBroiisscaii Maine Ily nesHuint vs. Ladri^rp 358 1732 2226 2231 2240 1038 1190 2 17 \^ 3 I '■ it Lcclaire .'{I DHssert vs, Uobidoux vs. 0.)ugeon. Deschdnes vs. !'elletier Desdve vs. F.adette " vs. 1312 . 1053 /.^ <. 1496 tticivinson vs. Jones 1063 4 1368 1384 -^ 1428 1053 2i;i 1571« 1536 H 2251 5 504 5 1053 20 872 2 1834 4 1265 10 1668 J 6 5 323 2 1592 I 1968 2 1036 2 Wx..nA.Dufresn,. .:: -^ f Dignuid vs. Kobitaille Dion vs. Pli6nix- ... Uesloges & Richelieu & Ont Navig. Co Deslongchamps vs. Poi ner. 2202 1053 1896a DnbellA Magog Textile Co.. ^ Dolan & Bak»r.. 2089 1889 2083 2098 2150 1 10 1 Deslauriers & Drapeau .1"^ 217 Desmaraiavs-Beaudoin.. ... g ^' " vs. Guilbault 1582 Desmarteau & Hustubisi- 2 vs. Racette 1131 Desmeule vs. Comm. d'Ecole St. Dominique. Despins vs. Deneau. . 0,70 , 1 „ DeSola & Ascher ^ .11 °°"^*" ^s. Dupu Desroehes vs. Bartel {mo vs. 1054 13 1668 4 45 1638 vs. Alallette Dominion Barb Wire Co Arehambaidf Burglary Guarantee (".vs.Casgrain jggg ,„ lixpress Co. vs. Gau- vrean ^ 0«1 Cloth Co. & Coal- Don" i"s vs. Bosso:. S.'f 941 I 2172 1 1472 8 vs. Despins. 4 Donnelly vs. Can. Subs. C„ 1 1:1 <)58 Index to cases. Art. Case. 2 U Donnelly vs. Can. Subs. Co- 1487 vs. Lapierre 1054 Doolan & Grogan 1222 Dorion & Dorion 464 Dub6 vs. Gervais . * ( «r " vs. Gu(5ret. . vs. & vs. & 1241 1484 1713 2242 2242 2242 2250 '• 2258 & Hubert 1152 vs. " 1626 & Jett6 1918 " 1972 vs. Meikle 1961 & Roberts 1054 & S6m. de St. Sulpice 547 554 2251 D'Ostigny vs. Forget 2227 Douglas & Guest 1523 " 1530 Doutre, Ex parte 297 951 Douville vs. Vandal 2286 Drapeau vs. Deslauriers 1239 & " 1053 217 vs. Shackell 1053 287 1054 36 Drew & Dean 813 1 " vs. Desaulniers 2220 Drolet vs, Bourassa 1053 1294 vs. Lambe 29 " & Lapierre 208 Drouin vs. Corp. of Beauport 1053 & Gosselin 16 vs. Lefrangois 1027 1492 2268 Drummond County Ry. & Bergeron 407 Dryant vs. Quebec Bank 1704 Drysdale vs. Dugas 406 2 •■ 1053 204 vs. Piatt 2 1] " 1232 7 " 1242 16 Dub6 vs. Gervais 990 7 165 ;i 4 40 2 (i 24 DuBerger vs. Roy. . . Dubois vs. Bertrand . Dubord vs. Aubln . . . An. Case. 1485 H 2287 2 434 2 1190 1« 1032 8 1079 2 1532 1 1312 1 1313 2613 ay vs. Jacques-Cartie Hank & Vincent Huhaime & Demers vs. Pratte Art. Case. 2103 2 989 1 1242 3 2349 406 2 1053 201 & T6tu 1220 504 1510 17 1998 Dupras vs. Gauthier.... vs. Lamoureux Dupuis vs. Doneau..... vs. Evans . . An. Case 29 1959 2310 941 1047 1158 1727 2267 1843 1187 vs. RiGutord 78^ A: Fortier it: Fort in vs. Dumas vs. C6t6 3 numont& Dawson. 1053 107 Duquette vs. Major. ... ^ '■ '^s- Pesant dit Sans (artier Durant vs. Grant vs. Graves it Marchessault 1... 2258 2262 1169 1208 2264 1732 2212 35 1053 Dtnuphy vs. Kelioe... y. .. Duuioucliel vs. Grand Trunk vs. Larivifere |H25 Dunioulin vs. Pacaud... . iiqo Dun vs. Croysdill i^^,^ Duncan vs. Foy jyg ;; vs. Kittson... '., ... 1232 ,, , '■ 1732 Dundee Mortgage & Loan Co. ''*^ kittle ,„j Dunford vs. Webster 1705 " 2428 ,, , " 2458 l>iinhaai, (Wp. of the Villag of, »t Garrick Dum Ik (lossette 1 1 181 11 2 Duret vs. Lavoie 7 I Duroclier vs. Sdbastien . 1 21 1 151 11 IDussault & Bacon... 051 " vs. Fortier. ge Dunn (i. Lareau Dunning v.s. Richelieu & On- lario Nav. Co ** t. '* • * ti Dunphy VH. Turcotte 1053 tU 1053 101 1053 108 1053 148 1053 300 2251 3 vs. Stuart. . Duval & Re5millard Dwyer vs. Harrington . . Eastern Townsiiip Bank ... Bank of Hochelaga 1557 " " 2090 Bishop 1 1732 62 1053 151 1053 2(jl 1055 11 1053 258 757 1 807 I 918 5 1384 1 1053 230 282 2 285 2 1233 11 1732 3] 1799 2 1053 110 441 1812 1989 2 2001 1423 3 379 un.scoiube vs. .lelly. Dupras & Brossard. . 1675 2429 35 684 1834 1032 1040 Eaton & Murphy Eaves vs. Fi(5meau... Ecoles Chr(5tiennes, des, vs. Hough Fri^res vs. Resther niEcoleComm. St. Dominique " I vs. Desmeuls 1032 1225 2261 1872 1640 1492 1668 660 Index to cases. Art. Case. Eddy Mfg. Co. vs. Henderson Lumber Co 1889 Edmond vs. Aubin 1053 106 Egan vs. Thomson. 1508 10 " 1535 Elliott vs. Bernard. 1732 vs. Lapalme . 1055 1188 vs. Simmons 175 " 1055 " 1239 " 1298 1614 Emerald Phosphate Co. & An- glo Cont. Guano Works ... 504 " " " "... 504 Emerson vs. O'Neil 1054 " vs. Tourville 1877 Ennis & Belleau 1190 Equitable Life Assurance Co. vs. Laberge 1668 Equitable Life Ass. Society Co. & Laberge 1670 Ethier vs. Banque du Peuple. 2286 " vs. Corbeille 1577 1709 Evans & Champagne 1472 " & Cowan 1688 " vs. Dupuis 1047 " 1158 " 1727 '• 2267 •' vs. Evans 689 " & Lamb 504 " & Lemifiix 1053 1055 • ' & Moore 1073 '• 1612 " vs. Seymour 928 •' A: Skelton 1629 " vs. St. Stephens Church 518 520 vs. Straubenzie 1613 Ewan vs. Hickey 1609 Ewing vs. Hogue 998 Exchange Bank of Canada vs. City & Dist. Savings Bank. 1972 1 vs. Fletcher 14 364 4 & Fletcher 1971 2 17 20 8 21 4 2 2 2 10 14 43 3 22 17 10 3 2 2 17 1 1 4 2 4 O m 3 1 3 1 A 3 2 Art. Case. Exchange Bank of Canada & Oilman 124212a fi Quebec Bank 2349 Exchange Nat. Bank & Mc- Naughton 360 " vs. Mc- Naughton 1536 Ex parte Citizen's League of Montreal 1241 " Lemieux 1298 " Maguire 2273 Thayer 2224 Fabre, Mgr. vs. Cie de Pub. du Canada Revue 1053 1053 139 "1053 1«9 Fabriqiie Notre-Dame deMon- treal vs. Monarque 1234 1535 Fahey vs. Trudeau 1241 Truteau 735 1171 Falardeau & Can. Pac. Ry .. . . 1053 Falconer vs. Paterson 1814 Faribault vs. Guay 1190 Farnhani, Town of, vs. Bisson- netto 2224 Farquhar vs. Johnson 1732 vs. Norman 1053 105 Farrell vs. Brand 2227 8 Parwell & Ontario Car & Foundry Co 417 1046 1973 2017 & Walbridge 417 ... 1046 1973 2017 Patt vs. Shortle>- 1032 1970 1979 " & McFarlane 1831 Faucher' vs. Cusson 1265 vs. Roy 1093 " 1176 " 1975 " 2017 Fausse vs. Lafricain 29 Fauteux & Lacroix 1067 97 11 12 13 4 « 5 2 19 1 41 3 ! •> 7 4 2 1 (t 22 8 4 Index to canes. Art. Case. Canada & 1242 12tt vs. 2349 2 nk & Mc- 360 fi vs. Mc- 1536 5 League of 1241 » 1298 4 2273 2 2224 H le Pub. du 1053 »7 1053 139 1053 U«> ledeMon- B 1234 11 1535 12 1241 13 735 4 1171 (i ic. Ry.... 1053 r> n 1814 2 1190 10 s. Bisson- 2224 1 Fletclu-r vs. Exchange Bank of Canada 1031 379 14 364 1971 Fogarty & Fogarty 073 Poisy vs. Calvin. dit Preni^re & Germain. Piliatrault vs. Desautels 1732 1927 548 176 2084 2086 2125 1053 226 " & Wurtele 1- oley vs. City of Montreal . . . Fonderie de Dubord 1816a 2044 2124 1732 1053 vs. Qoldie & Hardy vs. Legris vs. Loranger vs. Prieur. Pilion vs. Bertrand 1918 . 1088 1472 • 1487 2260 • 2268 503 . 1918 1241 1732 1732 1053 174 1053 233 3 3 14 6 7 4 2 1 11 11 34 Plessisville & 1260 1265 1483 622 1105 1188 " 1508 ^ ," 1512 Busby jn 4 2 4 3 1 10 59 Forbes vs. Bums Poid vs. 3 24 5 8 Forest vs. Cadot . 604 1053 236 1207 1212 1046 2260 Forget dit Despaties vs. Glo ^'ensky 2058 ^ D'Ostigny 1927 u 23 4 10 1204 929 930 2376 Filteau vs. Boucherville Navi- gation Co . . Findlayvs,Vipond.::.. ■...." 12^2 ." :: 1523 Fiset vs. Montagnon '.'. ^^28 Pish & Oamo Club vs. Gourd . 360 Fisher & Jones '^^ 2227 1234 407 1843 vs. Matts. 46 549 1474 19 3 9 5 11 7 2 6 & " vs Fortier vs. B^dard & Chamberland & Dupuis vs. Dussault "442 1812 1989 2001 vs. Liangelier jjgg & Richelieu & Ont ^:^^-^" 1675 1676 1203 1013 Fortinvs.Caron. ..,;... ,■ JJig '\. 1727 vs. Cushing J24J * Dupuis 1187 7 5 13 vs. Simard. 25 4 2 2 2 8 17 12 662 Index to cases. Art. Case. 3 1 4 1 7 3 5 Fortin vs. Pr^fontame 1638 •• & Truchon 400 400 Forsyth vs. Bury 1203 Foster vs. Bank of Ontario. . . 29 '■ vs. Fraser 1070 " 1476 Fournier vs. Ecole Ste. Marie duManoir 1702 " vs. Hochelaga Cotton Mfg. Co 1668 " vs. L^ger 1162 & " 1241 vs. " 1546 & " 1549 " vs. Paradis 189 Fowler vs. Harwood 1317 1423 Foy vs. Duncan 176 Fradette vs. Desfjve 1496 Francis vs. (ll^ment 309 343 •• vs. Labb6 1499 Franklin vs. Kingston 928 956 2026 2150 Frappier vs. City of Montreal . 1023 1727 Fraser vs. Boucher 2061 2075 2173 2168 & Brunette 567 " vs. Foster 1070 " & " 1476 Gilroy 1203 Land& Loan Co.. 358 " " 993 ' . 1736 Magor 1523 " 1530 Panneton 1618 Raymond 990 " vs. Rciy 1577 " & Watt 2258 " vs. Thibault 1053 237 FrtSchette vs. Davidson. 1872 1 1877 1 Fradette vs. Des^ve 1069 2 Fr^nette vs. B6dard 1105 2 vs. vs. vs. vs. 4 3 2 2 2 1 6 3 2 2 4 2 5 5 13 4 6 3 2 12 2 13 1 2 Gadoury vs. Bazinet. " & " GagntS vs. D^roche. . . 1 2 2 12 Art. Case. Fr^nette vs. B^dard 1726 1 1732 20 Frferes des Ecoles Chretien nes vs. Hough 1640 3 Fr^meau vs. Eaves 1872 2 Friedman & Caldwell 1019 4 1961 8 Fuller & Chandler Electric Co. 406 3 " vs. Moreau 1069 3 1476 2 FuUerton vs. Berthiaume 1053 136 Fulton vs. Poirier 1717 Fyfe vs. Boudeau 282 3 " vs. Boyce 2 19 2311 1 " vs. Lavallifere 1188 5 1641 1 Gadbois vs. City of Montreal. 1053 40 Gadoury vs. Bazinet 503 3 Gadoua vs. Pigeon 176 1 & " 960 vs. " 1280 .... 393 .... 499 .... 503 545 548 1 557 1 2116a 1 vs. Davidson 11S8 20 vs. Girouurd 1233 7 •' " 12S5 2 '• dit Bellavance& Hall. 1511 1 Gagnier vs. DeMontigny 1668 12 Gagnon vs. (3roihu 1959 3 " 2071 ve. Bury 1472 10 1474 3 vs. City of Montreal. 1053 181 Ex parte 924 " vs. Jacques - Cartier Bunk 2 18 990 22 1203 23 1866 4 2287 5 2341 4 & Thibault 1536 1 vs. Valentine 1279 & " 2126 & Union Bank 1039 1 Index to cases. Art. CaM. rd 1726 1 1732 20 vhr^tiennes 1640 a i 1872 2 ^ell 1019 4 1961 8 Electric Co. 406 3 1069 3 1476 2 hiaiime.... 1053 136 1717 282 3 2 19 2311 1 3 1188 5 1641 1 I Montreal. 1053 40 3t 503 3 176 1 960 1280 1 3t 393 2 499 2 503 12 545 548 1 557 1 2116a 1 Q 11S8 20 1 1233 7 r2S5 2 ice & Hall. 1511 1 tigny 1668 12 1959 3 2071 1472 10 1474 3 Montreal. 1053 181 924 38 - Cartier 2 18 990 22 1203 23 1866 4 2287 5 2341 -1 b 1536 1 ine 1279 2126 tank 1039 1 Gagn'-n & Union Bank Galbiaith vs. Ait ken Gale Art. 1203 1301 335 9SG le vs. Lavertue . . . 1470 Gallien vs. Taillon jgOS 2037 1634 1641 2082 2085 2127 2130 1232 Case. 2 4 3 7 II 20 663 Art. Caw. 1535 2 Gauv.n&Lec.aire JJ^ ,gj « Moore Gauthier & Ritchi vs. e. Salvas Gait vs. Jacotel . . Garand vs. Lalonde .. Garceaii vs. Davidson. •feSeybold jj^g Gareau & City of Montreal & Gareau " vs. Labelle " vs. Phialcosky vs. Vandandaigne. . Garneau vs. Larivi6ie 471 760 • 1190 993 1622 1301 457 990 993 2285 & Garrick vs. Can. Pipe Foundry Co '1304 " " " 1207 & Corp, of the Village of Dunham Garon vs. Anglo-Can, bestoa Co 3 4 3 2 3 4 14 1 2 21 5 10 7 10 2 28 14 5 .5 Gauvreauvs. Do.ninion Ex- ^"^ "'" "^r^^"-- 1675 3 vs. Grenier. . . 2571 3 '' 2127 ] vs. Macquet 1053 131 vs. Marquis iokq 190 ! Gay vs. Denard .... ""^ "" Geddes vs. City & Dist. vings Bank " & " vs. •• & ■' vs. Gem ley v.s. Low. . . " & " Sa- 1053 223 1053 64 As- 1054 17 1 Wyi 217 Gaudet vs. Si5guin 1733 Gault vs. Honan 2272 Gaumont vs. St. .lean " 1106 1 " 1.S96 1 {.authier & Can. Pac. Ry. C ) 1676 7 vs. Chevalier uss 29 vs. Cit6 de Montreal 1732 '^i vs. Dupras 29 vs. Gauthier 1^Q\ 21 1535 vs. McNamara 1053 228 1732 45 2272 8 vs. Michaud io92 1 2130 1 vs. Parent iq^q 2 vs. Perrault 1053 269 &I^'tchie 1065 1 360 " 1710 ■' 1889 " 1971 '• 2242 913 937 G*5ndreux vs. Murphy...; JIgi Genier vs. Kerr. . . -^.f, 970 1211 1292 1312 vs. Can. Pac. Ry., . 2053 vs. Labranehe 2039 . „ „ " 1040 &McDougall 2546 ^ 1067 1070 1152 • •■ 2306 Geiiken & Reeves ......;" ^^^^^ Gefraain vs. Giflford 1 7 4 2 vs. Gendron & Bernier. " vs. " ' & " Genest& Lessard. Gerardt & Ijavis 3 2 101 7 1 10 3 12 4 •A H H 7 2065 2038 ;_■ 2088 2193 & Poisy dit Freni6re 2044 Gervais vs. Dub6 1 v.s. Gravel . . . vs. Hudon... vs. Kearney. Gibb vs. Raphael *|^g ''a"lt 304 I ■' .. .. .. 269 &Poi- t'tis 1054 Globensky vs. Forget dit Des- Pat'ea 2058 vs. Marehand . 17,S0 " vs. Morissette 1070 Glover vs. Claxton 1622 Godin & City of Quebec 12 " vs. Lortie 503 Gohier vs. Villeneuve 1722 Goldie vs. Filiatrault 1088 " * " 1472 1487 2260 ■ V-"- '• 2268 ■' vs. Rascony 1472 Gooderham vs. Hatchettp . I999 Gould vs. Riddle. 1992 '• 1188 '■ 1196 Gobselin& Aetna Life Ins. Co. 1265 vs. Brunean 1031 " & Drouin ig " vs. Pr^fontaine 2454 Goudreau vs. Murphy .. 1053 wn 5 2 28 2 5 6 3 6 2 3 14 fl 7 2 3 M 3 Gougeon vs. Descaries 1312 Gould vs. City of Montreal . . 1053 Goupil vs. Letellier 491 755 797 Gourd vs. Fish & Game Club. 360 1727 Gourdeau vs. Cassils 1736 Gourley vs. Brock 1727 o 11 2 Index I.U lUisi's. Art. Case 1834a >^ 1235 2 1233 odeaii 1188 4 eaupoit .. 1727 12 .. 1188 2« >n Ins. vs. 3 6 2 1242 2 " " 2485 1 " •' 2490 6 2478 & :)o. vs. Th6- 304 5 269 2 " & Poi- 1054 26 et (lit Des- 2058 2 hand . 1730 5 3sett(> 1070 6 1622 ebec 12 ;{ 503 6 ve 1722 2 It 1088 ;{ 1472 14 1487 fl 2260 7 2268 1472 2 :hettp . 1999 1092 :{ 1188 11 1196 I e Ins. Co. 1265 " '1 1031 s 16 line 2454 y 1053 llf! ^« 1312 2 ntre.-ii . . 1053 41 491 I 755 1 797 ueClub. 360 <") " 1727 II 1736 2 1727 i;^ 665 Gourley & Brock 1472 G over vs. Hamilton , 1254 Oovernment of the P.-ovinco of Quebec vs. Atlantic it North West Ry l^i ** II j^ vs. Jacques-CartierBanl^ Goyer vs. David \rl. Ca>c. 10 Art Case. 1814 5 1570 1233 2185 Goyette vs. Bertheloi .....'. 1053 m " 2272 vs. BrisBon. .. ; 1204 . '■ 1233 vs. Lefebvre ;sii 1038 2 2038 2 .. '''8 Rodier 1053 112 Grace V8. Hicrgins. ^^f? ~ Grand T'"^^r^^'"PP'"«^'" 1053 75 Grand Trunk Ry. vs. Nixon. 1053 28 ,,. " " vs. Pru- ^^T"^' 1053 II vs. Roach 989 7 1053 8 vs. Simpson 1675 1.5 1713 1 „ r • 1499 I vs. Lapierre jgy ^ 1053 43 ■>. bell Granger vs. David vs. Kent Grand Hotel Co. vs. Medawar Crand Trunk Ry. Co. vs. Be- ban .... 1675 16 an 503 9 1486 2 1508 7 1254 2 i6re 1171 5 1423 5 2341 3 K 501 3-4 1053 196 Go. vs. 1053 245 1235 10 1474 1 1802 2 368 1 315 'Dsrs of Qtee Co. 1935 1 -' 2490 16 of 2250 6 503 2 1918 1 1188 8 Harkins vs. Grant ^V^,^; Harris & National Insce. of Ireland Co. 1053 23J> I Henderson LumLer EddyMnfg. Co.. vs. Shorey Co. 667 Art. Case. VS. 2478 2490 Hart V8. Houliston ". f^^ •Joscpli ^ s. Tudor., 1010 1232 177 763 1318 188 1265 3 5 1 3 4 12 1889 1530 Heney vs. Primeau... ■.■■■.. JJ^g 1975 Heppel& Billy , ,.! 2017 334 343 Hartford. Mutual Life ins'ce °^'.f ^°y^«-.: 2588 vs. Heron 2582 • 1535 1 Herald Cie. du. vs. Nicolle, M ." " ^'''- Nortl 8 Harvey vs. Boudreau. vs. Demers vs. Young. Assce. (!o. (Jo Harwood vs. Fowl er Hastie & Hastie Hatchette vs. Gooderham Hathway & Cliaplin .... Havard vs. Union St. Joseph Hayes vs. De Chir6e " v.s. Hersey Haywood vs. Cunningham '.' Healy vs. Larose . . Hubert & ChoquettG ...'.■.; .' .' .' .' jg^ '• vlstCyr... .: 2^? Hedge & McMillan 5^ Heffernan & Welsh 3^ Walsh 3gi Helbronnervs. Reed. icoo Hennvs. Kennedy H^mond vs. Menard .....! 2310 50 148 1203 1317 1423 1535 1999 1204 S 358 1732 40 1053 273 2405 29 Heron vs. Hartford Insce Herrick&Sixby IQ j Herron vs. Brunei q( Hersey vs. Hayes \ Heskin vs. Boardman... Hibbard vs. Cullen Hickey vs. Ewan .... Higgins vs. City of Montreal " v.s. Grace vs. Lavigne . . Hill vs. Grand Trunk Ry! . " vs. Pullman Hfngram vs. Bennett. ...^ Hingaton vs. Franklin. ..... 1241 1834 ern 2478 4 2569 • 2582 1503 1 1031 5 1053 273 1233 27 1053 127 1609 2 1053 189 17 7 1739 1053 197 1053 133 1896a 4 11 3 4 5 1 1 I 2 3 10 2 Hirschfeldt vs. Union Bank of 2383 699 1188 29 5 1 2 4 5 Canada 928 956 2026 2150 1972 1979 2 2 Hemsleyvs. Morgan '.'.[', 34J H^nault & Daveluy 1041 4 vs. Perrault 10^54 jjS Henderson vs. Campbell.. . Hochelaga Bank & Bank Union of Lower Canada.... 2023 1 " " vs. Eastern Township Bank ^^ '' " & Hodgson . 1053 100 Hough&Cowan 1663 2lHuot&Black 1053 184 Index to caws. Arr. (nKc. 2128 I dea Kcnles 1840 « at 1188 ■'«» 1592 .< 2168 ;» neiui 1638 2 1622 I 1530 1 ! 2272 ;< 1 1023 2 1532 .{ 503 1<» 1034 ■:i 1040 4 1232 12 176 ( 29 3 917 2 919 -.i 1823 1 sbec 2263 :i ' 2267 .i 1152 1 1626 1 • dit Des- 2047 1148 2271 I 1831 i 1046 :i 1635 1 1635 2 . Laporte 2043 2 2098 ,s Gibraltar 1889 4 1029 1265 () |u»n 1642 ' 1668 2 1055 10 1106 5 1635 4 1053 161 ntreal . 2188 2 .2261 2 179 » 1280 7 1296 2 1053 184 Huot .. ^'^^ f;"f''P«ne iVie'^^"",^ .. ^'"-Nouu-ux 1053,.,, HimlmanvH. Tlioinpson..""" 400 n ." 424 1511 2 ,. , " 1518 Hmtul.ise vs. ('hiirest 1053 12.-, 1053 1(17 2 r< ■Jaciucs ('artier Bank vs. Ga- K'lon 669 Art. Case. I>lanc. HiitchiiKs & nesniarteau vs. Jeannotte 1053 2.^) """■ «""f '1 1235 4 " i7jg ,- Hutchison & Nordheimer 1055 ■"- Hynesv«. Grand Trunk Hv 1056 IbbotsonrnTravcthrifk...,. 1054 1641 1732 Idler vs. Brennan Inglis vs. Lark in , & O'tJonnor jyg '* VK ** .. • .. 179 .. „ 179 . * :' 183 .. vs .. 1210 .. ^' „, .„. 1623 .. ^«-Ph.lllps 992 1053 210 1499 Ireland, National Ins. Co. of *"r'' '2478 • " " 2490 Irish & Pontiac Pac. .huu . Rv 1053 Irvine vs. Lefebvie \, 1265 vs. Payne 000 " & Williams 2 Irving & chapleau jgno Irwin & Lessard Isles vs. Boas Isniir vs. Kaine & Tweddeil' . ' Jackson vs. Pt^rodeau 990 22 1203 2H 2287 5 i„ /■ . . 2341 4 .'a((,u<.H(;arti..r Mk. vs. Gov. of Province of qu,,l,i.(. jg^Q vs. Lc- 993 5 ;; 2287 H vs. Uiiesnel oro - & 364 2 vs. ■ 1242 M '* * Re- liRifUses do I'Hotel-Dien 358 8 • 347 vs. ... 1241 4 ■• 1054 .38 ••• 1242 18 1055 14 (v'lii'stiel Qiiiwnel liRifUses d'.Vrthabaska l{ol)ilIard Kol.illard .James vs. (Jaron 1036 3 2528 989 1139 1927 1972 1032 1634 •• 1641 .lacques& Giles g .Tacques Cartier Bank v^. Du- guay .lacobs & Ransom . .lacofcel vs. Gait. . . 1042 1715 1053 190 1 6 3 4 5 4, 3 4 .Jasmin vs. Lacroix .Jeannotte vs. Bank of St! Hyacinthe .Jeannotte & Couillard. , . . ...'. Jo53 20? 1053 315 1106 8 1053 250 1675 it 2429 1508 1530 1577 vs. Hurtubise... Jeffery & Canada .Shipping ( o 1 !) 10 •Jelly vs. Dunscombe 1334 j Jenckes Machine Co. vs. Hood 1732 44 Jennmgs & Grand Trunk Ry. 1053 293 " " " " " inco A .Jett(5 VS. Crevier VH, Lewis. & Dorion . 1220 46 vs. Gagnon 2 18 vs. Pelletier. Jobidon & Lecours 1056 4 2242 6 2250 3 2265 2 1918 2 1972 2 29 17 1280 2 1301 5 1370 1374 670 Index to cnnim. •'"(loin* LaBan((ii»' (|'||„. IflKft Art, lane. 'y/ 181 " .. i2oa •' . 1301 "1483 Jodoin VH. f^rivi.'-rc \^ JohariMon A Chapliii 354 Johnson's ()(). k Boll's Ashes- ,*°''^'" 504 Johnson ft Van. r»ac. Ry 1953 vs. Can, Paint Co . IO53 vrt. Paiiiuhar 1732 ft Patrick ii5g " Ac I'eoplc's Bank of Halifax ggg ft Watson 1970 '' " 1979 Jones vs. Dickinson... g ;; 323 " * Fisher 503 '' " 549 vs. Masso 15 2 1 1.-) 8 no ti I H II 1(1 '2 5 1 5 2 5 2 2261 ft Moodie 1571 ;: " 1709 " 2281 Jones vs. Prince 1732 " vs. Shea 1927 Joseph vs. Croteau 2044 " ft Hart 177 " 783 1318 *' ft Phillips 2242 vs. St. Germain 1638 Joyal ft Deslauriers 412 2202 Joyce ft Halifax St. Ry. Co. . 1053 " vs Hodgson 933 Jadah ft Atlantic ft N. W. Ry 2 407 .1 alien vs. Archambault 1943 Jnteau vs. Magor I614 Kaine vs. Sorensen 1953 •>&) " vs. Gunn 1733 '• ft Twpddeli vs. Ismir. . 2528 1 ' "•'" -s- ? ■ iJierger 2009 :i K3'\r; ..;»', vs. Connecticut f.-o ^ns. Co 1735 Itay . :. Gibeau 1233 " & Gibeaidt 2064 • ■" 2073 •> 7 2 10 1 10 52 -, Art , Cait. Kay A (Hbcaiilt 2173 :< KeariH-y vn. Gervais 1301 Kfhoo VH. DiiMiphy 35 KoitJ'tTft Whitehead 1234 1487 Keillor ft .Magor 1492 Killcy vs. ir>aiidry 1092 Kelly vs. Webster 750 831 Kennedy vs. Coiirville 1055 ; v«- H"""'! 238a -, " ^8' Newman 1053 .^n " 1065 7 " 1163 1632 2 " vs. Stebbins 923 1273 1278 " •* 1302 Kenny A Neolon 1053 " vs. F'rice 2349 Kent vs. (ii'anger 1499 " vs. Viger 323 " vs. Villeneuve 1474 Keroack ft McKinnon 1953 Kerouaek vs. Straas 1745 Kerr ft Davis 297 298 (I It 311 " vs, Genier. . . . • > 11 " vs. Labernri . . " vs, Laiilhu'r.. " vs. Phillips... Kerrigan vs. Read 994 996 1214 780 970 409 507 1220 1896a 2043 " 2098 Kieffor ft Whitehead 2273 Kimball vs. City of Montreal. 1054 Kimpton vs. Can. Pac. Ry . . . 760 "... 990 ,, " " " . 1080 Kingsey, Corp. des Chutes de, ft' Quesnel 1199 " '^2362 King vs. Roy 2193 m 1 H 1 1 2 1 1 2 1-2 I H 1 3:i Art Cait. 2173 A ■ 1301 1(1 35 2 d 1234 5 1487 I 1492 r. 1092 2 760 r, 831 2 '!« 1065 ; 238;i ■. m 1063 '117 1065 7 1163 1632 2 >9 923 1273 1278 1302 1063 (Ml 2625 I 2349 H 1499 I 823 I 1474 2 ' 1953 I 1745 1 297 2 298 1-2 311 1 989 n 994 1 995 1214 760 7 970 1 409 ]:{ 507 J 1220 4 1896a 8 2043 1 2098 2273 ••( intreal. 1054 3:< Ry • • . 760 I 990 2 1080 ites de, 1169 ! . 2352 2193 2 Index to caaea. en KinK VH. ftoy " V8. Stunt . . . . A Tremlilay. Kwhy VH. H„H.s . An. Cai«. 28S1 1679 2200 1732 8 1239 1232 flock .VChaml„.rlin. !;.;...,; J^j Kii'kup vs. Trew KittMon vs. Dune 2 fiabiiulor Co 10 57 „ Art. Ca«« VS. (jue«n ... io In* \ ,• "<. 'rontlroii an Kneen VH. MillH. KriiKht*. Singleton. Lahrvc.m,. .% .Vmyot. 2 Lahrie vs. Uastien . . I I 3 27 14 Knox v.s. Bi "ivin. Koiif/rh VH. Nolin K HIT vs. Phillips 1076 ■ 1235 1831 1863 1866 1233 1730 520 1825 2896 1499 Liic.isHc V.S. PaKt' l-.icaMMo* 8t. l.ouiN. l-a.J.an«r vs. (Jinefn.rea.V. I'.icliancev.s. Uov.-i- l-aclianc.. v.s. L^^uvO . ^'uliapcilt! (lit MriitiPt PersiilltM ,V 2208 1039 1940 1203 1571 157c 1053 102 1063 145 1813 4 557 2 1816a 4 22 Ijl^aduiml V8.0iifhriHt .'..■■ ,fZ lllLacln.te, (;orp«,, „f vh. Bu, -= I'otighs Labbd v.s. Francis ........ »H. Pidgeoii 1053 I4J .. v,„ « ," . 1732 H .. '^'•Sylvam 2083 2 2098 , . ' , 2100 2 ^N. Aichanihault 499 [j . „ , " 640 « liarl)eau 2272 '> . „./' 2591 2 ACityofMontrml. . 1053 :^, ■ ■ 1053 'Mi i« Hiii '';:,';,s ':°''" "'• "■ 1233 1234 1042 1032 1732 inr- Labelift 2 1732 143'^ Lacerte vs. Boisvept ^^ & Bournssa ''^^ Lacombo vs. Mallotto .' .' , ygg I I) 5 16 vs. Gareau A Honey. & Major. vs. " 1056 1622 1272 2591 986 1002 1231 778 1732 1995 .. . -, ,. 1670 51 .. f*'^'-*'" 1736 4, .. ^■«- P^lletier jQgg ^,,^ vs. Versailles in^ \o.) Uberge vs. Kquitable Life ^T'^^-^^o 1668 17 Labe I'ge vs. Kerr 1670 400 607 1 1 Laioste iV ( .'hristin ......'. vs. Lawrence va. Lesage ?272 *^^''««n 806 .'.' 929 .. 1012 1592 2098 LaconrseAGrenier...'.' fJJJ Lacroix vs. Bcqanger .■.2054 .. *Fauteux- jog^ ." 1067 1233 „' 1609 1657 1668 • 1055 11 244 H^revs. Dessaint.....;::}S68^ I 2-. o 4 4 8 4 7 as 1 vs. Jasmin . , Ladoiiceur & Martineau Lad 1384 1428 "T » 672 Index to cases. Art. Case, Liaflamme vs. Mail Print, it 1053 101 1053 21!) 1053 281 Laflamme vs. Ontario Banii. . 1041 (i eur vs. D(5cary 1067 2 " 1613 5 " 1641 5 Laforce & City of Sorel 306 1 1053 18 2263 2 Laf ortune vs. Boyer 217 2 " 2240 H " 2260 1 " vs. Dudemtiiue. . . . 1472 1 Lafrance vs. Blain 304 2 vs. City of Montreal. 1954 2*") 2188 4 2263 5 Laf reni«''i'e vs. Hamilton 1171 5 1423 5 " vs. McBean 1188 2:i Laf ricain vs. Fausso 29 1 Lagarde vs. Payette 290 2 vs. Paquette 1232 2 Lagueux & Lambert dit Cham- pagne 1243 7 2082 2 Lahay vs. Lahay 228 " 237 " 1210 2 Laind vs. Carbonneau 1054 19 " vs. Masst5 666 '• 874 " 891 :i Lajeunesse vs. Aug6 1203 25 '• 1732 58 vs. Latimer 1027 1 2098 5 Lajoie & Citizens Ins. k In- vestment Co 2485 Lalancette vs. Lalancette 1535 Art. Case. Lalonde VS. Cie Cap Gibraltar. 1889 3 vs. Daoust 929 4 " 953 :{ " vs. (larand 2082 :< " 2085 2 " 2127 ••{ " 2130 1 vs. Lamirande 1441 " vs. Proulx 2168 (! Lahuniere vs. Roy 1067 3 Lamarche vs. Bruchdsi 1053 1 12 1242 22 & Brunelle 1223 2 vs. Cartier 8ii 175 5 1032 1!) vs. City of Montreal. 1053 202 " & Mongenais 931 2 vs. Ville-Marie Banli 1582 2 Lainarre vs. Arbei- 918 I " 947 " 949 Lamb vs. Bogaert 12 " & Evans 504 Lambe vs. Drolet 29 2 1 i '.i i 2 18 Lallemand vs. Bouton 1053 2132 2000 1 2023 3 306 2 462 1092 8 5iJ02 Lalonde & Archambanlt 1190 8 " vs. Bernard 1720 " vs. Stevenson . It it Lallier vs. Barretts Fayette ,1053 17(1 " vs. (Jreat Eastern Ry. 419 A " vs. Pelletier 304 'A 1032 IS 1977 2015 2094 A Peltier 2268 Lambert dit Champagne it Lagueux 1243 2082 Lamirande vs. Cartier 1053 ;«)5 I " " 1472 12 j " vs. Lalonde I441 Lamontagne vs. Lamontagne 176 17 183 2 1318 1422 vs. Lefebvre 1040 2023 Lamothe vs Demers 1053 Lamoureux vs. Dupras 1959 2310 I Lamoureux vs. (Hlmour 2271 2&3 2272 2 " vs. Parker 1028 2 I 1);! 1 I Index to cases. Art. Case Gibraltar. 1889 3 929 4 953 ;{ 2082 :{ 2085 2 2127 M 2130 1 ide 1441 2168 f! 1067 :{ i<5si 1053 I»2 1242 22 1223 2 as 175 5 1032 1!» Vloiitteal . 1053 202 tis 931 2 iirie Bank 1582 2 918 \ 947 2 949 1 12 i 504 :< 29 4 ,1053 17(1 stern Ry. 419 4 304 -A 1032 IH 1977 2016 2094 2 2268 .'! pagne & 1243 7 2082 2 r 1053 30r. 1472 12 le 1441 lontagne 176 17 183 2 1318 2 1422 we 1040 i") 2023 I 1053 li:) IS 1959 1 2310 I ur 2271 2&;} 2272 2 iv 1028 673 I.amourenx vs. Parker ... 1174 ' vs. Koy liampson v.s. Holanger. . Land & Loan Co. v.s. I-Yaser vs. Long. vs. Malo. vs. Moulin. 1573 2061 2249 358 993 1736 1626 1726 1067 1 Lapierre vs. St. Jacques. vs. Waiinington Lapointe vs. Allard. vs. Honin. « Laplante vs. Paranteau. Laporte vs. Gii vs. Gravf'i " ditDenis vs. lluetdit Dulude Laptairie, Corp. de, vs. Uar- ocau Lanctot vs. iioaulieu 1571 ],., Landry vs. Beauchanip 1171 ', '' vs. Clioquette 1053 221 ,. ^«- l^uclaire gog 1 I] 1032 (i Langeliervs.Casgra'in. S ..TT'"'''"' <"""""»" vs Fo.^; 1053 1 4() Mi.ssonnette "'^- J "'"«'' 1188 25 vs.McGrecvy 1732 43 '"'^^^'^^ 1053 m Lareau^tDunn 1053 !»ii Larin vs. Wilson . 1053 12s Larriro vs. Lapiorre. i Larivirre vs. Duiuouchel. 1^2:^4 :: --^^-r" 1053 2;^ " .. ■■■ '""'"'RS'. 1503 Art. C ase. 1522 fi 1528 1169 (i 1301 12 1530 5 558 2 562 1 1053 1 r)2 1503 2 1041 1 2043 2 2098 8 e de, vs. vs. Langevin dit Lacroix vs.Boui bonnais Langevin vs. Can. Pac. Ry & Morisset "49J „" 1013 vs. Perrault io70 Langlais vs.C'aisse d'Kcononiie 364 ** •* it "WX Langlois vs. (!loiiet .'1732 " &l\Iaynard 1732 |^ Langnage vs. Metropolitan Manufacturing Co 279 2 " j vs. Jodoin I , Laroche vs. ( !ott5 9| '■ .. "" j Larochelle vs. Baxter 101 " vs. 400 ; 981k 1300 1655 2251 .S 808 2 1053 2i)i) I 28 14 5 2 2 .S & Parker. Lanthier vs. Fverr Lapahne vs. Elliott . 1188 21 2150 4 j 1053 207 Laperri6re& xMcLaren..', vs. Poulin ^„^_j Laphani vs. Martin io54 1} Lapiene vs. Donnelly 1054 j.^ ^Oi-olet 208 vs. Grange.' 137 , vs. Larrivee 1053 -xk) ' r .,„!.„ . j 906 " * 1 ,t 1 ■!"•« -"f' A^asky & Lyons. . inc.« & Letebvre 1032 n .. .. 1054 vs. Peatman I614 1 & Rndier 22 ') 1825 990 993 2285 1368 1074 1522 1041 , ■' 1233 ^If^^'ee 2663 r " 2128 Laroc(iue vs. Daignault. , . 302 643 664 1732 29 540 5g7 vs. Belleville 54Q vs. Brault vs. Patterson .■,'.:; 2834 * liattray vs. " 1280 1296 1 : Larkin vs. Inglis.. 1053 18(i Larose vs. Healy. 1220 4 i.arue vs. Bellerive 1055 s " 8 3 2 2 1 178 2 269 290 945 956 vs. 1230 1242 1254 1 1!) 5 ;i 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 11 1 674 Index to cases. '4' ' / '••J ■ -I • ;i Art. Case. atimer vs, Lajeunesse 1027 1 2098 Latour vs. Champagne 1732 lla Liitraverse vs. (Chevalier 379 4 •.i (t 3 379 1039 1472 1970 2017 " & Raymond ilit lajeunesse 1243 1 Latreille vs. St. Jean-IJaptiste t'ity 1053 180 Latulippe vs. Mallette 167 1 Lauranre & (J real Noith W. Tel, Co 1676 5 vs. Northfleld 2340 H Laureucelle vs. Thivierge 1626 -^ Laurent vs. ("hinit^ llardwaie Co 376 2 417 7 2013f 2 Laurentides, Corp. de la ville des, vs. Ai'chambaidt 1042 2 Laurentides, Cie de l^ulpe des, & Clement 1053 210 Lavalh^e vs Walker 1814 i Lavalll6re vs. F'yt'e 1188 5 "" 1641 1 Lavell vs. McAndrew 411 504 2 Laverdiere vs. Pa(iuin 1472 Lavertue vs. Gale 1472 Lavigne vs. Higgins 1739 & Macnider 941 " vs. Spencer 1472 " 2268 Lavigueur vs. Listumb 1053 '£iii 1294 2 Laviolette vs. DeMartigny . . . 1853 2 ... 1898 7 Lavoie vs. Duret 1053 280 Law vs. Munderloh 2566 Lawless vs. Chamberlin 119 320 Lawlor vs. Lawlor 104 Lawrence vs. Lacoste 1995 vs. Northfleld 2341 Leavltt & Lowell 1487 Leahy & Rowe 1053 2(1!) Lebeau & Poitras 1053 173 Leboutillier vs. Art. Case. Lebeau vs. Plouflfe 1053 272 Lebel vs. Belanger 548 2 1013 :J 1508 11 1519 3 Hogan 393 1 " 400 3 " 587 vs. Caipenter 1053 62 Leblanc vs. Akerman 1869 3 " & Bcauparlant 1485 1 1732 25 1732 54 " vs. Casgrain 1241 15 " vs. Jai'tjues - Cartier Bank 993 ,< 2287 { vs. Melan(,u)n 1055 6 vs. White 1623 2 Leclair & Montreal Loan & Mortgage Co 1233 18 1478 3 Leclaire A Beullac 85 1 " vs. Beaulieu 85 1 vs. (;6tt^ 1032 14 " 1233 36 " " " 1243 6 " k Dessaint 1053 213 " AGauvin 1053 254 " vs. Landry 806 1 " 1032 (5 " 1730 tt & Parent 1032 9 Leclerc & Brown 1054 28 " 1054 42 vs. Donaldson 1054 i> vs. Martin 1732 13 " 2073 2 " 2093 " 2121 2 vs. Mignault 1053 132 " vs. Ouimet 1301 6 Lecompte vs. Duclos 1835 8 Lecours vs. Cousineau 2306 1 A.Tobidon 1280 2 1301 5 1370 1374' Ledoux vs. Deault 1612 " & " 1613 1053 243 1 Leduc & Beauharnoia Jet. Ry. 407 1 8 8 l(i Index to cases. Art. Ca&e. 1053 272 548 2 1013 :i 1508 11 1519 S ?an 393 1 ' 400 :} ' 587 penter. . . . 1053 02 m 1869 :i ant 1485 1 1732 25 1732 64 n 1241 15 s - Cartier 993 ./ 2287 :•! Jn 1055 6 1623 2 Loan & 1233 18 1478 ;5 85 4 n 86 1 1032 14 1233 :« 1243 1053 218 1053 254 806 1 1032 « 1730 (5 1032 9 1054 28 1054 42 m 1054 » 1732 VA 2073 2 2093 2121 2 b 1053 W2 1301 i 1835 8 lu 2306 1 1280 2 1301 5 1370 1374 1 1612 8 1618 8 I Jet. Ry. 407 Ki 675 ^'^^*«-^- tS^^K^ 1053 150 Leeming& Atlantic- At n' \v Ky LefaivreA t.'hinic... 407 22 1188 1 ^■'^•'^"y 1053 251 Lefri .. 1106 mngois k Citizens ins. Co! 2490 " . " 2575 vs. Diouui 1027 ;; 1492 LefelmevH.Aubry...: .■;:.■... ngg 1898 „ ". 1926 vs. Beithiaume... 999 V D " • 2285 vs. Brown 1979 „." 1169 vs. (ong. des Petits Fr^resdeSte- Marie 245 .'.' ^«- If vine .1265 vs. Goyette 311 1038 ;; vs.mp..;;.SH;.c,;:.,.:'Sg 360 366 " 1727 '' vs. Lainontagne 1949 .... • " 2023 .. tT^^''' 1032 vs. McDonald 1954 « Monette, & Siniard inro " vs. Thibanlt.... ■.■.:.' ^ L^gard vs. Lachance.. . . loifl., , Legault vs. Bow ^^ ^ " vs. Oity of Montreal 2 10 •> f! 5 '^«-»elinvs.Kamson... ^V""," ^emiet.x vs. Artisans Pen.m- nent Building Society 175 " 1203 1301 it Hilodeau. 1222 407 2 •A .'{ 4 2> McAffrey in re & la Banque duPeuple& Letourneux. .. iggn McArthur & Brown vs. Tees McBean & Blachford i624 vs. Crane 1 17 8 29 14 1 1053 311 1235 5 „ ' ' 1242 20 ^^■^^l 1234 12 677 Art. Case. ' 1«2 15 .Mec,,al,.v,.0h,„,e,. '^-^ 2000 2 .. " 1053 309 m ^MccuHoghv.Barch.y.-.:::::}S '0 ,„„ ,S:*f'^Donald vs. Brown. ■.■.'■ S 1053 135 .. vs.Fenhm ..; ^^ ./i '.[ vs. Lefebvre 1054 22 ": .. . ,, ". 1232 13 * 3lessier 2483 , '' 2576 2 v.s. Rankin 1533 " 1710 '■ 1711 " 2242 & Seath iiQQ AFcDonell & Normandean.... , ggj " •• ■ 918 McDougali & Gendron 1545 vs. Masson io53 vs. Lyendecker. . . 2000 & McGreevy 1053 284 1 504 990 3 3 2 4 8 5 2 3 91 9 vs. LafreniiSre. & Marler & Marschall. McBurny vs. Darling .[., 1232 1701 1188 23 992 7 1544 1546 vs. MuUarky 1222 3 ., . ,," . " 1234 66 Mciilwaine vs. Balmoral Hotel ^°;; 1814 3 1815 15 1234 15 McCaffrey vs. Bauque du ^^y^^ 990 20 * Carter ggQ y *' ^«- " 1265 3 '" '•e 2172 4 *'*^cott 1053 227 ." 2061 & Letourneux 1155 3 McCall vs. Symons 29 12 McCaw vs. Barrington I613 1534 McGone vs. Berthiaume 1054 ., '' „ " 1055 13 McConnell vs. Miller 1234 7 McCord & Wadsworth 132 McCuaig vs. Chenier. 499 30 Macfarlane va. Bale des Cha leurs Ry. Co jgyg &Fatt 1831 vs. Leggo 1301 & Mcintosh 1233 vs. McRae... iggs " 2260 ft Raphael 297 *Reid i83i' & Stimson 286 McFee & Accident Ins. Co. of North America 2490 11 McGarry vs. Bruce 1233 4 iMcGeachio & N. America Life 2u/r'"^\- 2490 -i 3lcGee vs. Larochelle I663 " 2128 McGhee & Phu-nix Insco. Co . 2521 McGibbon & Bddard 501 6 5 18 9 2 5 4 7 3 47 I McGillivray & Montreal Assc Co 17 3 2 2 1 1053 193 1233 2 678 Index to cases. McGinnis vs. Letourneau. McGowan vs. Amyotte. . . Art. Case. 400 16 505 1 520 1 " 2009 1 vs. Masson 1053 214 " 1188 27 McGreevy & Guilbault 1079 1 vs. Langelier 1732 48 & McDougall 1053 284 McKercher vs. Mercier. .. 218 " 241 Mackill vs. Morgan 1727 & 1546 vs. McGreevy 1235 1975 2208 2227 McGregor vs. Canada Invest. " & Canadian Invest, ment & Agency Co 1 7 7 11 egor vs. Canada Invest. Co 297 3 953 1 1823 2 " 2207 1 " " " 2232 2 2251 4 928 9 993 » " " " 993 15 McGuire vs. Grant 1053 262 Mclndoe & Cooper 366 " vs. Pinkerton 1184 1233 16 1769 2 Mclntoih & Macfarlane 1233 9 " vs. Reiplinger 808 1 1034 2 Mclver vs. Coulson 1571 ifl vs. Montreal Stock Ex- change 361 1 McKay vs. Churrhill 1732 19 " vs. Glasgow A; London Ins. Co 1242 2 2485 1 2490 6 vs. Queen 1084 2 " vs. Ritchie 350 2 McKenzie vs. Can. Pac. Ry. , . 1053 22 * " " .. 1053 26 " A Chapleau 1472 7 1998 3 " vs. Montgomery. . 417 5 " .. 776 3 McKercher vs. Mercier gg " .' 108 McKinnon & Keroack McLachlan vs. Accid. Ins. Co. Art. Case. J 2 14 1 1 2415 1953 1836 of North America McLaren & Laperri^re & Merchant's Bank . . » 4 2 2475 1 2150 4 1265 5 " .. 1835 2 " .. 1892 1 vs Sandford Mfg. Co. 1239 6 McLea vs. Holman 2883 3 McLean & Bickerdike 1188 13 1898 2 " & Stewart 1198 " .' 1839 1892 2 1898 6 McLeish & Graham 1053 77 McLeod vs. McLeod 1053 157 McLennan vs. Pag6 689 10 932 2 938 2172 2173 2207 2230 2270 McMaster & Moffat 1091 McMillan & Hedge 558 1 McMullen & Wadsworth 63 80 1 McNally & State 1053 221a " 1053 248 " 1053 2»2 McNamara vs. Gauthier 1053 228 1732 45 2272 8 McNamee vs. T^trault 760 8 McNaughton & Exchange Nat. Bank 36O 6 " 1536 r, xMcNider vs. Beaulieu 1492 3 1497 2 1979 2 " & Lavigne 94I 2 & Young 1487 6 1573 2 1740 3 Art. Case. •cier 218 1 " 241 2 1 1727 14 2415 ck 1953 1 id. Ins. Co. 1835 1 1 2475 1 fere 2150 4 it's Bank.. 1265 5 " .1835 2 " .1892 1 ■d Mfg. Co. 1239 6 2883 3 te 1188 la 1898 2 1198 1839 1892 2 1898 6 1053 77 1 1053 157 689 10 932 2 938 2172 2173 4 2207 2 2230 2270 1091 558 1 orth 63 80 1 .. 1053 221a 1053 248 1053 292 hier 1053 228 1732 45 2272 8 lit 760 8 ange Nat. 360 6 " 1536 .'-. Li 1492 3 1497 2 1979 2 5 941 2 1487 6 1673 2 1740 3 Index to cases. Art. Case, McNider & Young 2268 " 2287 McPhorson vs. Stevens 1668 McRae vs.Canad. Puc. Ry. Co. 1673 v.s. MacParlane 1863 Tw ' ' " 2260 McShane vs. Roy ijoo Mc Vey vs. Me Vey ...'.'.'.'.'.'.'". 689 .. 872 gjg McWiUey & North Shore Ry. 1053 1122 " . 2261 vf.wM- " " 2584 McWiIhara vs. Osier i619 " 1995 Mace vs. Cleveland 29 Machabde vs. Carbonneau ... 1695 M " ■•■ 1970 Y Macqiiet vs. Gaiivreau. . . 1053 m Magog Textile Co. A Dobell. Magor vs. Fraser 6 8 1 2 5 9 5 1 H ■.iO 1 7 1 66 3 16 3 7 Major vs. Labelle. 679 Art. Case. 1889 1523 , ■■ 1530 vs. .Juteau 2614 & Kelhor Maguire vs. Baile 1492 1998 2000 2273 1053 224 1032 15 ejrparte Maheu vs. Olivier . . Mahon vs. Wilson Mail Printing A Pub. Co! vs ^r'^^^"'"^ 1053 101 " 1053 219 Mailletvs.Aylen...!',.. " f3^\ Mailld & Thibaudeau Mailley Mailloux vs. Taillon 1231 1669 1670 1188 1609 1522 1188 2150 768 778 167 1626 1961 ;; " ■. 2286 Maloney vs. Chase "?^o Malo vs. Gravel " vs. Land & Loan Co Mandeville vs. Sun Life Ass". Co. of Canada JIanicouagan Fish & Oil Co! A Samson. Mappin & Dandurand.. . . . " V.S. Verret Malenfaiit vs. Hyhain .... Mallotte vs. Vhtims^. . . . . Mallett J vs. De Laet ..... vs. DoJan vs. Laconibe vs. Latulippe vs. Patenaude & Ville Marie Bunk.. 1 5 3 1 7 22 1 2 1 9 I 1 1 1053 192 1668 1726 1823 3-4 A Greene 1166 992 1535 334 vs. Marcel le 992 ;; 1492 „ . 1535 vs. Pnmeau 2O6I Marchand vs. Campeau ...... 1530 vs. Gibeau 1535 vs. Globensky 173Q 5 14 3 4 3 2 1 2 4 8 5 2017 .... 379 • 336 1732 Main vs. Corp. Melbourne & Bromptongore yj-,, " vs. Wilcox \" 1722 MainviUe vs. Barsalou 2690 vs. Corbeil 266 ■ ■ ■ 1105 .. 540 2 2 2 37; Marchessault A Durand...... 757 " 807 :' 918 ,, , , ' 1384 Marcheterre vs. Ontario A Quebec Ry 2227 2261 290 1 3 j Marcotte vs. Antille 4 " I. vs. Legault Maisonneuve, Town of, vs. Le tourneux 1 5 4 1053 1.5;^ 1727 3 176 5 504 13 ; vs. Guilbault .... 1 I Marcou vs. Phillips 1 I Marcoux vs. Belanger. ...... ^ ^v.^..j^„, I Marcuse vs. Hogau . ioVa„ ^i* MajorrDu,uette;:::.::::-^S?iSr:p''"' ■- Labelle oS 3 1 ' * Po«t'"aster General 784 2 " ^«^ "i .^ :: :: jjg ^ vs. 680 Index to cases. ■'i .'I'l Art. Case. Mariotti vs. Roiiillard I144 1730 t Maritime Bank vs. Queen 1994 2 " vs. Union Bk of Canada 2351 Marler & McBean 992 7 Marmen vs. Brown 176 10 " vs. Royer 890 2 Marquis vs. Gaudroau 1053 120 Marquette vs. Smith 1220 7 Mai'shall & McBean I544 Martel k Prince 1301 Martin & Labelle 1736 " vs. Lapham 1054 " vs. Leclerc 1732 " 2073 " 2093 " 2121 " dit Ladouceur vs. Lio- nais 736 " vs. Mathieu 80 " 1732 " vs. Rival dit Bellerose 1203 24 1670 it Martindale & Powers 53a " 301 1 " 757 :^ " 1013 5 " 1257 Martineau vs. Branlt 1152 '.i " 1626 2 " vs. Ladouceur 244 1 4 13 l.T 2 17 Art. Case. Masson vs. McDongall 1053 01 ! " vs. McfJowan 1053 214 1188 27 \s. Perrault 760 (J ,.... 1198 12 1614 r, vs. Taschereau 868 2 872 1 Massue vs. i"assue 931 4 Matheson vs. Muiray 218 2 1053 27» 1242 2.-) 1243 8 Matthews vs. Bergevin dit La- Pierre 545 •> " vs, Brignon dit La- Pierre 2II6 ■V " " 2116a vs. " " 2172 2173 Mathieu vs. Martin 80 1732 " & Quebec, Montmo- rency k Charlevoix Ry 407 vs. Silverstone 1642 2 1 8 17 i:^ •J k Roy , Matts vs. Fisher 1474 .-) " 1492 Matte vs. Ratto IO53 122-3 Mauriot & Gilmour 1476 3 May vs. Cochrane 179 l 1758 Maynard k Langlois 1732 43 1053 259 j May vs. Rinfret 1831 6 vs. Martineau 557 3 j Medawar vs. Grand Hotel Co. 1814 5 ' M<5decins,Col. des, vs. Pavlides 15 Meikle vs. Dorion 1961 .S M(!illeur vs. Desrosiers 1038 1 1190 17 vs. Wurtele 1241 17 •' * " 1571 11 6 I Melan<,'on k Houle 1023 2 vs. Houle 1532 3 I " vs. Leblanc 1055 3 Melbourne k Broinptongore, Corp. of vs. Main 1711 ] 3 Moloche k Holt 1053 17 Mi^nard dit Bonenfant & Bry- 2 son 1612 (5 2 " vs. H^niond ^. 699 ^! " " . 1188 2 " vs. Turcotte Mas86 vs. Belhumeur. . a it " vs. .Tones " vs. Laine .. 525 .. 549 ... 990 ... 992 ... 993 .. 2206 . 2251 .. 666 " 874 " 891 Mascouche, Com. School of, vs. Beaudoin 1691 Mason Mf'g Co. vs. Levis * Ke'' .lebec Ry 1190 Masson & Bergevin 1484 1583 " vs. De Augelis 29 4 25 4 12 151 vs. Ram beau 1519 Art. Case. igall 1053 01 mn 1053 214 1188 27 It 760 1198 12 1614 5 'eau 868 2 872 4 931 4 ay 218 2 1053 271) 1242 25 1243 H svindifc La- 545 2 ion dit La- 2116 2116a 2 2172 3 2173 1 I 80 8 1732 17 Montmo- ix Ry 407 lA tone 1642 2 1474 5 1492 1053122-3 1476 3 179 1 1758 s 1732 43 1831 6 Hotel Co. 1814 5 s. Pavlides 15 1961 3 iers 1038 1 1190 17 e 1241 17 1571 U 1023 2 1532 3 tic 1055 ptongore, 1711 1 1053 17 nt & Bry- 1612 « 1 699 1188 2 u 1519 1 Index to pukph Merchant's Bank of Canada* Cunningham Merchant's Manne Ins. (Jo * Allen Art. Case. 2310 I Mercie 2184 2525 2478 Merchauf 8 Bank & McLaren 1265 1835 1892 vs. Contant gjy " ..." 9ig vs. McKercher.. gg "108 218 241 335 >i e, .r 987 .. Ji'""" 1054 & Price i^Qc Merrill & Rider 5J3 Messier & McDonald 2433 2576 vs. Shaw Messy vs. Cherrier MiKnault vs. Leclerc Mipncron vs. Onimet Miguevs. (fuilhault Jn^ Miller vs. Hmlon ' .'.' ^'«- f^epitre .■.'.';.,. "J^ 232 240 241 735 681 Art. Case. 1053 132 1233 32 2271 1 I vs. Mercier. vs. McConnell 1004 Mlllette & Gibson ".' im Millier*Rochette;!;; JI^ ^ Miiiiken vs. Booth..,.;; .■.';.■;■ J^ 2 .'.' * ;; 2185 2 .. ,, p - 2227 I .. '^ BfHirget 504 IJiMins vs. Atlantic * North ^^°^ 1662 1105 M6thot& Rattray;;;;;;;;;;;; JJ^ 1972 Metropolitan BuildingSociety *^!^^'- 1245 2202 2251 2253 Mf g Vo. vs. Lang- ''^«t 179 1280 M " 1296 Meunier vs. Labelle io32 dit Lapierrevs.Ouimet 2054 2272 " 2276 Michaud vs. Archanibault. . . . 1026 :; •...1035 .... 1036 ••■• 1474 vs. (xauthier io92 ^ " 2130 vs. Levasseur 99Q Michon & Bousquet ; ; ggg Midland Ky. of Can. vs. Young 297 " \'s. Corp. ofC6teSt. An- toine vs. Kneen W Minerve, Cie d-Iniprinierie de 2 407 1241 1053 1076 I 1 1 7 5 40 3 a 2 7 4 10 1 (t 3 13 3 Minni's vs. Green.. Mireaultvs. Allan. la. vs. Berthiaunie 2626 vs. Sullivan 1053 1053 129 1053 171 1612 » Mission de la Grande Ligne * Morissette 243 2 ^ I Mitchell vs. Hancock Inspir- '^^r^%,r„- 1053 245 « Holland 982(, . ,,.*', . 1171 3 & Mitchell 282 1 285 1 '■ 917 1 "^^^ Moore 503 ,, .•m " 1508 8 & Nugent 417 2 vs. Trenholme 645 2 1053 119 ivr;< I , " 1732 50 Mitcheson vs. Burnett ig23 4 Mittelberger vs. Bagg ; ^ j Moffat & McMaster ; ijgj 682 Index to caaea. MoirA Sovereign Fire Ini.Cn. Molleur vs. Marchand Molson VB. Barnard Bank & Brush " " vs. Charlebois. •• •• II " " vs. (liiaruntee Co. of North America " & Rochette . Art. C«*. 2574 I 1053 170 1053 100 1732 sA 1994 1 1995 2 2009 2 1961 7 1953 2 2310 5 & Stewart.... vs. " & vs. Htoddart . . " & Thompson Monarque vs. Fahrique de N,-D. de Montr»5al Monette & Lefebvre Mongenais & Allan " k Lamarche. Monnet vs. Brunet Montagnon vs. Fiset Monteith vs. Bain Montgomery vs. McKenzie. . X II Montigny vs. Trudel Montmagny Mutual Ins. Co, & Carbonneaii & Central Vermont Ry . Montplaisir & Ville-Marie Bk. Montreal Ass. Co. & McGilli- vray " Bankofvs.O'Hagan " & Sweeny. 2490 7 1488 8 1970 1&2 931 1 945 952 1484 3 1727 15 2613 1716 '^ 1889 6 1975 3 1234 11 1635 12 1053 147 1676 6 931 2 412 1 419 1 1188 10 1276 2 1338 2202 1 28 529 417 5 776 3 1053 187 2471 2 2490 3 1053 34 2584 3 993 7 1233 2 1220 3 1727 parte . •Montreal Bank of A Woolrich " & Chaniplain Junc- tion Ry. A; St. Marie " Cie d'linprimorie, de, VH. Li^onard 'I II II Citizen's League, ex City of, vs. Allen. . VS. Aylwin .... vs. Ba ■ington vs. Beaiichauip vs. B(ji((uo City of, vs. Pigras . ' vs. Blanchette. ■ 11 ' vs. Brown ' vs. Carslake . . . ' & Cassidy ' vs. Childs. . . . vs. Christin dit St-/ ii our vs. Courcelies vs. Cuvillier. . II & D<5ch6ne Art. Cast. 918 1 1063 14 1053 U( 1063 310 1241 » 407 26 1063 298 12 55 404 1264 3 1053 188 1053 76 1054 2:) 366 17 4 1121 400 12 1063 208 1053 18:3 vs. Foley ... vs. Frappier . II vs. Gadbois.. vs. Gagnon . . $ Gareau 2242 2250 2 2240 1 1 17 2 1053 50 vs. Gauthier. vs. Gilligan. . vs. Gould vs. Groth6. . . oi- Height vs. Higgins. . vs. Hunter. . II vs. Kimball.. & Labelle vs. Laf ranee . II vs. Lamarche vs. Legault . 1023 1 1727 6 1063 40 . 1063 181 . 471 2 . 760 2 1190 5 1732 33 . 1063 62 1053 41 . 1063 205 1048 1 . 1053 180 2188 2 2261 2 1064 33 1053 a5 1053 285 1056 1 1054 25 2263 5 1063 202 1064 7 Art. Cast. A Woolrirh 918 1 plain Jiinc- arie 1053 It [mpriiuerie, 1053 »l " 1063 31H Leag;iie, ex 1241 » vs. Allen . . 407 20 Aylwin .... 1053 298 Ba .Mngton 12 55 BRaiJchamp 404 3(Jinu»j 1264 -i 8. Rigras.. 1053 188 Blanchette. 1053 76 1054 2!! 3rowa 356 Jarslake ... 17 4 laaidy 1121 Uhilds.. .. 400 12 Jhristin dit 1053 208 3ourcelies. 1053 183 Xivillier. . . 2242 1 2250 1 ^chCne 2 17 " 2240 2 ^oley 1053 59 'rappier... 1023 1 .1727 6 ^adbois.... 1053 40 agnon — 1053 181 reau 471 2 " 760 2 " 1190 5 authier. . . 1732 3;^ illigan... 1053 52 ould 1053 41 roth6 1053 205 ight 1048 1 [iggiiis... 1053 18$) [unter 2188 2 "... 2261 2 Imball.... 1054 33 belle 1053 .35 " 1053 285 " 1056 1 .af ranee. . 1054 25 .2263 5 amarche. 1053 202 igault.... 1054 7 Index to cases. Montreal City of vh. L A Are. Case. einoinp 407 Uil 1053 ;II4 VH. Leonard 1054 41 ^'"^ •^f<"'iH 1053 r..-. V.S. Nonnandiii 1053 t» VB. Oiiiinct. . . . 407 23 '"• ''y'e 1063 «5 „. , * Hector of Christ Church 683 Art. Ca»t. H 1234 11 vs. Hoy. A " Sulpice it College . Michel . 366 407 A Sentenne 407 20 A H»5inin. dp St- 1048 2 vs. St, Mary's 1053 203 • • 1053 312 vs. St. 360 1 1054 30 vs.Thihxult. 1053 -ytt vs. Vanasse. 1053 30 Montreal, Conim. cheniin de Harr.d^. vs. llMle iggg Kab. de N.-D. vh. AIonar(|up KiHh A (Jaine Chih vs Cassidy j^jq ^ Harbour Conimis- in^o .J ""'"'"■""•''•« of. & Oarantee 1048 A Co. ofNorth AnuTica.. . 1935 1 „ " 2490 15 Herald ( 'o, vs. Nor- thernA88.Co 2490 11 A Chaniplain .lunc- tion Ry. & Hte-Marie 1053 14 Loan A Mortgage Co. V8 Pelodeau 945 2 " " •. & Leclair Adams " . vs. Carrifire " t. vs. Clement, " .• & Dufresne ' ■ 2188 3 " ■ 2261 3 vs. Viau. 1053 24 A Wilscam 1732 14 1970 5A0 A Sorel Ry. vs. ^^'"■'^y 1970 4 " " A ^^\""'*y '. 1971 5A0 V.S. ^j!^^"''*^-;. 1241 6 1732 21 Vincent Mclver geron . Stock Exchange vs. St. Ry. Co. A Ber- " St. Ry. Co. A Lind- 361 1 1053 72 vs. ;; 1055 2 say ^^ ^ " St. Ry, Co. A Rit- ... 1053 45 chie ^,53 323 JJg l] J' Tel. Co. vs. Great " Commercial Mut. ''' '' ''T'' ^^'^' '"^'- ^° 567 1 Build. Society of, A Guaran- ' " " ^'^^^ " tee fe Accident Co.... 1616 2490 12 i 1624 2 R84 Index to casen. Art. (J*«e. Montreal Tuinpiko TiUHt vh. ^i^ny 343 2 U 1727 H 2415 lulfuti 1535 10 1571 20 1574 1054 HI 689 I (IKK H 831 I 890 I 980 ■1190 I igall 1222 :< 1234 tl son 168 2 ....... 171 ;• 166 :< 696 1169 12 241 :< 1053 2(l ■■ ::::: S ?!"";;""■■«'■••"' ■■■'''■ 2 ; "•""""! """'"•"■■'°.r"»>;™ ,;N... .1..,.;,; .„.«„„.,„.,,: ^ ; 1959 2; " ., • i« » 2310 2 .■ *H,.t,.n 1055 9 VH.Giiy nni 11 V * H'itclii.soi. 1056 I-, * Uieharcl.... gon •>, , ,[ .„. ' 1702 2 " Ins. Co. of Ireland .. * '^•<'nell 891 2 *H»i'''-li' 2478 i .. " 918 •"< 2490 - V ■■ ^^- '^'"'W"> 1535 10 vs. " .. ftri •; '^'"'"'a'xl"! V8. City of Mont- Naud&Portelanee g li v'™':/. 1063 63 Naulin V8. Lemieux .... f? .? v '!>" t' * ""• '^"""*''' "y • 1053 308 • •• 301 •^, North America, Ae,id..ntln.s. "*3 ^ Clo.of,&McFee 2490 11 Neelen&Kenny. .,::.:.:,..;ijg m 2626 1 400 7 Neil & Noonan . .. . T,„„, 605 2 .. t^Z , 1232 1 vt,. Hroulx 1619 2 McGeachie VH, McLaehlan 2475 1 *Young 2478 fl 2490 IB Life Ins. (Jo. .% Nelson vs Cie Pr6t & Credit Foncier Ness V.S. Cowan ... 1499 1571 8 379 7 1475 1643 1 2490 17 Oiiarantec Co. of, it H'boiir (-'onimissioncrs "''^^°:;t''*''*' 1935 I '' " 2490 !.-. New-England Paper Co. vs ^"!!^''""»'' 1053 3(M vr " 1065 5 Newman vs. Kennedy 105J "17 " 1065 7 1163 1532 2 Newton & Seale 918 Nichols vs, St, George's Soc'ty 851 868 Nicholson & Prowse 2571 1 Nicolle vs. Cie Herald 1534 -^ Nixon vs. Grand Trunk Ry. 1053 28 Noelvs.Ratt6 io32 10 JNoiseux vs. Huot V.S. Molson's Bank 2490 7 8 1 North Slum. Ry. & Bigaouette 407 1.-, vs. City of Que. 368 •> &McWi!lev .. 1053 :«) ;: 1122 I 2261 7 " 2584 1 * f '"n 400 " 407 2 " 1053 108 • vs. Ilobeigt... 1242 V.i Northern Ass, Co, vs. Herald *^'°;; 2478 4 2490 14 2569 Nolet vs, Turcotte. ' fl« ^orthfleld vs, Lawrence 2340 H V ." ,. " ••• 2341 2 Notre-Darne de la Victoiro, Corp. de, vs. Cote •I Nolin vs. Hovey . 4b 180 1053 818 1298 5 17fi J deMontrt^al.Fab. Muiiarque 776 r, 1635 12 686 Index to cases. Art. Case. I ^.j C-ise Nova Scotia Bank vs. Lepage. 1053 257 I Ontaiio & Quebec Ry. vs. Re- • 1727 » burn 1534 1242 " Marine Insur. & Stevenson 2490 16 Oregum Gold Min'gCo.caseof, 366 Noyes vs. Cio. d'Imp. & de Osborne vs. Cadotte 1241 Pub. du Canada 1053 85 i " vs. Lewis 1866 • 1053 115 i Osier vs. McWilliam 1619 . 1053 302 i " '• 1995 Nugent & Mitchell 417 •>, Ostigny ct Forget 1927 Nunensynski vs. Pilnik 175 8 ! Ottawa & Gatineau Valley Ry O'Brien vs. Lighthall -1039 5| vs. Rice 1053 vs. Seinple 1053 104 i Ouellet vs. Talbot 2044 Ouiatchouan.Munic.du Towns. K;i»!l.'riR"-l.armi, O'Connor & Inglis 176 11 vs. " 179 ;} " 179 4 & " 183 ;{ " 1210 1 " vs. •• 1623 8 " vs. Scanlan 2224 2 2262 5 2269 Odell vs. Gregory 200 O'Hagan vs. Bk of Montreal.. 1220 'S O'Hara vs. Lockerby 989 4 Olliver vs. Maheu 1053 224 O'Neil vs. Emerson. 1034 43 " vs. Tombyll 148 1 202 1 Ontario Bank & Chaplin 1138 2 " " " . 1976 3 " " & Cross 1019 3 " " vs. Foster 29 7 " " vs. Laflamme. 1041 6 " Car & Foundry Co. & Farwell 417 s " . 1046 1 " " " . 1973 2 . 2017 7 " & Quebec Ry.vs. Cre- vier 1070 1 " . 1070 8 vs. Cur«5 , & Marg. de Ste. Anne du Bout de rile 407 7 v.s. Mar- cheterre 2227 1 2261 5 vs. Ravary 2261 8 vs. Reburn 407 12 ■i 7 5 5 3 (t 3 8 10 2 de, & Letellier 353 1 Ouiniet vs. Benoit 944 " 945 5 ;: " 947 1 " 956 3 " & " 1374 2 " 1290 2 & Can. Express Co. .. 1203 » i " " " 1675 1 & Cie. d'Imp. et de Pub. du Canada 1053 71) " . 1053 280 vs. Cit(5 de Montreal. 407 23 " vs. Glasgow&London Ins. Co 2478 5 " vs. Meunier dit La- pierre 2054 2 2272 5 2276 3 " vs. Migneron 1233 32 vs. Leclerc 1301 6 vs. Roy 2034 3 " 2153 Owens & Bedell I155 1 " 2127 2 " 2177 Pacaud & Banque du Peuple.. 1084 1 1961 (t " vs. " " 1975 r. " vs. (^asgrain 1047 S " vs. Duinoulin 1190 21 " vs. Pelletier 1063 80 Packard vs. Can. Pac. Ry Co 1676 I Page vs. Lacasse 1053 102 " vs. McLennan 689 10 932 2 .938 " " 2172 An. Case. Ry. vs. Re- 1534 -i " 1242 7 fCo.taseof, 366 5 e 1241 5 1866 H m 1619 (» 1995 -.i 1927 8 Valley Ry 1053 10 2044 2 :.du Towns. 358 1 944 945 5 947 1 956 -d 1374 2 1290 2 press Co. . . 1203 I) " 1675 1 mp. et de 1053 71) " . 1053 289 Montr(5al. 407 2:^ iv&London 247« 5 er dit La- 2054 2 2272 5 2276 :< on 1233 32 1301 6 2034 :i 2153 1155 1 2127 2 2177 u Pen pie.. 1084 1 1961 (f 1975 5 1047 S 11 1190 21 10.53 811 LC. Ry Co 1676 I 1053 102 689 K) 932 2 938 2172 !• Pag('' vs. McLennan Index to cfMcs. Art. Case 2207 2 ! Parent 687 2230 " 2270 1 " 2713 4 Paseauvs. Angers ' 2168 7 Painchaud vs. Bell 1053 185 1,-) )7 Art. Case. VS. Gauthier 1640 2 „ , , 1203 i aiat'Uy vs. Voligny 1233 Palisser & Lindsay 1941 Palmer vs. Barrett Panneton vs. Fraser.. vs. Vinette. . . . 1613 .. 1641 ••• 1618 ... 1619 :: :: 1621 1623 " 1624 Paquet vs. Pelletier 993 Paquette vs. Bruneaii 990 vs. Chaffers 2054 vs. City c.f Ste. (!u- "•^So^de 1053 271 & troault. vs. Lagarde. dit Lavallt'ie vs. Tti- 1232 1500 o ■ , . " " 1501 Paqiiin & Dawson lyg " 1727 vs. City of Hnll 1642 " • ■•• 1668 vs. Laverdiere 1472 Paradis vs. Boss^ 1732 vs. Champoux 1234 vs. Fournier igg Pare & Allan 757 :: ^«- " '■''■'■'■'■. 304 /' 2110 vs. Coghlin 1535 " ^s-Ouy 1961 " 2227 " 2340 " ^P'^r.^ 1169 1171 1213 ^«- " 1227 " * " 2242 " 2260 ** .1 2264 " & Thihault 1541 " ^8- Vinet 1239 2243 Parent & Carle 1535 Leclaire 1032 Pfi'ent 290 " 297 vs. Pot viii 1105 '■ 1629 & Tnulel 2090 - Paranteau vs. Laplante 1053 152 Parker vs. liiandy 1732 .30 vs. Desauteis 1478 .5 [[ " 1497 3 vs. Lamoureux 1028 1174 1 & Langridge 1053 im Patenaude vs. Mallette 1626 9 Paterson vs. Falcony I814 2 Patterson vs. Larue 1834 9 vs. Mulligan , I68 2 „ ': , " 171 Patrick & .Johnson 1156 16 10 1 2 1 m w Piux'/A fi St^n^cal 1053 29(5 4 2 2 1476 " 1975 vs. Thibodeau 2231 Pavlides & Colll -l 21 3 6 10 i) 3 2 3 Art. Case. 1727 1 993 4 1509 2 1576 2 400 9 540 2 549 8 1233 30 1090 1092 7 1980 apelle k 457 1 760 4 1190 6 1486 1 2341 3 rtier vs. 1053 261 Trustees 1054 40 Harbour 1077 S 17 6 lOr-? 207 1242 21 des, vs. 245 [lomie de 931 3 939 1048 5 1243 3 1243 5 1 1301 10 el Total It Soc'ty 1053 130 1036 2 1047 2 710 992 1 1053 240 1499 5 2242 3 1825 2 1896a 3 1896 176 5 1031 4 lament. 1668 16 3 2521 2 Phoenix Ins. Co & Boyce vs. Wilder. . Mutual Life Ins. Co. Index to caspi vs. Atlantic & North West Ry 2 Poniinville vs. Decary... ugg 1265 cler Franco Canadien. vs. Hood. Pion& North Shore Ry. Pittman & Fee ■ Plamondon vs. De Chantal. , 2054 1 1629 2 1634 4 400 407 2 1053 198 1732 M 928 7 937 1 1668 14 vs. Richardson . . Plante & Corp. St. .lean de p,^**''*- 1053 201 Piatt vs. Drysdalo 2 11 ! Pontiac, Corp. of, vs. Paciflc June. Ry J- " County of, & Ross, . . . 1203 Pac.Junc.Ry. & Bradv 1053 " " vs. Corp. of Pontiac j™ p '', " " * Insh... 1053 i ortelanre & Naud 2227 Porteous & Reynar 1032 Postmaster General & Marion 784 • 1034 P^f ■ r. " ■ 1085 Potvin vs. Granger igy " ^'«- P^'-fnt .' 1105 p ",. '' 1629 Poulin vs. Land A Loan Co, . . 1067 vs. LaperrifVe 1053 267 p '' *V.geant 10531,3 Poutr(5 vs. Harbec 315 1232 7 I Powers & Martindale p"-. ^^'' ^«i " " " :::;:.:: 3^ i 4 15 2 1 12 16 1 24 10 1 2 1 2 6 3 9 690 Index to cafics. Powers &; Martindale. . . *:• \^ 4 =• >.- v"'^ 14 l!" An. Case. .. 757 'i 1013 5 1257 Prairie vs. Vineberg 1053 121 Pr.att & Allan 1054 2 " vs. Berger 1831 i " & Charbonneau 1053 175 1053 301 Pratte vs. Duhaimc 17 .3 1998 Pr(5fontaine & Barrie 1032 & Dufresne 1695 2013L 2103 " vs. Fortin 1638 " vs. Gosselin 2454 vs. Town of Lon- gueuil 1053 Prentice vs. Steele 6 " 1032 " 103fc " 1981 Pri^sident et Syndics de 1.-^, Commune de Laprairie vs. Bissonnette 1300 " 1655 Pr6t et CrMit Foncier, Cie de vs. Nelson 1571 Provost vs. Banque dn Peiiple 85 & Brul^ 2360 " 2383 " vs. Casgrain 1169 2242 " vs. Girard 1188 Price & Chartr«5 400 " vs. Comm. d'Pkole St. Alexis. 2202 " 2251 " vs. Kenny 2349 " & Mercier 1485 " vs. Tessier 1088 " 1478 8 2 2 12 II An. Case. Primeau vs. Marcille 2061 2 Prince vs. Jones 1732 52 .t Martel 1301 1 Proctoi- vs. Giierin 407 11 Pi'ot. Hosp. for tlie Insane & Corp. of Verdun 1048 " " •> .1 vs. Crawford 406 1 1053 109 " " It & Walbank 1053 275 Proul.". vs. Bernier 1292 2 vs. Bussiere 176 12-l.S 7 2 :s 20 6 4 24 1 1 8 21 4 183 807 " >t " A: Bilodeau.. 806 " vs. Buissii'res 1032 vs. Lalonde 2168 " vs. Neil 1499 " 1519 dit Clement vs. Proulx dit Clt^raent 335 336 343 vs. Rivard 1074 vs. Robitaille 1032 Prouty & Stone 1069 Provencher vs. Can. Pac. Ry. 1053 2})4 1675 Prieur vs. Filiatrault. 1536 1053 174 1053 2;iS Primeau & Giles. . . . " vs. " . . . " vs. Heney. •I 1204 8 1239 1176 1975 2017 Prowse & Nil holson 1571 Prad'homme vs. Atlantic & North West Ry 2 "407 " vs. Grand Trunk Ry.l053 Prunier vs. Carsley 29 Pullman vs. Hill 1053 133 PalaceCarCo. &Sise 1814 1 Puissance, Cie Sauvetage de la, vs. Brown 1889 Pyle vs. City of Montreal 1053 Quebec Bank vs. Bryant 2 " " " 2 " 1704 1728 " 1730 " & Cook 919 " vs. Exchange Bank 2349 Quebec, Caisse d'Econ, de & Pt'tiy 931 " " 939 1 2 10 11 18 8 ft-) (! 7 10 t ;} Art. Case. le 2061 2 1732 52 1301 1 407 11 e Insane & 1048 406 1 1053 1!J!) 1053 275 1292 2 176 12-13 183 7 807 2 iJilodeau.. 806 :^ s 1032 20 2168 1499 4 1519 -H I's. Proulx 335 1 336 1 343 H 1074 4 '■ 1032 21 1069 4 Pac. Ry. 1053 2JW " 1675 2 1571 1 tlantic & 2 2 407 10 Flunk Ry.l053 11 29 18 1053 i:iS 'o. & Sise 1814 1 etage de 1889 8 real 1053 0.') ant 2 « 2 7 1704 1728 1730 10 f 919 i xchange 2349 2 3D, de & 931 8 939 Index to cases. Quebec Central Ky. .v Lo.tie. IOm""" 691 Art. Case. Shore Ry. Co. (I Quennevillevs.St. Aubin... 2276 f Quesnel v«. Jacques-Cartier i ''r'^ 358 364 .. ^r. " 1242 * t oip. dea Chutes de , ^^'y^y 1169 " 2352 ^Q..i.mv«. Coffin 569 ^^■^•Sh'°''^^^"::'*'^'-«"!-^-'^^ , • R , • 368 2 Hacette v.s. Des.narteau !?S *' & Renand 1053 200 Hacicot vs. Radcot. "^^ 't Tmvm 366 755 r-» " „ ■■ ™ City vs. Feiland 2084 ••.. 2086 3125 t^'ty of, it Codin.... 12 & Howe.... 2263 2267 14 4 ■ • 1053 255 990 12 .! .. „ " 2285 ;j "> i vs. Rousseau 40() 17 Rainbeau vs. Menard 1S1Q i 1077 3 1 Kancour vs. Hunt 1055 10 2250 «'^ I " :::::::.::.: S ' ; Rankin vs. MacDonald 1053 ;«i " North- West Ry ^^ ' Harboui' Coiunii.ssio- ners * Peters vs. Roche & Lake 8t. .John Ry. vs. Leniieux Montmorency & Chai- leyoix Ry, Co. vs. Mathieu. 407 V.i " j Ran.son & Burrows.. ^^ * Gigu('"re j^gg jg | Ransom & Jacobs .." ^ " " 1732 Oil',. '.' &Vinebeig steamship Co. vs.Cha- ^f 589 2528 iv" . '■ 2528 VV areliouse Co. & Town of Levis 1583 1710 1711 2242 4 2 4 8 1053 229 vs. City of Levis. Queen 12 1239 k's. Atkinson 1241 1535 .. ^s-B'unet 1732 g,, .. '*'»• <^aron 637 vs. (Jinion 1079 r, vs. Dennistown 1233 ];^ vs. Grant 992 ',[ '.' 1053 270 vs, Labrador Co . . . 19 n .. * , , 2208 1 vs. AJackay 2084 '> vs. iMaritime Bank .. 1994 2 vs. St. Hilaire 1207 j Quenneville vs. St. Aubin ... 2272 7 1032 „ 2273 Kaphael vs. Gibb 286 & Macfarlane 297 981 j 1727 1619 1989 1994 Rascony vs. Goldie vs. Varieur vs. ^ Rasconi & Thompson Rastoul vs. Brunet. Ratte vs. Matte.... " vs. Noel 8 Rattray & Larue.. . " vs. " & Mdthot- Raymond vs. Fraaer. " vs. Pelletier. • 1472 • 1077 ••• 1679 1732 22 • 2453 ...562 2 1053 122&123 • 1032 10 269 •• 290 • 915 ■■■ 956 1190 • • 1972 ■ • 990 4 1 1 4 7 5 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.3 3 13 li 1171 8 692 Index to cases. 1 A :U.., Art. Case Raymond dit Lajeunesse* La- traverse 1243 Ravaiy vs. Ont. & Qfiebec Ry. 2261 Rawlinson vs. Cadieux 1487 " 1597 Read vs. Kerrigan 204:^ 2098 Reburn vs. Citt5 de Trois-Riv. 747 ' vs. Corp. de " . 1030 " & " " Ste. Anne du boutde L'lle 501 " vs. Ont. & Quebec Ry. 407 1242 1534 Redfield&Corp. of Wiekhani 1190 2034 Reed vs. Hilbronner 1583 *' vs. Lyster 447 Rees & Hughes 1029 1265 Reeves & Cameron 850 " vs. " 854 " '^ " 855 & Darling I173 " & Geriken 2065 " vs. Lynch 1624 Regina vs. Caron 1207 Reid & McFarlane 1831 " vs. Tremblay 1670 Reinhardt vs. Shirley 2287 Reiplinger & Mcintosh 308 1034 Religieuses de I'Hotel Dieu d'Arthabaska & Jac.Car.Bk. 385 Picard & National Bank Rice vs. Ottawa & Gatineau Valley Ry 1053 Hichard vs. Bilodeau I499 tk it " & National Bank " vs. Soci^te de Sec. Alutuel contre le feu de St. Griigoire & de St. C^lestin. . Richardson vs. Brand " vs. Plamondon. . . Richelieu & Ont. Nav. Co. vs. Bailly Commer. Union Ass. Co. & Desloges 1053 " & Dunning 2429 " 1675 " & Fortier 1203 " 1675 " 1676 ■& Art. Ca«e. | 1301 14 1053 10 1499 7 1792 2168 5 990 21 353 1392 4 1668 14 1065 4 1675 6 2478 7 2490 20 46 2 17 6 4 2 de Montrt^al vs. Ville-Marie Bank 36 R(5millard & Duval 379 6 vs. Trudelle 990 6 Renaud vs. Brison 1053 70 & City of Quebec ... 1053 200 " vs. Letang 1083 vs. Levy 1508 " vs. Savard 504 1233 Resther & Fieres des Ecoles Chretiennes 1492 Reynar & Portoous 1032 Ricard vs. Allard 1872 " 18T7 " & National Bank 1203 3 10 26 1 1 :} 4 10 Pierce 1203 vs. " 1675 Richer vs. Ducharmo 2131 2172 vs. Halde 993 Klchmond, etc., Cie d'Assu- rance Mutueile contre le feu de, & Fee 2471 2490 Riddel vs. Goold 1092 " 1188 " 1196 Rider & Merrill 503 Rielle vs. Benning ,,^ 919 1053 15(i 1053 218 " & " 1732 2 " i Comm. chemins Barr. de Montrt^al 1668 H " vs. Lusignan 1624 1 Riendeau vs. Campbell 1943 ,. 1964 26 12 8 8 1 4 3 14 1 13 •■), Art. Ca«e. Bank 1301 II I Gatineau 1053 10 an 1499 7 1792 2168 5 A Bank .... 990 21 :e de Sec. i feu de St. C^lestin . . 353 md 1392 4 tnondon . . . 1668 14 av. Co. vs. 1065 4 1675 6 & on Ass. Co. 2478 7 " 2490 20 (4 1053 46 " & 2429 2 " 1675 17 " & 1203 6 " 1675 4 " 1676 2 1203 26 1675 12 le 2131 2172 8 993 8 ie d'Assu- ntre le feu 2471 1 2490 4 1092 3 1188 14 1196 1 503 13 .. = . 919 2 1053 15(5 1053 218 1732 2 nins Barr. 1668 s 1624 1 )ell 1943 1WU Index to cases. Kiendeau vs. Campbell . vs. Turner. . . Art. Line. 2066 334 liiepeit vs. Gibbaid 29 Kieutoid vs. Dupuis ^H^ Robidoux vs. Dessert. 693 Art. Case. 1535 8 1571a 2251 5 Uiley v.s. Grenier Kiniouski, Ass. .Mutuelie de, vs. Tessier 2574 Fire Ins. of, & Cedar ^hingleCo 1053 '• 1155 " 1208 «■ , " 2584 Riopel vs. St. Auiour 1612 Ritchie vs. Barclay 1927 " & Gauthier 1055 1535 2 " vs. McKay 36O 2 " & Montreal City Pass. ^y-^'« 1242 10 '' " St. Ry . 1053 222 & Tourville 400 ]() " vs. Valloe 990 19 vs. Walcot 1616 1 ..." " 1641 3 Kitchot & Cardinal 1732 oo Rivaldit Bellerose vs. Martin 1203 24 " 1670 19 Rivard vs. Proulx 1074 vs. Thibaudeau 2155 Riverin vs. Cie d'Imp. & Pub. du Canada hqq " vs. liessard 2272 Rivest vs. Chevalier 1732 24 2023 "2 Roach vs. Grand Trunk Ry. 989 7 1053 8 Robb vs. Baxter §89 (> Roberge vs. Moquin 1053 158 vs. North Shore Ry.- 1242 13 vs. Quintal 1190 18 " 1732 47 vs. Talbot 1688 2 " 1696 2 Robert vs. Bournot 1233 ;{5 " vs. Chartrand 1690 3 " & Desjardins 557 4 Rol)ilIard * .Jiiccpies- Cartier Bank '-^7 1732 02 1 " ' .; 1241 243 1 Rubin & Briere . . . 1732 " dit LapuiiitiMt " . . 1802 2 I Robinson vs. Can. Pac. Ry. . 12 * " \ . . 1056 v«- " . . 2188 ... 2261 ... 2262 . 2267 2613 & Thibault 1508 ;« { 1053 2(iS I 2, 3{ 4"! 3 I Robitaille vs. Dignard 1592 J: " " 1968 f I " & Longtin 1691 - I " vs. Proulx 1032 Roche vs. Quebec Harbour ('omniissioners 2250 Roc h eleau & Bessette 1169 " 1241 Rochette & Millier 1027 & Molson's Bank .... 1488 • •■ 1970 1-2 Roclion vs. St^guin 1230 4 27 1 7 3 1 6 1 1 2 (t 1 2 1 21 (i 7 14 Rock vs. Denis 1053 67 ' 1074 1 Rodier vs. Goyette 1053 112 '■ & Lapierre. Rodrigue vs. Roy 49 vs. de Montigny Dorion . 1053 103 1054 27 1106 12 549 " 776 Roe vs. DeHertel 868 " ••■ 932 992 1092 1941 364 990 1047 1239 1384 1530 1301 " 1727 vs. ('harlebois 917 & County of Pontiac. Rogalsky vs. Schowb Rolland & Caisse d'Kconoinie " ii 11 vs. Piche Ross vs. Baker " vs. Baxter 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 3 7 24 6 7 3 6 8 8 3 vs. (hishing. 1203 12 1571 9 i 694 Index to msea. \0- fy*-. Alt. Case, KosH vs. Haniian 1235 10 " 1474 ■' 1802 " v.s. Kiiby 29 " 1732 " & Ross 8 " ■.'..■■ 872 " & Samson jqIQ " Si Stearns 1732 Kouillard vs. Mariotti I144 „ '■ " 1730 Roulier vs. Danduiand 2322 2346 Kousseaii vs. Cl(5uient 1054 15 v.s. Corp. do LtH- is,. 1053 172 " vs. Racine " vs. Tessier Art. C.iie. I 10 Rowat & Bruce Rowe & (-owan . " & Leahy.. Roy vs. Bazinet 400 1619 1624 919 1576 Royer vs. Lacliatice. " vs. Marnien . . . Ruckwart vs. Bazin. UiiHsell vs. ('lav 1292 " 1294 1298 vs. Betournay 175 2272 2276 vs. City of ..lontieal .... 366 * " '• .... 407 vs. Corriveaii, iggo & Davignon 2029 vs. DuBeiger 1032 vs. Faucher 1093 1176 1975 2017 vs. Fraser ... 1577 ^ti^irai'd 1834a vs. Hiiot 1690 vs. King 2193 vs. Laluraiei-e 1067 vs. Lamoureux 1573 1 s; i 2 I 1 1 I 2 1 vs. Lefaivre 1053 251 I 1106 3J 1162 2' & Martineau 525 549 vs. McShane ngg vs. Ouimet 2034 2153 vs. Rodrigue 549 Koy /i l{(iili'igiie 776 " ^«. Royer I668 " vs. Sabotirin 1065 (i 1152 8 " vs. Vincent 1169 3 Hoyal Ins. (;o, vs. (Jooke 1634 5 " Ek'ctiic Co. vs. Wand & ^Vnlbank I688 ;i vs. Wand 1688 i '• Can. Ins, Co. vs. Ward. 2292 " 1571 12 557 2 890 2 .... 176 1616 :i " 1618 -.i " 1634 (i vs. Fenwick 1927 1 vs. Hudson 1635 2 Rozetsky vs. Heullac 1686 1053 209 Sahourin vs Roy 1065 (I " 1152 8 Sacri5-Co , School Com. iMa,scouche vs ■■ „„ „ ""* 928 .1 Heaudoin 1691 r " ^•'^- '^^'y'r'"' ^ * Schowb vs. Rogalsky , , 1092 | i - .. ,?^ ,? " " jg^j ,^i .. ^^ 1190 11 Schultzvs.Thorold Felt Goods '• .'.' 1732 51 Co i„„o ,0 .. , 2121 1 '■•''• •''»"•"> 1613 1 1641 2 Shatkell vs. Drapeau 1053 287 Sohillc " .2544 r vs. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. 1207 3 I Scott & Hodge. . 1203 18 ' Schwersenski vs. Vineherg. . 1231 si " • 1234 14 165 4 ;: :: 243 h 290 .1 " & McCaffrey io53 227 2061 Scroggie vs. Burns 993 j j & Watson 1013 I 1081 ' vs. Tenny 1053 177 Seath & Hagai' 17^3 _-, " 2227 4 " 2232 1 it McDonald ngg ,-, Seale & Newton g^g 2 S«5bastien vs. Ourocher 282 2 285 2 1732 81 1799 2 " 1233 ]i Seer vs. Troau de Coeli 1053 102 St^guin vs. City of Quebec. . 1053 53 .51 vs. Gaudet 1732 Sharpies vs. Bilodeau Siiaw & (Jaldwell. vs. Messier & Perranlt. 1054 m 379 a 1998 1-2 2014 1 2017 4 1222 2 1242 J 1867 1 1622 4 988 1 1079 1 ^, , " 1727 1 ■Miea vs. .Jones ^927 Slierbrooke Gas & Water Co. & City of Sherhi'ooke 379 g Sherbrooke Telephone Ass. k tJity of Sherbrooke 353 3 Sherbrooke, City of, & Dufort 2263 1 2267 5 & Sher- brooke Gas & Water Co. hi I 379 H 696 Index to cams. Hheibrookc. City of, lirooke Tel. Ash, . Art. Ca«e. M Hliciidan vs. Huntor Hhip Isniir vs. Dauntless. Sliiiley vs. Keinlianlt . .. , Slioivy vs. IIcrKlei'soii Slioitley vs. Katt A Hher 358 400 179 1280 1296 2528 2287 1530 1032 " lOTO " 1979 Stiwersenski & Vinebeig 1233 HiK'oMin vs. Montreal Woo'en •^''"« <'" 1670 Silveistono vs. Mathicii 1642 Siniard vs. Bi'iseliois 175 1298 vs. Bouchard 193 vs. Poitier 1013 " 1139 " * Lefel)vre IQ53 " vs. Lemieiix 430 1292 yimmons vs. PJlliott.. 175 ;: " '1055 " 1614 " 1239 " 1298 Simpson & Caledonian Ins, Co 2184 " vs. G. T. a Co 1675 A fl It 7 2 ;{ i )] :j2 H 4 3 2 H fll 2 2 60 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 15 INinith vs.Atlttnticft N.W.Ity Art. Case. .V Davis Singer vs. Leonard 1953 252 Singer Mfg. Co. vs. Tapj) 1536 Singleton & Kniglit 1235 " 1831 " 1853 ,. " " 1866 _ Sion vs. Marcus ir)^ jg^ «07 Si!?61 vs. Bhunenthal 390 2285 787 " 788 " 217 „" 303 vs. Marquette 1220 vs. Scanlan 775 „ " 1233 vs. fSeynioiu' iftio 1641 vs. Wheeler igg Snowdon vs. Snowdon 1169 Snodgrass vs. Plunket igg SocitSt^ Can. Franc.-, de Const. de Montreal & Daveluy 1732 " de See. Mutuel eontre le feu de St. Gregoire, St. t'^lestin vs. Riehard 353 Sorel, Cltyof vs. Chartrand. 1582 " 1584 " ife Laforce .... 3O6 " -... 1053 .... 27i3 " A Vincent 1053 242 Sorensen vs. Kaine 1053 200 9 9 11 I 7 (I 24 J 2 2 II) t 14 8 :i 1 48 2 Sovereign Fire Ins. Co. & Moir Spencer vs. Lavigne. . . 2574 1472 Sise & Pullman Palace Car Co 1814 Sixby & Herrick 1503 Skelton ft Evans 1629 Skinner ft Bel. Tel. Co lofig Slater vs. Boyer 1679 Smart vs. Bedel 1571 " 1823 " vs. Moore 1141 " 1173 " 1571 " 1732 " vs. Ste- Marie 994 Smart vs. St, Marie 1921 I 1 6 4 17 2 19 66 2 9 & vs. Stanton vs. Can. Atlantic Ry. ft Starnes vs. Beaudry Spooner vs. Pearson 417 1323 2250 29 1018 1149 1492 176 :: 202 „, , , 1231 atarr ft Leprohon 551 " va.Phillips .■.:.. 1031 4 htate vs. Clarke 1522 3 ft McNally 1053 221a 1053 248 „ „ " 1053 292 htearns & Ross J732 55 Stehbins vs. Kennedy.. 923 " ■ 1273 1278 1 1 6 2 7 2 2 a 4 2 2 4 An. Cane, N.W.Hy 107 9 '4?M 9 1 C90 II 2285 2 787 788 217 1 303 1220 7 776 1233 24 1613 J 1641 2 188 2 1 1169 10 ^ 168 » e CoriHt. I"y 1732 1 i 1 contie )ire, St. 353 itrand. 1582 '.i " .1584 :{ te 306 ] • •..1053 4H ■■■■ 2?13 2 "It 1053 242 1053 2«0 & Moir 2574 1 1472 :^ 2268 J 417 6 1323 2 2250 7 tic Ry. 29 2 1018 2 " . 1149 3 1492 4 176 2 202 2 1231 4 551 1031 4 1622 3 1053 221a 1053 248 1053 292 1732 5r, 923 1273 • • 1278 Index to rnsp,n. Art t,a»e. i Caae, 1069 I st:;t:;.cr'':'''- s.,;r-'^ '•• •>• rm'-; 1053 2)»1 Sioiit vs K\t)u : ;; ■■■■■'■■■■ '^^^ ' ■stein VH. BoumsHH iwi - StHidl,.n,aMVN. American M„v ' ^,/'. ^'^^ <'"«hinK. '^"""i"KCo ■ V^tranbenzu. vs. Kvans igio ., «KTlinK v-s. liaxter. ^°S , '^"""'^ ^"- ««'''^' -- • «t(>phen.s& Chansse.. ' mw •..•>' c, '.' ^'*'- '^"^■''"•ilt . . . ^""•5 -'•^ Sfyles vs. Mylcr " *('mespio .■.■.■.'.,... }5i3 •* " * •" 1623 7 2240 ;{ 1530 7 ." *""Ka. 1040 I .. .'.' VH. I.iviiison inqo u. 1668 .. ■••rcW.t Ma... d... vs. „„„.,; • Quebec Ry . . . •• llfiQ .• c '''• 'I*-' * Ht"'""n 19bba Ho.sni«nii VH. .Mcl'h.Tson Stppl!enson&Cana Ht. I<'i(Ui(;niN (III Lac, Corp. de, V8. Uihi-au 1063 ifj St. Kit'dtTic, ('oniiii. d'KcoIcH de, vs. Nademi 1732 1.", St. (JaliiierM Total Ahstiiicmt- * Hi'iu'Ht Society v.-^. I'liclan 1053 l;«) St. (Jeoi'Ke ('lait'iiccvillc, I'a- roisse, & (Jooini. d'Kcolc A t'"""*-''! 1668 !t St. OeoPKu's Soc. vh. Nicholn. . 851 858 St. Germain vs. Cadoicttc 534 VH. .I()«.|.li 1638 ."> St. (irt'iKoirc, Soc. .Mutiicllf lie, & Ht. C.liestin 353 St.Henri, Ciiy of.vs.LfinoiiH'. 1053 277 St. Henry, School Trustees of, vs. Peterkin 1054 10 St. Hilaire vs. Queen 1207 I St. Hubert Corp. de, vs. Char- !■"" 1053 :W-:«) St. Hyacinthe, Hotel-Oiou de, vs. Morin 505 ;! " 1053 7(la Bank of, vs. .leannotte 1036 .i Art, Cnne. Sarrazin it i. St. Jacques vs. L.ipierre. 990 IH 1047 4 1522 1528 St. .Jean Baptiste, City of, vs. Latreille 1053 i,s(i St. Jean vs. Ohagnon 2 I- 1232 s 1732 4 1732 .-.1) " de Matha. (kn: de. & Plante 1053 201 " vs. Ganmont 1053 247 1106 1 1396 1 " vs. I'eters 17 6 " 1053 207 1242 21! St. Laurent vs. C'hinic Hard- ^^■'"■»' <'"' 2103 I fi Haniel 137 3 1053 -m 1233 12 SI. Lawrence Ry.Co.VH.TasHo. 1105 5 fi Adlrondac Hy. Co. vs. TasMc 1720 .-, St. Louis A' Diinscicaii 990 2H '■ VH, Diifresne ggg 1 1242 :< 2349 '• & Lacasse 1053 145 " " 1180 " .. 2487 Sweeney k Bank of Montreal. 1727 Swift vs. Angers 1927 2 ^ " 1928 2 " vs. " 1231 7 Sylvain vs. Labhe 2083 2 " 2098 !i " 't " 2100 2 a r ,. " v^- ^*filt?nfant 1509 1 St. .John. City of, & Christie . 1053 m " .V Turgeon 1053 2:^1 & C^entral I Sylvestre vs. Brisard dit St Vermont Hy 1048 I ! Cxermain 1053 m Art, Cii«e. iiiic lliird- 2103 I iBl 187 3 1053 2(11 1233 12 i.vH,Tass('i. 1105 5 oiulnf Hy. 1726 .-. fiu . 990 2:i >e 989 1 1242 :< 2349 1053 nr, 990 5 2344 1 ^8. City of 1053 2(13 1053 .•n2 Montreal 360 I 1054 HO 1233 2r> 1232 10 1732 (I vs. Evans 518 520 :i it Dofion 547 2 554 2251 1 .t City 1048 2 & Corri- 400 2 iiji. lie la 1053 !Ki " 1053 120 ' Canada 1823 :m 'onner. . . 1174 2 1180 .. 2487 lontreal. 1727 1927 2 1928 2 1231 7 2083 2 2098 2100 2 It 1509 1 1053 2:^1 1 dit Ht. 1063 17!) tndex to ca>,e.>t. Nylv.',st,.. vs. U,.i.sa,.,l .lit Ht. ^"■^'"•" "pininin. A l)iivi»' vs. (iiisii XyuKins vs. McCill S ';; :: ^^''r 1831 :i •■ .. 80 2 Vs. l{iiii!JN) .. " 1619 2 iHclii- vs. |),;t.,,„ie. . . nan u. r„. " 1824 r. •'•-." "■";■'':■■■•■■■ '» i" "•■"";: J!;;-:;; • ^ » ^'"'"""v 338 ■> .. ;, 1055 I 336 1732 m vail,-., 2044 2 •• .; 1688 2 " vs. Valine.:. JSS .-VIVt.i & Dnhuim, Tallinn V... (;„II,.,.i, ■ SJ!! " \s. Talliot vs. Oufljct. HoltOI'f^C vs. F'aqiu.tte dit La- I'lpp vs. Si„f„.,M|g. (■„.... 153^ ">dit vs, |{«ln,<„,il [f„tel C... 1660 I'Kte (lit Lairivi,.,,. & 1),.^. voyaux (lit LalVunihoiso r,ni - : '"«" '''^ < "t'". t^'om. .rKcoIe Tasrlicvau vs. .Massnn ' ' ' ' ofio ."! , „..'"""' '" ^^'""icipalito ^^^ -^i«>(.r„|,ia,a vs. Toriuaitcri 504 7 1500 2 1501 1053 107 1203 o 1232 .1 2258 2262 2 1668 5 TuSHt^ v.i. .Savaid 872 Ij alias rJainfs 152 I I Thayer, L'.r parte 1626 4;Thol.,.,xevs.Cadr«in; •' vs..t.Lawren..Ky.Co;S 5i "'!!^ ^'" 269 Taussig vs. Baldwin IsS -^ Th • . " " 304 • • ■ 10« 2 Therien vs. Brodie... ,^ 1740 2 " •'°*' vs. St. lawrnii.e Ac Adi- rondac Hy, Vt, 249 2224 ;< 2172 2 Tayl,,rvs.(..„.*Hhi,,pi„gVu}l73 2 .. , ,..,, 1715 2 vs. \ ill.,,ttedit I,(,(,,ur 1188 ll» & U '"<(I'1M. 1242 12 1691 'i 2437 { 990 27 Thcroux vs. Heitin . nqn . •• *Neii .., .:::. S ?'''"'r'''-*"-'"ng::: S ' vs. Northern Ins. Co. 1756 -j .. '" 1971 •• & Webster iQgg ,. '" 1976 1 iees vs. M(^\rth.lr gqn 17 .. ^'''' ^""'■««'^'i 1068 Tel. ( ,.., Great North Western .. "*• ^"•'''*' 1301 9 vs. Montreal Tel. Co.. ifiiR .,1 . * Mailley 379 ., :: " " 1618 V : *^r' 201? 2 S •> P ''"• Montreal City Tenny vs. Scroggie }S^%„- ! ' ^T'^^^' "^ 1055 2 Tessier vs. Assur. Mutuel de ' .. , ' " 1053 2S0 Rimouski „,„. . „„ . vs. Kivji,.,i gj- ;: vs. Burroughs:::::::.^ ^ Tinbauu vs. chuds ^i ; vs. Crolsetiere 29 (i " /• ^878 2 " vs. Gihsone 1535 - .. ". City of Montreal. 1053 5« " 1713 .V " J«-Fr..ser 10532:^7 vs. Perrault qq.j ,; .. vs. Letebvre 1053 225 <\- Far!> 993 4 i 1509 2 1 k Robinson imi 8 1508 (! 700 Index to cases'. Thibeau vs. Saucer 2058 Thihodeau vs. t'orp. d'Anbert C'allion 366 " vs. Giroiiard 1188 *' vs. Pauz(5 2231 vs. Venne 2155 Tbivierge vs. Chef dit Vade- boncoeur 945 " 953 951 '• 2172 " vs. Davidson 1478 " vs. Lam-encelle 1625 Thompson vs. Banneiinan . . 1634 vs. Egan 1508 " 1535 400 424 1511 1518 1031 1975 " & Rasconi 1619 " 1989 " 1994 & Senecal 1713 Thorold Felt Goods Co. vs. Schultz 1203 Art. Case. : 1 ' Tr(5au de Ca^li vs. Seer. . . I Tremblay vs. Castonguay 3! '• " ' vs. Hiu'dinan. & Molson's Bank. Thouin & Archauibault Thui'ber vs. Bartel Three Rivers, City of, vs. Re- burn Corp. of, " Thurston & Viau 2083 2098 2100 2130 1489 747 1030 1091 1093 1169 2285 990 4i 2i 21 4 4 2 6 4 H 1 10 17 15 Tobin vs. Greene " & Son Co. Toriwaieri alias Barnes vs. Tiornhiata 249 Tombyll vs. O'Neil 148 1 " 202 1 Touiville & Allard 434 1 vs. " 435 vs. Emerson 1877 3 & Ritchie 400 10 Tousignant & Boiteau 1696 1 & Hould 1188 :» Art. Case. 1053 102 290 5 ......mi " vs. Davidson 1054 20 " vs. Diifour 320 ^t King 2200 vs. Morin 1032 1(1 " 2043 H vs. Reid 1670 1 Ti enholnie vs. Alley 1242 24 " ' 1889 1) " vs. Atlantic & Nortli West Ry 2 3 " vs. Coutu 2344 ''i vs. Mitchell 645 2 & " 1053 110 vs. " 1732 50 vs. P61issier 1041 ii 2 i Trt^panier vs. Claude 232 2 I " " 241 1 I Trester vs. Can. Pac. Ry Co. . 1675 10 'ii I " vs. Trester 1235 'i 5 " " 1242 (i Trevethrick vs. Ibbotson 1054 18 Trew vs. Kirkup 8 2 " 1239 10 Trottier vs. Brousseau 1196 2 Truehon & Fortin 400 1 " 400 4 Trudeau vs. Dagenais 986 (t vs. Fahey 1171 i " vs. Vincent 1222 1233 SI Trudel & Beeraer 1053 HI " vs. Berthelot 1053 HO " & Cie d'luip. & Pub. du Canada 1053 82 1053 10» 1188 12 2262 S " vs. Dalbec 1571 21 •• vs. Montigny 1053 187 " & Parent 2090 2 " vs. Rt5millard 990 « " & Viau 1053 81 " 1188 1« Truteau vs. Fahey 735 t " ' 1241 i:{ Tudor vs. Hart 188 1 " 1265 8 Turcotte vs. Auger 2 l" 5i 1 4 6 18 8 6 2 Art. Case. Seer 1053 102 onguay — 290 *) .... -.m 4 idson 1054 2(» )ur 320 ,... 2200 in 1032 HI 2043 :i 1670 1 By 1242 21 1889 i» A.tlantic & 2 :< itu 2344 :t chell 645 2 " 1053 111) 1732 5(1 issier 1041 U Ae 232 2 241 « ic. Ry Co. . 1675 10 1235 :i 1242 a lotson 1054 18 8 2 1239 10 eau 1196 2 400 1 400 4 lais 986 <1 1171 « It 1222 (t 1233 3) 1053 «4 t 1053 «0 . & Pub. du 1053 S2 1053 lOit 1188 12 2262 :< 1571 21 y 1053 187 2090 2 d 990 (( 1053 81 1188 in 735 4 1241 r.i 188 1 1265 8 2 in Index to cases. Tnrcotte vs. Dunphy. Art. Case. 35 1 684 1 vs. Martineau 990 2.5 vs. Nolet 86 ** (t 180 " 1053 .US 1298 r, Turgeon vs. Delorme 1571 (j *''^y'^"'»'» 1053 281 vs. Wurtele 1053 S7 Turnbiill vs. Baldwin . .. 1927 5 & Brown igy 2 Turner & Gieene 331 j Valade vs. Cotbpil. " vs. Cousineau. 701 Art, Case, Valpntint' vs. GnK"on ValiiniettP vs. Aichanihanlt " & MuHigan 155 .. 596 1169 vs. Rieudeau 334 _, ".„ " 986 lurntf & Quebec Central Ry . . 366 755 ,T '' " " 776 Union Bank of Canada vs. ^'■y«^"t ggg 1728 " of Briti.sh North America vs. Chinic 1188 " ftCorp. of Wickham 357 " ofL.C.ft ■'• 1190 " .^Gagnon 1039 " 1203 ' 1301 " vs. Hirschfeldt., I979 " of (-anada vs. Hirscbfeldt 1972 " of Lower Canada & Hochelaga Bank 2023 " vp. Maritime Bk. of Canada 2351 " St-Joseph vs. Havard. . 358 United States Life Insce. Co.& ^^^e**" 1935 Vachon & Bureau 503 Vadeboncoeur, Chef dit, vs. Thivierge 945 951 953 „ , 2172 Valade vs. ( lorbeil 214 3 3 12 2 2 2 2 f 215 128 156 1279 2126 1065 1476 1536 Vallef? vs. (Jannoii 1570 " vs. Iludon 183J " vs. Ritcln'o 990 " vs. Talbot 2310 ValliiTcs vs. Baxter 1239 vs. Benson 1614 " vs. Carrier jg22 , '' " 2000 Vannasse vs. City of Montreal 1056 1053 1053 1 7 8 4 1!) :i K ( 5 3 2 :«> 7H G 2 14 1 2 4 3 4 1 2188 3-4 2261 3 Vandal vs. Douvillo 2286 2 Vandandaigne vs. Gareau 457 2 Varieur vs. Rascony 1077 l 1679 1 1732 22 V 2453 Varin vs. Gut^rin 735 5 " 746 " 2021 Vaudrey vs. Devin I834 4 Venne vs. Thibodeau 2155 2 Venner & Sun Life Insce Co. . 1180 1174 2 . 2487 Verdun, Corp.of,& Prot.Hosp. for the Insane 1048 ({ Verge vs. Verge 990 1 " 1062 " 1508 2 Vdronneau vs. V^ronneau 1385 Verret vs. Major II88 3 Versailles vs. Labelle 1053 182 Viau vs. City of Montreal. . . . 1053 216 & Thurston 1091 1093 1169 1 * Trudel 1053 81 „, " 1188 16 o I Vigeant & Poulin 1053 113 1 ' Vigcr vs. Archanibault 743 702 Index to citnen. Art Case. 891 1 .1899 1 823 1 760 3 " 1190 Vigneau & Daveluy 1233 10 Viger vs. Archambault. " & vs. Kent Vignault vs. Bone 504 Vipond vs. Findlay. Vital vs. T^traiilt . . Vogel vs. Pelletier . Voligny vs. Palardy Voyer vs. Corp. of Ancient Lorette Wade & Mooney Wadsworth & McCord * McMullen Walbank & Prot. Hos. for the Insane & Wand vs. Royal Electric Co Walbridge & Farwell Walker & Black V^ille-Marie Bk vs. Lainarche 1582 " &Mallette .. 1961 .. 2340 " " & Montplaisir 993 " " vs. Morrison. 1508 " " vs. Religi. de rH6tel-Dieii de Montreal . . 36 1231 2 Villeneuve vs. Gohier 1722 2 vs. Kent 1474 2 Villiotte dit Latour vs. Ther- rien 1188 19 " 1242 12 " 1691 2 Walcot vs. Ritchie Vincent & City of Sorel 1053 242 " vs. Montreal & Sorel Ry 1241 .0 " 1732 21 & Duguay 504 11 vs. Roy 1169 3 " vs. Samson 1152 o " 1624 7 " 1626 5 vs. Trudeau 1233 34 " 1222 Vineberg vs. Beaulieu 988 2 & " 1093 vs. " 1727 2] " & B61anger 1500 1 " & Harapson 5013-4 10E3 196 vs. Prairie 1053 121 & Ransom 2273 1 Art. Case. 1530 9 1055 1 290 6 323 1 1634 6 1233 17 165 1 1508 1 132 63 80 I 1053 275 1688 3 417 4 1046 2 " vs. Lavall^e Wallace vs. Moore Wallingford vs. Stevenson. . . Walsh vs. City of Montreal . . " & Comm. d'Eeole Mu- nicipality, Conit6 de Ting- wick " &Hefferman Walter & Lewis. & Schwersenski ... 1231 3 .... 1233 3 '•• .... 1234 14 Vinet vs. Par6 Vinette vs. Panneton . ... 1239 5 ... 2243 1619 3 1621 2 1623 3 1624 10 Vipond vs. Findlay 1242 19 1523 3 Wand & Walbank vs. Royal Electric Co vs. Ward vs. Royal Canadian Ins. Co It »4 (( (( •Wark vs. Perron Warm ngton vs. Lapierre Wason Mfg. Co. vs. Levis & Kennebec Ry. Co 2017 6 1616 11 1641 3 993 2 1032 2 1814 4 1816a 2 414 1053 57 1668 5 359 361 2 1730 3 1866 2 1869 1 2316 1688 3 1688 4 1571 12 2292 1090 1092 1980 1169 « 1301 12 367 358 Art. Case. 1530 9 1055 I 290 « 323 I 1634 6 1233 17 f Ancient 165 1 1508 1 jrd 132 uUen 63 80 I Hos. for 1053 275 vs. Royal ..1688 3 II 417 4 10i6 2 1973 I 2017 6 1616 11 1641 3 993 2 1032 2 J 1814 4 1816a 2 venson . . . 414 [ontreal.. 1053 57 ilcole Mu- de Ting- 1668 5 359 361 2 1730 3 1866 2 1869 I 2316 vs. Royal 1688 3 " 1688 4 adian Ins. 1571 12 " 2292 1090 1092 1980 pierre... 1169 6 .... 1301 12 , Levis & 3S7 358 Wateroiis Engine Work Co * <;°'"" 1053 2S0 " " 1472 13 Watertown. Agricultural Ins. Oo.of.A .\nsley 1730 j " 2478 2 w . ^ " ■■ 2490 2 Watmore & Brown yjiQ fj Watson k Angus 1599 & Johnson igyg 9 1979 5 & Scroggie 1013 4 '.' ,„ " 1081 MfgCo. vs. Seguin . 2085 1 2168 1 & St. Ann's Mutual Build. Society 1031 2 " 1276 1 ^•s-Wulff 1979 1 *'■■ ..■:i & Fraser ■Ari'.'.ers vs. Cassidy Index to cases. White * Langelier. 703 Art. Case. Art. Case. 1053 90 1053 95 1053 128 vs. Leblanc 1523 2 Whitehead * KeiflFer 1234 5 " 1487 1 „,. .^, ^ ,„ " 2273 3 Whitley & I ^nkerton. 1092 6 „,.' ^ " 2260 4 VVickhani. Corp. of, & Redfleld 1190 H 2034 2 A Union Bank of Canada 357 2 ** <* 1190 14 vvi ,/•. ""^- ,1053 161 Wilcox vs. Main ' 1712 -^ Wilder vs. Phoenix Ins. (^o. . 2485 3 Williams & Irvine 2 15 MfgCo. vs. Willock. 1619 4 '' " '• 1622 I & 2258 2 1233 2:i 1548 2100 I • ' ''■ ^^".'^™''' *"g Co. 1619 4 vs. Fauteux .... 1622 1 " <" ' ^^^ ' Watts & Wells or, q Wi ., " 1968 1 Webster vs. Dunford 17" I ^^''.?'''" ^'«- Montreal St. Ry . 1054 31 " 1053 45 „.., „ " " 1053 71 \V ilson vs. Benjamin 1715 j " .„ '' 1727 5 *Boyd 375 379 1 417 1 1679 2 1994 3 ■■ 1705 ]] " 2428 " 2458 " vs. Fisher 175 4 ^'s- Kelly 760 5 831 2 „, ." * ^'^y'o'' 1059 Weir & Claude 503 1 [[ ^«- " 1053 mi vs. Lockerby gg 3 .'', " 1242 8 \V ells & Gilmour 970 2 " 2121 3 ^ " 2172 5 * Watts 364 :^ Western Assce. Co. & Scanlan 2505 " 2521 1 2514 & Groulx. vs. & Lacoste. vs. Larin . 929 1012 1592 2098 2098 808 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 Whelan vs. Beaucaire " vs. Whelan . 1053 44 1055 5 . 169 3 ", " 831 5 Wheeler & Black 1012 ] '' vs. Smith .'. 188 2 White vs. City of Montreal . 1053 51 " 1053 am " vs.Mahon 1032 15 J Windsor Hotel Co. vs. Cal- „,^"""- ■ 1053 74 VV^ood & Atlantic & N. W. Ry ^.'" 407 21 vs. Blondin 929 2 " 9S0 1 933 1535 10 704 Indtx to canes. 117 1 . , Art. Case Woolrich & Bank of Montreal 918 Worth vs. Worth 923 W nltt & Watson 1979 V> urtele & Poisy dit Preniere 1732 vs. Meilleur 1241 " 1671 vs. Turgeon 1053 young k Accident Insce Co. of North America I j -XT ■**"'• Case. 1 Young vs. Harvey. ., i^g 2 5 " " -» 50 vs. Cresse . vs. Greniei' 1732 28 2478 6 2490 10 1190 7 689 9 1203 17 ■' & MacNider 1437 5 1573 2 :; 1740 8 2268 ^ " " 2287 Yule v». Howard 29 3 " 917 2 " 919 >i " 1823 I Art, Case. 148 2 50 1203 17 1487 5 1573 2 1740 2268 » 2287 » 29 3 917 2 919 H 1823 I •.i