^. ^f^^. W \T ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 128 ■ 10 I.I ■ 2.2 ■u u ■UUu 1^ 1^ %k ^ Photographic Sciences Corporation ^^^Ag ' ^ ^" A * \ ^V ^^ '5^ <-- 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEKSTER.N.Y. MSM (716) 872-4503 9 ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filnrJng. Features of this copy which may be bibliographlcnSly 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 nn Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ D D D D 2f D D Le titre rie couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques 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/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se pout que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparais^ent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela 6tait possible, cec pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional cotnments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details da cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Stre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de tilmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicui^es Pages dii.coloured, stained or foxei Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes I — I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — I Pages dii.coloured, stained or foxed/ □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es r~~U Showthrough/ iJu Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'inipressJon Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire D D Only edition available/ Seule dditicn disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes 6 nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X V i 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X iils du difier jne lage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Law Society of Upper Canada Great Library The images appearing here are the best quality possibte 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 copios 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. L'exemplaire filmi fut g6n6rosit6 de: r^produit grAce A la Law Society of Upper Canada Great Library Les im iges suivantes ortt At* reproduites avec le plus grand soln. compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti§ de Texemplalre film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplairtts originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont filmis en commei 'snt par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fllm6s en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comr.'orte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frcme on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: la symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbole V sign:fie "FIN". 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: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour 6tre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filme A par^ de i'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. rata lelure, id 3 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 X^u 'jC- iCriiL CONSOLIDATED DIGEST OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OK THE PEOTINCE OF QUEBEC. From thk commencement down to and including Vol. 3 of the «.ri''iciAL Reports (Q. B. 1894), and Vol. 6 of the Official Reports (S. C. 1894). KDITED 1$Y F. L. SNOW, Law Librarian, Author of " Landlord and Tenant in the Province of Quebec," etc. •«!^- UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF E. LAFLEUR, Q.C., GORDON W. MacDOUGALL, OF THE MONTUEAI. BAR. OF THE MONTREAL BAR. VOIvUME I. JOHN LOVELL & SON, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS. 1899 katStt»^ti4i^.>i--J( " ^irti ■■«»^w^*« '"■ ' -v. :t<*. ■' g • m m ivai ' mx" < ^.0 ^ CITA^TIONS. Pyke's Reports Stuart's K. B. Reports Montreal Condensed Reports Revue de Legislation ... ... Lower Canada Reports Revue Critique Stuart's Vice-Admiralty Reports Lower Canada Law Journal Legal News Revue Legale Quebec Law Reports Montreal Law Reports, i Superior Court " " I Queen's Bench Lower Canada Jurist Dorion's Queen's Bench Reports Quebec Official Reports, i Superior Court " " I Queen's Bench Judge Mathieu's Revised Reports. Canada Supreme Court Reports ... Canadian Exchequer Court Reports English Law Reports, Appeal Cases. " " I Privy Council Appeals " " I English and Irish Appeals << " The Reports « " Moore's Privy Council Cases " " " " (new series) Cited as Pyke's Reports. Stuart's K. B. Rep. Montreal Condensed Reports. Rev. de Leg. L. C. R. R. C. Stuart's V. A. C. L. C. L. J. L. N. R. L. Q. L. R. M. L. P., I S.C. M. L. R., I Q. B. L. C. J. Dorion's Q. B. R. S. C. 1892, I Que. Q. B. 1892, I Que. R. J. R. Q. Can. S. C. R. Ex. Can. App. Cas. L. R., I P. C. L. R., I H. L. R. Moore P.^C. Moore P. C. (N. S.) (I « (( (< l( (( (( (( l( (I « (< (( <( l( y. 4-7. Death oi- Adskxtke — Certificate of — See VIII., 4. Dehts of Ahsentee. Effect of. Insolcencj/. 1. Succession. 2. Hypothecation of Property of Ab- sentee. Provisiuxai, Possessioxof E.state of ausextee. As to Time of. 1. Married Woman. 2-3 Petition. 4. Security. 5. 11. " ABSENTEE." 1. Meariing of Word.— The term "ab- sentee," used in Art. G15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not used in the restrictive sense ijf Art. 8G of the Civil Code, but applie-s to all persons who are not in the province arid who have no domicile therein, eilher (ictitioiis or real. Banque dc (Jiuebcc vs. Bri/unt, Foicis & Bryant, C. K., 18;)2, 1 Que. 53. 2. Tiie absence mentioned in Art 180 C. C. is not identical in nieanini; with that of Art. 8G C. C, and does not necessarily include, the conditi'ins therein mentioned. Turcotte vs. Kidet, C. It, 1803, 4 Que. 438. III. ABSENTEE COMPANIES. See Service. IV. ACCOUNTING. Art. 90 C. C— Curator.— Any creditor of an absentee can sue the curator to such absentee iu au action to account, such curator being the mandatary of all the creditoi-s. In such an action it is not necessary to call in the ebsentee by notice in the newspapers, the service of the curator being sutiicient. (1) Murphy vs. Knapp, S. C, 1853,4 L. C. R. 94, 4R. J.R. Q. 97. (1) " A (listinctiiMi is to lie obscrveil between this CISC imil tliiit cit' JVIiitnci/ vs. Hrr"-stir liii/ru No. X.), wliieli WHS II ilireet action au'iiiiisl llic curator of an ab.-iciitec, lo pay the iinioinit <>t Llie debt. On the principle eiuuiciatecl in tlie present ciLse. tliat tlio curator is tlio mandatary ut all the creditors, au action lies against him fur an aci'unnt as against any other agent, but no action lies directly against the curator for tlie payment of the debt, because, as viiis h Id in thcca.se cited, the statute (I'i Vic. ch. 38) has av)pointed ii special mode of proceeding .igaiiist the absentee himself." (Note bv Kilitor of Keport at p. 1)6, Vol. 4, L. 0. K.) 2 AllSKN'CK. V A/-Tinvvj \r\l\ST AHSI'NTr.K. ' Icii.liu.t Im.l i.ropcrty Ihcmn, an 1 liiul .Iff. ii- V, A( IIONS A(.A1NM '^"^'-y ' ^_^ , ,,,.„, ,,..,„„„||y ...rv.,1 in Unuuio. l)..fc.n.lunl 1. Jurisdiction.— (An. t',H ( . 1'. C - |,i,,,„|j,,| ,|,,cii„..ii,„.v fxccpiicii iiml i^snc johumI C.C.I \Vi,.iillH',iuri-(lictior,(.f llu' Court nvcr ,,,, ,,^,,| ,,^^,,|,,|„„ "„ liich wii:^ ,|iHn^^l■.l with ttb^.nM- .IqiHiM- upon llic po.sM.^-ion li.v »n ^.^^^^^ ^,^ t'»./'/iV v.-. O/.wV?/, S. C, 1.><7!)/J L. nl,-rnlirutnnwliu'li he ^ ,^^^. j.,,^, „,,„ j,, ,n„„. „,„„., easocf «■»(- wan MithMinncI, Mich i,.^M-M..n ...M't '"' I ,„,„,, ,,^_ /.,.„„/,,._ ,|,,ci, led :i I .-t l)(v„ 1 «T.^ S. C. nlliM-eil ill III.' .IccJiiiiilioii, luM provc.l. (M So.,.// v. /w-:w/..c. i:., i-MM.-Q. 1.. l!:i'^>'- 2. i.\rl. lis ('. 1'. Ci All alififii- tec ciiniiil 1 ,■ 1( -.■illy .-iiMiiiMiiir.l Iv ailvt-r- tisciiiciit >'N liif ;:r(M!iHi liKil !..• liii- propiily { J',^^"^" 'j.,;,;,!;,,,, ,„ ,'i,i, i>V,,vi„cc ol Oulnrio, i„ t|,i.«,li..|.-i,:i, wii.Mi llir evi.lriicc ^Ii.av.-^ llial | ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ .^^^^^^ ^__^ piopcity i:i llu' I'nAiiu'e N.I. ■.'(;:!. 7, (Alt. C'.i C. I*. ('.) Til.' C.'Uits in III,. I'mviiMC '.!■ (Ju.ii-.- Lav.' im iniis- liicti.'ii ill iimtli'is piiiily p.'iMii.al. iivci' pi'i' such pi'.ip.cHy CI iiHi-lr- iniTcly ot a Imii, ixit ],nHlii.nl 11. 'I- pi-.'M'l I" h' II' ll"' p"-^>--i'"i ''f thc.icl.'U.lHiit, (1) I'firidX Lnmiii,-^ I"'-'- .1. .IS, (l I!., l.STil. 3. Ah^.iil .l.l't'inlatit> wii.i liir.i' lia.i ii'i .Iniiiicili' ill l.<'"i'r Caiiu.la imi-t J,o.'.^^^'^- ri:il.'i- piTMiiiiil p^'piTly uitliiii lln' ijii-ti'i.i whc'ii' ihi' Mill i' in.-tiluU'.l. Ic ^'iv.' juri-ilii'ti'iu III till' C.iurl : ami pr.'i.irty .ifliii' li.'l.ii.lani- wilhiii ihc .ii-iru'l ..f Quel...' li.'M hv a ivMil.iil uilhiii ill.' 'liMn.'l .ll' M.iiilr.iil ^ . , ,. . I I ,. I . ,1 , ,1 , (ll ihi' i!i-t] ill .ir .-lu-uit u hi I'l' hi.-; iiiiipiiiy H is II.. I i.i..pirly i.f ll.f .1. h ii.laiil^ wiihiii 111;- *" '" '' ' _^ ,, . , . i ,' ,1^.. (li..-tlict ..I' Mclllrcal. ill Finl/lilli/ln(l,l v-. lirockvilh A- Oll'iira Hi/. C- , i'^. •'., l."."''.*. .'t 1, ,('..!. ■j"i'.'. 9- SiimmoiiH. . I ^I,|^ OililC 1'. C. i;!M', ('.I ol' iiiipKa.hii.' an iil'.-riiUc 1- li\ lallini;- Imii III ,,r gii.'Icr, wliin ihc taUM' nl . :;i.ii 'hi n"' ari-i' ih. ri'iii. aii.l lli.y have iiol h.i'ii pciMHi- allv s.'ivcl within 111.' 1. iTitiuia: Jiiri.-ili.'ii.ni ,i|' -ii.'li ('i.iirl.-<. ll) Giie^t V-. CV/7t', C. Cl. l--;, 111 I,. .\. l.'.ii. 8. Choice of. -(.\ii-. li-^. Ill' ('' 1'. C.i—Dobt.— W'li.Ti' ai: al.-iiilic lia< • In.cU.l a .Ifhl al'i..a.l, hi- ■:rr.iil..r .-.•in .'iil.t'i- .MK' hiin lilorc till' ('..lilt ..I'lhi' lii-lrici i.r .'ii'- uit whi'i-i' 111' lia.i hi- .loini.iii', or hi'l'..!.' ihat Ihi' ill-tiirl ..r i-iu-uit uh. i'.' Iii.s |.iiip.liy in .iliialiil. I'lii-ih'i.i V.-. Viicxiiiiii, >< A'.. \ »■'■'<, Ml. I,, i; 117. (I'.s C. 1'.) Til.' only ii.o.lc An aclion ai;ain,-l an al.-iiili'.' i.-i.hii;.' in the Uiiilc.l Slali'.-i, aii.l who ha.- in 1 l.icii p.'T- Hoiiallv scrvfil, will he .li>iiii-^( il en il.rlin- atory cxi'i'i'lion, i( ihr plainlill' fails lo (.rovc that ihi' ild'omlant ha- propiTly wiiliin ih.' jiirisiliction ..f ihc Coiirl. (I) llediii 14 \>. llni- die. S. C, l.S-l. l.-. U. 1.. 11. 5. . . (.\i-t. IIS C. ]'. C.| Di'fcn.lant |.v an a.lvci'li-i'iiirnl. iin.U-r llif pi'..\i-ion> of r.ii'.lllii si'clioii .'1' ;lu' .lui'i-.li.iioii .\cl. I'i \'i.'. , Ca] . .'!-■ Whiliii fi \r. luiir.tli r, ."s. ('., hs.VJ,:! 1., C. I!. l:il, 1 It. .1. K. II 'JM. 10. Transfer.— (l.''Tl (./) C (') Till' .-i^'i.ilicatioii of a Iraii-ft'i'iijioii an ah-inlcc ikl.lor, hy li'iivinir a copy thi-r.'ol' wilh hi.-i aL'i'iil. is iii.-ii^liciciil, ilic law prcscnhiii;; an- liei,,},' Slid in Munlical ilcclincl the juris- '"1"''' ' 1'' ''.v art. .-^-l t I!. S. (.1. (I.-,71 (a) diction, on lhcj;r..un.l that ihc ri.L'hl of action ^- ^^ _ /''•";'«'■' ^■■^- /'"'"''""■'•. ('■ '!- I^''"^ "i (li.l not orifiiiiate there, that he hail not heen ^i- '- I'-l'^- personally serv.'.l th.re, ami that he was not 11. BailitT's Return— Sum- (loiuicileii there hut in New York. The mons by Newspaper. — (iW C P. C.) A hail- Siiperior Court inaiiilaiue.l the e.\cc|)tion, ill's return O'l a writ of siiininons, stati'i;; but ill Iteview the jiiilgiuent was reverse.!, on " that he lias taken the necessary steps to the grouiul that the ileteiulant had ])ropcrty lind the defendant in order to serve the writ and money within the jurisdiction. (1) Mac- \ upon hini, ami that he was iiiforined that the Donald vs. Mackaij, C. It, 1.S79, 2 L. N. 301, ! defendant had left the Province of Quebec, and and Q. B., 1880. 0. (Art. 611 C. 1'. C.) Action for recovery of debt incurred in Ontario. Both plaintiff and defendant were domiciied in that province. Plaintiff took action in Province of Quebec, alleging that de- (1) It is no longer necessary, under Arts. 68 or 6!) C. C. P. 118 amended, that an absentee sliould liave property in this province to give tlie court* jurisdic- Mon over him. (Katettn vs. Late, S. C, 18iW. 4 One 391.) . H . that he no longer had lii.s domicile within the limits of the town of Sorel where iie can serve him," is not siiflicient (the writ (=tating that the defendant wa.s heretofore of the town of Sorel, and is now absent from the Province of Quebec, but owns real estate in the town of Sorel) to authorize asunainons by newspaper, and in such case the action will be dismissed on exception to the form. Corporation de Sorel vs. Newton, C Ct„ 1871, 3 R.L, 394. Mj w i i w ii i jwum m vmt fm m ABSKNCK. y 12. (6i) C. C. P.) Loave to hitvc a writ of HuriiinonH in Oiitiirio, iiiuli'i' nrt. ()!• C. C. P., in siillicient, if miiicxcd to llio writ ill u se|)>inite ^'il('t't, witiioiit Ikmii;; en- (loiscii ill writiii;.' iip'iii tiic writ. Kilhiini v.-. mml, C.IL, l.sso, M. L. K., ;! S. C. 170. 13 Bailiff's Return.— .\ n- turii of service .«eltiii;; forlii llie ulisoiicu of tlii' (leli'iiiiaiit in irrei^iiliu' wiieii tlic hiiilitl' ci-rli- fli'.^ tliat lie niiiilt' llic sprvice ut the oilim' i.f tilt.' I'mil'diiiiiiUT i it siioiiM liiivf rend timt 111' liinl ilopusiicil ft u'ljiy of tliu notion in tiic ollii'f of tlic I'rotiionoiiiry. lint tliis irrt'jrnliu'ily is sulliciciitly uovcrcl liy the orli-r of tlioConil iicrniitling tlie r('<.'iiliii- snriinioii-^ of iJi'tViidiiiit liy iu'\vs|)ii|ji.M'. ('((rlio>iiii'((ii. v. r,(//rV, S, (J.,"ls;)'J,'i (^11,.. '271. 14. (C'.l ('. <;. I'.) V/liciv spvvici- is iinlliori/fil to be inmlo in Ontiiri", a prr- fjiiiial st'i'vii'i.' in uucoi'ijunci' \sh\i the law of tliat rnivinec as pi-nvcii in tin' can-i' is vali'i. I'liiaoiUKiiilf \~. t'lihiiii''', S.C., Is.ss, M. L. K., •I S. (.'. 2.V,.'. k; It.!;, illltl. \i. .\('rioN i;v iii':iu of ai!s::ntee. Attachment iu Rovc^ndication. — .\ii acliun in icvcn'lii'alii.n lunudl lie niainliiincii liy the pri'-niM|iliv(' iicir to tlii! cslalc anil snr- cession ipf an ali-i'niet', if lie [>!_• ntit cnifattJi' to tilt' oslate ol' siu.'li ali--fiitfi', or ciilitleil to tin' ])o.sspssion tlit'ivof ljy virtue of an order for provisidiial pos^c-si.jn, or llic doatli of llic abscntft'. Gauriii v>. t'nroii, K. B., ISl'J, 2 Ufv. dp Ia-. 277. Vlir. CKRATOR. See also Clt..\ti;iisiiii'. 1. Appointment. — The measnreH provided by law fur the prdteetion of the jiroperly of absentees, and notalily the appointineiit of a cnrator, aretjf aconsei vatory nature and essen- tially favorable to tiie absentee. '1 lieivfore the knowledge on i lie part of a relative who did not assist at the family council, that the ab- sentee still e.xisis, is not alone sufficient to dis- pense with conservatory nieasnres. It i.s the duty of the Court lo maintain these measures provisionally where it judges it best in the interest of the absentee. Further, the absentee always has it in his power to put an end to the etFecta of these measures by returning or by sending a power of attorney ; but so long as he does not see fit to do so, they must be main- tained. Chaput va.Ghaput, C. R., 1893,3 Que. 136. 2. Absent Son— Mother.— The mother may be appointed ciiratrix to her absent Hon. Ex parte Kineliii \'itli- (/itelle, S. C in Chambers, \HHl, 7 L. N. 70. 3. (C. C. (iHl, C. 1'. C. .'ilU.) Where a per-^on, domiciled and residing abroail, dies there, leaviii;; puiperty in the Pro- vince of (Jiiebec, and nolio ly conies forward to claim it. and he has no known heirs, his es- tate III regard to such properly will be declared vacant, and upon demand of a creditor a cura- tor wll! be appointed to hiiuIi jiroperty. De- chine vs. Jicidtlieii, S . C, 181)4, (1 Que. 8, conlirnu'd in lieview 2."i May, 181)1. 4. Action by— Certiflcato of Death of Absentee. — In an action by siicli I'lir.'itor again-t a delit(ir, in this province, ofthesiic- ces,-,ion, the following certilicati' of biiiial is siillicieiit to e.-talili.-li the decea-^e of the ab- sentee, \\'.. : •' This certilies that 1, William Kerr, sextan of the City of Calais, attended the interment (jf the reniain-^ ol lln' late I'^dward C. Goodiiow, and till following is c true copy of the rrravd as Urpl by me, to uit : •■ Mr. Ivhvard C. (!oodiiow. interred in Calais (.'emclery, Febr. 17, lalll, ageil .'ID years 3 iiioiiih-. Lot 1' Xorthwi'st, 20 fee, iVuni main avenue. " Wll.I.lAM IvKlUi, Sexlon." 5. ifiuv)-'' : Is the .act of curatorshii) a [ire- siiinption of death ? {Ui.) 0. Petitory Action. — A curator to an aliseiitee canni;t bring a petitory' action, the result of which might be to cause the ab- sentee to lose his rights in the immovable claimed by the action. He can onU' liring such actions as relate to the administration of the property. Parent vs. ,S< JiiC(/ui:K, S. C, 18(17, 2 H. L. 91. 7. Liability of —Petitory Ac- tion. — A cnrator to an absentee who brings a jjetitory action in his quality as cniator, wliicli action is dismissed becau.se it is a real action and therefore beyond his powers, can be made personally liable for the cost.s of such action. Sl.Ja.ques vs. Parent, C.Ct., 18(')S,2 K. L, 95; and see W/iitney vs. Brewster, 4 L. C. J, 298, S. C, 1855. X, DEBTS OF An action does not lie again.st a curator to an absentee for a debt due by such absentee. (1) Lepage vs. Monier, C. li., 1886, 12 Q. L. R. 9; Wliitnet/ vs. Brewster, 3 L. C. R. 431, 4 R. J. R. Q. 29. (1) See Supra No. IV. A15SENCK-ACC0UNTS, ACCOUNTING, XI. EFFKCT OF. 1. Insolvency .-.\n ab-entce over wI.ohc inipTty a -imr.lmii Iuih Ix't'i. iippninHMl, under Art 7H() (". ('. r., \x iiiM'lvt'Ml in llie sfiine of theluHt,.Hni^'ra|.lM.tAil. IW-iCC. Ih'lutime VH. y'n///<', C. It., l«l"M'''^i- ''•''■ -•■^■'^• 2.Succo8Bion.-(l<'l<'.('.) A!«THni. who :h bh absentee at the In 'Illn' oi.i'iii">: ot n toMlmiieiiliiry Hiiccession in fuvur .if lniM«'lf aiMl ..tlicr co-lieirH,nn'l wlio i-< '■HH 'i*'^""^ caMMot .ImiT \u tlie ,M,rlilinM <,f tl.e ...tate- neillierottM liin |,rcsiiiM|'live lit'"'- i'vail tlit'in- Helvi- of lii- ^liiire. /.flic/'"- v-. Liirlor, .S. C, 1M92, 'J iiw- •"'•'-• XII. IIYI'OTIIICC.VTION OF THO- I'HllTY OF AMSHNTFKS. (1) XIII. I'llOVlSIO.VAI- I'OSSHSSION OF K.Sl'ATEOF AIJSFNTFK. 1. ABtoTimeof.-('.tl,'.».'iC (;.) Tlic ihtIo.I at wlii.'li Ihf lii'irs .if an iidsontoe >xu- entitlcl tuaii onliM' rui-ii(.s<(.ssi,in iim>i In' (IcIcriiiuuMl by llic l(';;.'il 'Involion of llif I'oiirl iux;oraiii;; to .Mfciimsliuioe.-. Exp. B'llet, 2 U.'v. de Leg. 277, K. H. isl". 2 Married Woman— Absentee Hus- band.— A wirfciiiiiiiiiiii as In pnipcrty, uiioM' lUl^^bun(l liu- 1m en alisciit f.ir 10 yciirs •■iviiiiot Biic ill licr name foi' inovrulile |iro]HTty specially given to her diiriii^' lier Im-^liamrs absence; aueh properly lalls into the cimniniiily, and the wife cannot brinj! an aclinii to recover it, even with a judii^al anthori/alion, until die ]\a- liren ]iul in provisional po>.-e.-sion of the j.roperly of her iili-mlee hndiand. Ihi.vjlva vs. /.,-2«».',c.Ct., ihhi,i:;q. 1. U. •2ti2. 3. liiil the wile of an absenli'e husband whose wiiereahouls is nnUnowii, can beanlhorized liy ajndge to institute jiroceediiifis in re<:ard to injuries a<;ainst her, such as liht-ls against her character, although strictly speak- in;; the daniii;;es recovered in such cases are assets of the coioniunity. Tinro/te vs. Nolcf, C. 11. 18a:i, 4 Que. ■I'i-', and see J>af-i/h-(t vs. Lizotte.nQ. L. K. 2i;2. 4. Petition— Security.— The petition lor provisional possession ninsl contain a state- ment seitinj: forth not only the property of the 8UCce.ssii.ni in which the absentee has a siiare, (1) Tlie propcvty of iil>senter9. so loiij! as it is only pvovisionaUy ln-lil. cannot l>i! liyimtliei-ated (itlici-wisu than in virtue of jiuliinienis, or lor tlie causes ami Bul)ject to the fonnaliiii'.-^ estalilished I'y Unv. C. C. Art. L'03'.i. but alHo the share of the property accruing to the absentee, so that the Court can determine the amount of security to lie ;iiven by the petitioner for his a(lniinistrati..ii. Ex parte Ih!,roslwh,S.C., M2, 4lt. L.:iH9. 5. Security-Hcirs.-Where several |)rc- HUMiptive heir's have been put in possession, on comlition that they furni-h security, and Home uf them refuse to put up their share, thoHO who do fuinish the security will alone be put in posHessioii. ])iiii>c/iir yf. Lauzon,8.C., IHHU, 12 1M-. 40;!. ACCESSION. See OwNKiisiiif. ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTING. I. AcCofMS, .-VCTIoN oN. Iliihiifi: (if Act- 1. Piirtii'iildis. 2. Serricc ul Ccp;!. o. JI. ACCOtSTS, AClillKSCKNCi; IS. III. ACCOINTS CoXTKSrnloX of -Sl'KCll'I- C.VTIOX 01-' IrKMH. IV. AccoiXTS, Kkniikri.m:.— .See alsoNo. VI. i'lixls o/. 1. Form. 2 ."i. Furiinilitii s. (I. Side, w'li.ii I 'jfiifdleiit tu vendcrimj (III Jcniiinl. 7. Sim res. i<. Toparhj ciitilldl '.>. Vniirliern. 10-1.'!. V. An oTNTs, Si,tti,i:mi:.nt or. Eviiliiifc. I. Ihilc (if lldxipt. 2. VI. AcilO.N' To .\lcorM. Acc.lliif ic.l r,,nfr>;l,,J. 1-2. Aibiiiiii.'. ('(i)ii]nil.ii(iii. ()■ ('iiipiirdliiiii. 7. iJiiiiur (iii'l Dance. ^. DaiHiHil (if new Accoiuif. 9-12. JJificli(ir;ie—E[fcvt of. 13-20. E-xcciitur.^-. 21. JJeim ul Lmc, 22. Inda-isil,Ui(ij (if. 23-24. Judijineiit tu Acciiiiiil. 25. Lesser mid Ijesset. 20-27. Purliws. 28-;i0. ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTING, Procedure, DfhntKih C'nmpt<\ .Il-.'IT. I'ledilini/ — ( 'imtraiUctury Acer- ntent.i in Plea. H8-;W. Pleadhfi. 40. PlemHiii/ — Tciiiln- of Arcount hf- fore Act ion. 11 4'2. Principal uud A(/enl. 1.'!. (See iilto under litli' Ageucij.) Proceeds of .S'a/c of Tiiiihcr. 41. Peine,!!/. 4r.-l9. Tutor. .lO-,",;!. (.S'(y; ulnii under title Tntorsliif),) Where Dejendani loilx to render an Account. ')(-,')"). Wlien I'renhiture 50. Wlien .{ciiiunt a Vitniiidde not ai'- ceptid. Cu. Sec also AiisKxci:, AiiKxcv, KxKcnoiis. I'llKSCIlII'TION. I. ACCOrNTS, ACITON ON. 1. Balance of Aocount.— Altliungli tlnic may be u iloiilit aljout tlic kiml of iiclioii to Im> hrouf;lii ajriiiiist u dflilor, yet i1k> pluintid'caii recover on a lialiiiiuf of account iidniitlccl liy tliPilc'fenilaiil to \.v ilue liini. Miller vs. Snell, s. c.i8(;:i, 7 L.(;. .1. 'itf^- 2. Particulars. —A i)aiiy liriii;.'iii;: s,iit for recovery of the ainoiint of an aceouiit stated and settled, will, iiotu illistaiidiiig liis declaration lliat lie relies altnj.'ether ii])oi. the aclinowled^rineiil, he nlili;:ed to funiisli fur- ther particulars. /.iiljli(< \f. McKenzle, 101,. C. U. 77, C. ('. I^HO. 3. Service of Copy— (Art. ',»!> C. C. P) In an action on an acconnt, it is not iiecessai'y to serve a co|iy of tiie acconnt with the action, it lieinjr sullicient to produce such copy when the action is returned intoconrl. Mofl'ntt \!i. Otiiniit, V. C. ls7r., r, li, ].. 711. Moreaii, V C. IHS'.t, lH Moore P. C. '^1^>, 10 L. C. I{. Ht, No. Vr. 5:t, infni. 2 (,ine»tion of acquienceiice in accounts as sued upon, liv payments and other acts of reco>;nition at various periods. WiUitiin.i Mnfg.Co. VH. Malo, Q. 15. 1H88, :)2 L. C. .I.fit!. III. ACCOUNTS, CONTESTATION OF -SPECIFICATION OF ITHMS. When an aijent or lei-tamenlary executor, in rcnderin;; an account, cliarjjes amounts for repairNof the property admini«tered, the parly ciuitesiin.: must specily in his conleslalion of account which i'ems he admits and w hich he contests. Miliar vs. fereillc, S. C IMS.",, M. L. |{., 1 S. C. Hi.'. I IV. ACCOUNTS, llICNDEHlNa. II. ACCOUNTS, ACQUIHSCEN't'K IN. 1. By Paymenta.—Whereadehtor has bills or accounts rendered to him, siiowinjr certain amounts as ,!ue liv him to his creditor.s, and remits sums of money from time to time on ac- count of the amount clainu'd, without ques- tiouiu}: the (•orrecmess of siudi accounts, he thereby acquiesces in liie same, and cannot afterwards di.spute them. Dndleij vs. Ddrlimj, Q. J'.. IsHli, ,!0 L. C. J. :i01), .M. K. II , 2 Q. B. 458 : WiUiiims Mannfacturinij Co. vs. Malo, Q. B. 1888, 32 L. C. J. (itj. .See also Mottz v.-. 1. CostSoC.—Chai'i^es of §75 for an. inven- tory, and .'?75 for an acconiit betori a notary, of a -uccedsion where ihe amount is small, but the \ detailed, are not e.\- ces.sive. M'Ujirsn. Ijilri illc.'!^. C. bs87,M.L. R., H S. C. I'.IO. 2. Form. — Appeal was taken fromajudg- ment of the Court, condnnninj; the appellant to render an account to the respondent under an ajireemenl to advance niomy for the build- inj; of a ship, to be reimbursed out of the pro- Cecils of the sale of the ship, li.^cther with c.\pen-^es and cbarj:es, etc. Held, that .such ail acconnt need not be in the Ibrm of an account of tutorship, but niay be made in the ! Usual commercial form Si/iiic.t v^. Liimpnon, 5 U. C. K. 17, g. B. l.^,-,4, 1 It. .1. 11. (.». •.!70; 3. (Art. 52.'! C. C. P.) An ac- ; count rendereil and fyled under a judgment of the Court will be rejected as iriegnhir, if it docs I not e.sliibit the lliice beads of receipts, tli.s- bnrseiuents, and what remains to be recovered. I Cure, y allidavit tliat tlie voiiclier.s are ill tlie f' ""snioii iif third p;u'tii',«. C/ieralier vs. Cii i>, M. I.. R., 1; Q. B. 22S; con tinned in prop'"'' l«lance (i,;e hy defendant — //tW, on Supreme Vl.. ]'A {"an. .S. '\ R. .'U!*; see also ; '''^' evidence, that the settlemeiit would be Si. Aithiii vs. SI. Afihin, Q. li. l.'sT.^, 1 L. X. llii. 8. Shares-Transfer of— In an action to rend( r an accouiii, in w liieh delendant is (uin- denmed to pay plaintiirone-thiid of sueli bal- ance as may he in his hands, and wherein the iiiaintained. J)ii/ii iiiie vs. Ayolfc, :', L. N. 27;!, Q. H. l.snd. 2. Date of Receipt.— Where to an action for a balance of aceonnt the defendaiii pleailed (hat tlieaccdiint wa- settled liy liein;: receipted acro-s the face nf it, td which the plaintiil lietendant ri'ii(lersiinaccdiii,t,acK-nowleil,L'ingto "''swercd that there was no date to siiidi re- have a certain balance on lia;,d in ca-li and a ^^'H>i, b'l! the jiarly v. Ik, >i;r||,,| j| (vas Immiriit niiinber of siiares in a miniiiL' and siin Itini; company, lie cannot becondeimud, r/jjoa'/snch shares, lodr more than traiisferihe third there- (Hlm.jiir, 1 L. C. L. ,1. iin. ,S.C. Isil.'i of to plaint 111; and. in delanlt dfsodoinj;-. to jiiiy an ainonnt ei|nivaleiil tn their jiar value. FoJeii vs. SInart, ij. H. IsTo. 2(1 1.. C. .1. l.S:). 9. To Party Entitled.— (.\ it. o22 ('. c. I'.) The ac'dinit must he rendered iidiiii- nalely to the party entitled lo ii. T,,,//,/ vs. Ilicl,tcr,S. C. K-.-<:i. 17 K. L, CKi. 11)1 and swdreas lu the A-Mv—//J,/, snllicieiil, ami phiintiirs a.tion dismis.-ed. ll'i.s/niw v.s. VI. .\CTI().\ TO ACCOrXT. 10. Vouchers in ha.-^ds of Plaintiff' Aclii'ii to account 1. Account not Contested— Res judi- cata.-(Arl. o.iOC. C. 1'.) An interldontory .ind.'Menl, ad.ptih,;:- wilhniit oppo-itioi, the ac- count of a .-nrce.-ion piepaved by Us order, pa-es//( rt.iijniU,;it,ini,:M it is iini e,„„petent Cor the represeniative^ df i, mi,,,,,., who was Aclidn toaccount l.clueen ,p,„ndani partner. K,„..||, ., ' ' "' " '" "''' i'i'^^W '1'"' i> "■'■^ I.- plamtiir td r „der an ' ' ' ""' '" ''"''' ""' '"''^ account, as he h, , ,n nis possessmu the bo,,;: ^:^Tt:7T\ '""''''"''"' '"""^" "'" and papers of the ,,artnersh,p. Pleaoverruled , ' "'"■''' '""•' ''^'''^ ami delendant condemiKd to rendei a , ''l? ':!''' <'' f"''^"'"""" '''■n'McM vs. ' render an account. I'oiccU vs. Jones; S. C. I,S7:i, :>. ],. X, ;J2-, , ■ ^11 ■'>" action to accouii', in which an lux.unt l,a,l already been rendered but not aocepled, and phiintiH' had all the papers and vouchers in his po.ssession. defen- McGilhna,/, K. U |s;!|, .siuart'.- Rep. .(70. 1 R. d. R. Q., ■!(;(). Seealsd mi.un, vs. MrChi're 1 Rev. deli'g. ;i.-,l,K, ij. isui,. "■ (•'-" ^'- C. 1'.). When tlie accouni a-ked fdr by an action to account ■■•^ bled inlhecaM.,an,itlie plamtills ne-lect to cotite>t it within lifteen davs thereafter, the dam was i^rdered t.i account in three weeks fr. 1 the time plaintitr should produee the „hno„r. i i, , ' "" " pnper,. 7'm»W„y vs. ,W„/» S C IhhT a l'''^'""'-^ '"•<■ held to have admii.ed the co a- IM.S7!».2.1L. C d. l.ll,;iLX. 24 irt, ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTING. 3. Administration of Sec-Treas. of School Commissioners.— An account of the ndiiiinistratioii of tlie secretary-treasurer of scliool conmiissioiicrH iinist he rendered before action can lie bronglit for balance due lii.n. Dorais vs. School Commissioners of Warwick, Q. Ji. 1877, 9 U. L. 101. 4 Balance of Account— Costs.— (Art- 52(j C. 'J. P.) Where llie account rcmlered shows a lialaiice in fav'or of the jijiiintifl', the party rendering' it cantiot prevent the party de- inaiuiin^ it lro,n exacting the provisional pay- ment of the balance, iuni the defendant cannot retain it until tlie Court adjiidire upon the costs of the action lor the jiurpose ofajjplying it to the payment of such costs. Cirard vs. I'rerosf, S. C. l«s;), 18 R. ].. U. 5. Churchwardens — Bishop. — ''he Roman Catholic bishoj) lia.s no authoritv to compel tlijclinrchwardensof a jiarish to render an account of tlieir gesiion in ollice ; but an ac- tion toaciount can be maintained fur that pur- pose by the Fahrii/itc Falirii/uc de St. Jean Port Jiili/ vs. (•!((, uinard, K. 15. Is20, 1 Rev. de Leg. ,i52, 2 Rev. de Leg. 270, 2 R. J. R. Q. 241. 8. Compulsion.— (Arts. 9 & ,j21 C. C. P., 227.') C C ) In an action to accimnt — Held, that tlie defendant may be compelled to render an account either by pecunii'-y condemnation or by coercive imprisoinnent. Hmjexx^. David, 3 Rev. de Leg. 215, 2 R. J. R. Q. 2S7 ; Corp. Coiin/i/ of Chnmbbj vs. Loinjret.S. C. 18,VJ, 4 L. C .1. 12.5, Q. R. 1S48. 7. Corporation— Stockholders.— a S9u C. C.) A stockholder in a joint-stock com- pany may bring an action to acci^uiit against the corporation, and tiiereby cuntesi ilie val- idity of a by-law made by its board ol'direcitors. Key^ V-'. T/ib Quebec Fire Assurance Co.. K. B. mo, Stuart's Rep. 425, 1 R. ,1. R. Q. ;!3:(. 8 Donor and Donee— Rectifloation of Account.— The appellai '-'. Iiv deed of dona- tion, gave to the respon(' , n'ir mother, five | pieces of property, subject to the charge of pay' .g hypothecs to the amount of $,5, 000, and to tne I'ppellants a life rem of !*28H. This continueil till Die 2nd of Feliruury, ISSl when, by another deed, the donation was an millcu. Respondent rendered an account of the administration of appellants' property, which they iiccepted, rcscreiiii/ to thcinselres tlie rigid to verifi/ the receipts then produced li;/ the respondent, and to claimfrom the latter the amount of all errors or omis.iions in their favor. 'I'he appellants brought an action of debt and to rectify the account. Held, by the Superior Court, that the re.spondent was not the mandatary of the appellants when slie ren- dered the account, and owed them no accour.t, ' and that therefore an action for rectification ; did not lie against her. This was conlirmed by the Queen's Bench. Darceauvi>. Darveau, Q. R., Quo., 8th May, 1884 (not reported). I 0- Damand for New Account.— Where I an account has been rendered and accepted, the tutor cannot be called upon to render I another account without a demaml to have the i lirst account set a=ide. Desgroseilliers v.s. I h'iendcau, Q, B. 187;i, Ramsav's Digest G, ! 24L. C. .J. 170. 10. All action to account will be diMuissed on demurrer, if it appears by the I allegations of the declaration that tiie defend- ant has accounted, and that .here has been a settlement, if there be no conclusions to .set the settlement aside. ChecaVee \» Lurillier, I Q. B. 1879, Ramsay's Dig. p. (1, 2 J.. N. 2:i9. I I 11- Where an administrator has I rendered an account to his ward, and paid j over tlie balance apparently due to her, which account and lialance have been accepted by her, she cannot sue for anew account without conclusions to set asiile tlie former account. }' accepted without any objection the accounts rendered by his agent of hi.s administration, he is not entitleii to sue for 8 a complete nccount of tlie entire )icrio(l of ml- ministration. Wliero errors in the accounts rendered are di.'^cov jred snhseqnently, tlie ])ro- per proceeding is nu action to rcctuy tl»<' account, a.-kin;: tliat snoli err.ns be corrected, and lliat tlie l.i:;ance due lie paid. Skphens & GiUrspi,; M. L. R., 3 Q. B. llH, and Si.pren.e Court, 18S,-), 14S.C 11. 70il. 15. The jn'inci|,ai, who lia-J aniic- alily accepted froiii his agent a verlial state- ment of iiis administration with v(iucher-,ca'i notsnb.seqiieiitly exact from liim a regular ae count ; but if i'e discovers an error, must jiro- ceed by way of actioi; to reclity the account. Cancan vs. Bimnemi, S. G. IHOli, li Qn- 282 ; and see Dorian vs. Durldii, 20 Can. S. C. ii., at p. 41)7, Tascliereau, .J. 16. Where an agent ha- rendered accounts of his gestion and administration to his priiu;i[ial, and such accounts have been duly received by the principal, without any objection being made thereto, an action to account will not lie. Cummiiuj vs. Twjlov. S. C. 18511, 4 L. C. J. line. 17. Wln-re a discharge has pre viously been given, a,; action to accoi'.nt cannot be broiig'.it without an iillcgatioii of fraud or eri'or. ScIkkiI fVimw/.vs/oHrrs vs. Banlicii, S. C. ls,-,l), I L. t;,.l. 12H. 18. Where the accoimt rendered by a tutor, or one actingasa tutor, wasirregti- lar, and rendered without vouchers, he luiiy be compelled to accotint anew, hy an actmn seeking to set aside the former acronnt as ir'i gular and irandiilent, although there may lie a notarial discharge. Milli'r vs. Ctilciiiiui. (}■ V>.. June, l.sT.'i, K'ani. Dig. s. 10. The plaintiiV in liis nctiiMi alleged that he represented S. 1)., on<> nf the Htihstilutes, in virtue of a deed of ri.4eii-e and subrogation, by whicli it appeared 1:( bad paid lo S. D.'s iiltorney, for in I nu behalf of the di'feiidant, a sum i f417 7s. (i^l., the defendant baviui: in an ■. on ;o account .-icltled by notarial deed of s. rmcii with the said S. I)., for the sum of 81, Olio, ■vhich he agreeil to pay, and for which amount the plaintilf lieeame Mirety 7/'/'/, thai as the notarial deed of settlement gave the defendant a full and complete discharge of all liability to account as cnratr(J,'l R. .1. R. Q. 52, 1 Rev. de Leg. 352, K. B. 1820. 23. Indivisibility of Account- An action to account is by its nature indivisible. P. A. A. D. (respondent), as representing the I institutes anil substitutes under the will of the ■ late J. n., bronght an action against il. B. T, . 1). (appellant), who was one of the institutes, and had acleii as aiiministrator and (Uirator of . the estate for a certain time, lor an acccnmt i of three pariicular sum-, whicli the plaintift' alleged the defendant had received while he ■ was cnratDr. Hdd, reversiiiL' the jiidgnienl of the Court , Ik'Iow (18 R. I,, lil.'i), that an action did not I lie agaiiisl \\\v appidlanl for tlie-e [larticnlar j sums apart from and distinct from an actiou for an account of his administralion of the rest i of the estate Durian vs. D(jri(iii, Supreme I Cl. ls91,20Can. S. C. R. 430. j 24. .\n account must be accepleil I or rejected in its entirety. /'(/»•' vs. /'(()■(?, Q. B. IsO.l. ■> Que. 4S0. (Reversed in SnpreiiR. Cl., 23 S. ('. R. 'ji:),on other grouiidsj ; anil see Bilodraa vs. U.iuiud, C. R. 18h7, 13 (J. L. R. 181 ; confirmed ill A])peal 1th Feb., 1888. 25. Judgment to Account— Execu- tion. — A judgment to account within thirty days does not become executory de piano by the lapse of thirty days. Cur6dc nmuharmds 91 ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTING. vs. liobillard, Q. B. 1879, Ram. Dig. 11, 2 L. N. 23G. 26. Lessor and Lessee.— Where the rent was to he ileterniiiied by the value of the articles nianufactnreii in the premifes leased— ILId, that tlie le-asor could not maintain nii action to account. Yonvg vs. MeiklejoJin, 2 R. J. II. Q. 54, 1 Itev. de Leg. 351, K. B. 180;». 27. Wiiere a farm is leased, and tlie rent is to be half of the annual proceed* ■ and is (o he paid and delivered to the landlord, an action to account can he niainiuined against tlio tenant. Bainhridjc vs. Demers, 2 H- J. R. Q. 54, 1 Rev. de Log. :i52, K. R. 1819. 28. Partners— Breach of Contract.— An action to account cannot he maintained by a person claiming a right to .share in a part- nership, in virtue of an agreement whereby he is to receive a certain portion of the prolits in lieu of salarvi when he has virtually bro- ken tlie contract by witbihawing himself from Ihe partnership before the e.'jpiration of tlie time stipulated in the agreement, and before the business of the same has been closed. Miller vs. Smith, Q. H. 18(10, 10 L. C. R. 304. 29. Books.— Where the books of a partnership are kejit in such a condition that it is impo.ssible to render an account ihercof.and plaintitl kept the books : on action by plaintiff' against his partner to account, after dissolu- tion of the jiartnersbip, the Court ordereij the debts due to the firm to be divided equally between the two partners, each payinghis own costs. Pinrell vs. Holih. Q. li. .Montreal, Ifilh June, 1871). (DeReileleuille ('. C, Art. 1898, No. 10.) 30. — V/M:ere one pirtner sues an- other in an action to accuunt, be is not bound to allege that he has hims<'lf remiered an account ; or that be is not obliged to render an account; it is suflicient to allege that the defendant has in his po>si'ssion property- or .sums of money belonging to the partnership e.xistiiig lietween them, an account of which has not been rendcreil. Uoij vs. Gniit/iicr, Q. B. ISSO; 1 Dorioii, Q. B., Rep. OC; Gaii- tJiier ya Roy, ib., p. 149. 31. Procedure— Contestation of Ac- counts — Where in an action to account, the defendant admits his obligation io render an account , and produces an account with his plea,and the plaintiff, in spite of the irregularity of the account, declares he will not contest its form ; hut proceeding in answer to the plea, debates the account and contests certain items tlierein ; and where defendant iloes no', rejily to such contestation, but proceeds to proof, the Court can pronounce upon the merits of the action at the same time as on the contesta- tion of the account. Armour vs. Mclver, C. R. 1891,21 R. L.353. 32. Although in an action to account the proper amf legal method of pro- cedure requires that, uiion the production of (he account by the party rendering it, the plaintiff demanding the account must, if he refuses the account rendered, produce a con- testation of account ; yet where the plaintiff, instead of filing such contestation answers the plea, denies its allegations, and con- cludes lor its dismi.s.-al, ami the parties there- upon consent to go to proof, the ("ourt will proceed to render judgment and es- iblish an account between the parties, as tiiougli tliey had proceeded regularly. Thomns vs. Cowh:, S. C. 1889, M. L. R.,r,"s. C. 175. 33. Wiiere a defendant suod in an action to account for the administration of real estate, and for a sum claimeil on the sale of the said property umler a special agreeme.it, pleads to the first part of the action that ho has never been i)ut in default to render an account, but has always been ready to do so, and produces an account with his plea ; and ple'vds to the .second nart of the action, that ho owes nothing under the aiireement alleged, the account i)rod need will not bo rejected on mo- tion as irregularly and |jreriiatnre)y riled ; such account will not be rej^'Cted on motion before eii'iitete, becuise the chapter of expenses con- tains items which do not appear to have any connection with the admini-tration of the pro- |ierly, this being only a ipieslion to be deter- mined on a contestation of account. Dcrinii vs. Dorioii, Q. H. 1881, M. L. R., 1 Q. B. O,".. 34. III an ai;tion to actcount, if the parlies do not first proceed to jiidginent on the question of the liability of tlie defendant to render an account, but go on to contest it, the Court will adjudicate ou the tireleii-ions of the iiarties as snbinitte! Durorhcr vs. Lauzo„,S.C. lS8:i, 12 It. L. 4it:i. 35. The defendant, being sued in an action to account, phaded that he had al- ready reiv'ered an account to the plaintiff, and produced one again with the plea. The plain- titf, instead of asking for jiid'.'iiient as to the obligation of the defemlant to render an ac- 10 ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTIXCJ. count, pi'ooonicd to coiitfs't the account filed. Jii'if;i]ient proceeded on llie merits of the ac- tion at the Slime linio as on the contestation of the acconnt, and \va- conlirriied in apjieah D,itiii vs. Cn.s/ii„:/. (^ ]i. l-(;4, 12 K. 1-. o22, coMfirinin<:S.C., i;i L. C It. 217. 36. Contra.— In an action to account. where the iJeAii'ianl pleads that he has previun'^lv accdimted, and tiles with his jileas copies of his accounts allc;.'ed to have been previcjusly rendei'eu, and the issues are so joineil, the |)laintiir cannot tile a contestation of account until the said issues shall havehecn ]ire\ icjiisjy decided, and the conlestation tiled hy the plainlill' may he rejected i'V nioti(jn on the jiart of the defeedant to that ellcct. Cutniiiiiii; vs. Tdi/li'i', .S. C 18.')l, 4 L. C. .1. 3(11. 37. //'/'/, that when tlje dcfiMi- dant pretend- that he is not Imund to render an account, hut tiles one with his jjlea, the Court should decide lir>l as to the ohlic;ation of the defendant turenderan account, ami order that an account lie tiled as dcniamled by the action, and a juduMwiit whicii decided at the pane linu' tlie iddi^ation lo render an account and the merits of the acconnt tiled was re- versed in review. McAdaiii vs. )\lls'iii, s. c. i,■!■:,. 38. Pleading— Contradictory Aver- ments in Plea— Effect of— Unsworn Ac- count.— //-/>/, reversinj: (^ ]!. (11 Q. L. U. .'i42), dismis^-inj: the jjlaintilf's action, and re- sli'rinj: the judjiment of the Court of Review (I:;Q. L. It 129), that alihonjrh the parties lia I joined issue and heard wilnes-^es to prove certain itemxif the 'luswurn account jiroduced, the plaintillwas lirsl entitled lo a jnd^rinerii of the Court, orderiii;:' tliedefernlant to i>roduce a sworn account suppcn-ted hy Vouchers, and. therefore, hi- action has heei^*|^iporlv dis- missed. L'IffiiriK.r vs. Lriiiiiifr/n; Supreme Ct. IBSO, 12 S. C. It. 4C.0. 39. Ami where a tutor is sued liy his wai'ii, wlien of af.'i'. to render an account, and he pha.N lliaihe has alwa\s heeu willinj: to do ,so, hut ; .-lis that llie action lie dismissed with costs, am, at ;he same time prays rfc/c of the production of an account lileii with the plea, t ic plea will hedisniissed, and the defen- dant be ordered lo tile his account purely an:l simply in d.ieto.m. H wJ vs. U'iUoii, C. K. 1882, 27 L. C. .1 Ml). 40. Pleading. —In an action to account, the defeuii,;:',t i.oist iifit tile an account, but must plead to the action ; ami if he do not. the plaintin on motion will obtain leave tc proceed ex 7/((J-/e. Chnrrcii \?. LiznHc, l^- ". ISlS, 1 Itev. de Lei-'. ^■>-' - ^^- J' " ^^- ■'*■ 41. Tender of Account before i Action.— A tutor, sne.l in an action to ■ account, may plea.l that he has rendered an M. count heliire the brin;:in;r of the action, renew jji- aceoimt in Court, end conclude ihat his said acccmnt be declared ^'oos ki.cw no one liut llannerinan, and that the money \va- uiveu to Ross on Bannerman's credit, and there can be no doubt Hos.s understooil the rait was Bannerman's, and that Doran left him two years under that impre-ision, duriniT which time Russ settled with Hannerman, uitiiout any knowledge of Doran's claim to llier:-.ft. The word ?H// raft, in the ordinary language of the people, docs not necessarily imply propel y but post.ession. Donin & h'ns.1, Ram. Di.L 10, Q. B. I88:i, confirming ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNTING. n S. C. BoJi confirmed by Supreme Ct. IHf'l, Cassel's Dii^. , p. 829. 45. Remedy— Joint- Adventure for Purchase of Real Estate— Tlieie was a joint-aiivciitnre for the piirchisp of certain real e.-el- lant to hear the amount of the acquisition, and lie afterwards sold tlie pnijiorty for his own profit. Respondent sued for his share of the price of the sale- The appellant tendered an account )f his transaction. The action should liave lieen to account, hut the appellant having tendered an account covered the irregularity. liicivslcr vs. Lamb, Q. B., 22nd Dec, 1H71), Ram. Dig. S. 46. Joint Transaction.— The appellant hrought suit against the respondent, alleginifa purchase hv them jointly of certain pro-.iii.-sory notes anil securities which the respondent collected for their coniiiioii protit, the appellant's share acknowledged liy tlie res- pondent heing $713.7.'), Tiie a])pellant added the coinnion assumpsit counts, and prayed for an account in tlie usual furm with vouchers, t ,T. 104. and that in default the respcmdent sliniild he Cdiidemned to pay the said sum of §713. "5. IIcM, on demurrer, thai tlie demand for i.n account was i.ot warranleil hy the allegatiois of the iilaiiitill's declaration, and was nut the [iroper remedy for the cause of complaint therein stateil. Michaud vs. Vcziiiu, Q, H. 1S80, G Q. L. R. Uoli. 47. Partners.— When hetween copartners a balance has been strucU, an action of assumpsit ur of debt will lie for the amount, l)Ul if no balance has been .-IrucU, tiie actinii . will be ti) acciiuiii. Jiohinson v^. UHfinstein, ' K. n. 1.S2I, 1 Rev.de Leg. 3,52,2 H.I.R.Q. 15(1. 48. Principal and Agent. — A principal may .sue his agent to accniiiit, or for moneys had, at his eleciion. Oitlun I vs. ll(»j,'\ Rev. de Leg. 352, 2 R. ,J. R. Q. 55, K. 1,. 181S: Joseph vs. Phillips, I'J L. U. J. 1(12, Q. H. (1) 49. Monies had and received. — Where various sums have been received by a defendant, and the facts are such that the creditur may sue him to account, still, if he sees (it, he may bring his action for money had and received, for in his action (he plaintiff takes the oyufi- inabandi on himself, and of ihis the defendant cannot complain. Leclerc vs. Hoy, I Kev. de Leg. .S51, K. B. 1817, 2 R. J. R. Q. 54. 50 Tutor.— A tutor cannot avoid render iiig an account because he claims to havv. had ill his hands only a very small sum of money wliicdi he has disbursed to ihe know- lediie of the minor, since become nf age, and performed* other acts of adniinistiation since riitilied by the minor. I'eUeticr vs. PeUelicr, S. C. 1879, 10 R. L. 470. 51. (Art. 312 C. C. and 5.31 (.'. C. P.) A pupil become of age may refer to the decision of arliitrators any ditlercnce between him and his tutor concerning the ac- count rendered by the latter, and this reference need not be absolute, but in the interests of the minor in order to protect his rights as against the tutor. Lapiirte y!'. Liqtorlr,^. C- 1871,3 R. L. 37. 52. An account rendered by a tutor to a minor must be detailed and accom- panied by vonehers, and an account rendered en bloc without vouchers is ijiso jure null. Diicondii vs. Bourgeois, S. V . 1858, 2 Ij. C. 53, A settlement betwe(Mi a tutor and his wards, based on an incorrect inventory made while the ebildreii were yet young, will not be .set aside if the transaction has been confirmed by siibj^cquent traiisaetions between the parties at a perioi liill age. (1) liut see DorioH vs. Dorioii, Tiisodoieau J., in Supreme Court 18!12, 2(1 S.C. K. at Ji. 445; iiiul Jlitid vs. Tiiplin, 24 S. C. It. at p. 50. when the minors are of have ceased to be under the control of their tutor, and have acknowledged that the inventorv was incorrect. Motz vs. Moreati, P. C. 18(10, 10 L.C. R. 84, 13 Moore P. C. 37(1 ; Bii:ii,ue Jacques ('artier wi^. riusonnault, S. C. ls84,.M. L. R., 1 S. C. 18. 54. Where Defendant fails to Render Account,— (Arts. 521, 533 C. P. C.) In an a>:tioii to accumit, if the defendant does not render his account, the plaintill e'.innot dc phino obtain judgment for the sum he demands; be must prove wdiat is due to him, or move for an attachment. Wilsmi vs. MeClure, 1 Rev. de Leg. .351, 2 U. J. R. Q. .54, K. H. 1809. 55. (Arts. 523-5:i3 C. C. P.) Upon default of the defendant toi.ider an account within the delay ti.xed by the judg- ment ordering him to account, (he plainlilf c'V.i proceed to have one made out as provided by Arts. 523-53,3 C. C. P., or he can, accord- ing to the practice in use before ilieCo le, have the defendant ctnidemned either to pay hiin a certain sum provisionally, or by way of 12 ACCOUNTS, ACCOUxNTING-ACQUIESCENCE. penalty, until lie remlori^ the account, or a sum cerliiiii in ])la(;c of tlie balance of account, in the (iiwretion of the Court. Ganthierv^. Ifo,,, Q. li. 1H«0, 1 Doridn (J. I)., Uep. list, 10 11. L. 44:!. To same ellecl Ikr- trawl vi'. Siirrtisi II, C. R. 18^■^ 21) L. C. J. :ii)0. 56. When Premature— An action to account i.-< prenialure :!' liiken before the enter- pri.'^e of H'liich it a^kf. an account is lerni- inate.l. lierj^r vp. Mrlirhr, Q. B. ISSl, I Dorion's Uep. .'!2". 57. Where Account a I'Araiable not Accepted.— The remlerini; cl'an account r) ramiahlr wU'w.h has nol been accepleliloes not relieve a ))arly accountin.L' from the oblij^aticui of remieringan account judicially, but the ilefendanf will not l.e coinletuneil to jiay <'osts. H) Middinni vs. Dunne. S. C. ISSl, T L. N. 'IWd. Revcrseil in Kevien- as to Costs. ACQUIESCENCE. I. By F.\ii.iiiK ill Oii.iFir IN diktimk. n. CoVKits Iiiui:iifi,Aumi:s oi- Phock- lU'iiK. I-:!. Iir. FuAlli. — auil see No. \' I infra. Dm I. 1. Iii.'^uraiii-e rolici/. 2. Sale. :!. IV. Ix .IrniiVKNT. — S(..e also Ai)voc.\ti:s ANti Attoiinkys. Aiiifiidcil Order — Xew Dcdara- linn. 1. Error. 2. RirijiUnn I'l Ike Viirin — Pleadini/ to Ihr Mcrih. :i. K.rrrnlinn . 4-'). .hn'i.iitirllnn. (i-7. I'ai/innit. X-[2. r,n,,r;n .\pi„;,i. i:m4. v. l,;; Lksskk. Vr. r. nji-niAToiis — Bank. Vl[. Ol'KllATKS AS \ BkI.KASK. VIII. ]'\.KK or Ti:\ni:ii anh Paymicnt— Mh'KLCT ol\ IX. WUAT IS. I-'.;.— SiM. uNo N'o. IV. 7. See al) OIUKCT IN" nri'; ti.me. In an hypoljnoary acton, based on a jndg- menl, enrcj:i-iered with notice to the reL'i--trar and ii.'ainst a inarried woman, a-^ bein^' >^epar- (1| As to (lllCStinll ,ll|.osts, SIH' H'oniVvs II', tnil 27 I.. ('. .1. 141.. II. COVERS IRUKGULARITIHSOF PRO- CEDURE. 1. A |ilaintill'j)ining issne with a deiendant who raised a dilatory pha by peremptory e.Nception, and procc<'iling to trial without com|ilaiiiii)g of such irregularity, is held to have ai;(iuiesce'l ther'in, ami cannot raise nn objection thereto at the hearin<; on the ineritr,. Lrrlcrr vs. }rartin, 0. R. l.^'.)0, 17 Q. L. R. 177 ; Ik'niehain/i vs. Lclnnrneaii, Q. B. 1H84, Ram. nil'. l:i; r.elo(irnen.r vs. Sl.,fefni. C. R. is8(;, M. L. [{., -1 s, c. ;{i;-J. 2- AVhere there were iri'cgularilies in tlie proceedings of arbitrators, and one of the j paitie- to the sulnni-sioii took advantage of the awiii-il. knowing ]ieal cannot be brought in the naiiu' of a liead per-on, if the , representatives have come in and coniinned the i suit witi.oiit the olj.'Clion, the ii'i'i'gnlarity i will he covered lla'/arhj vs. Mnrris, Q. B. 874, 1'.) 1.. C. .1. lo:i. HI. FRAUD. 1. Deed.— Tlie ratification of a deed obtained by fraud, by the parly di ceived, after he was infornunl of (he facts, prevents him ACQUIESCENCE. 13 from complaining of the fraud. Banque rule Mark vo. Montplaisir, Q. B. 1889, 18 ; R. L. 153. 2. Insurance Policy.— An insurance company cnnnot, after agreeing with other companies upon the proportion to he paid by each on a claim, refuse to settle the claim of the insured, under pretext of fraud, false representations, etc. ; such grounds could only be taken advantage of by demanding the cancellation of the policy. Surcreii/n Fire Ins. Co, of Canada vs. Prunemi, Q. B. 188;'), 11 R. L. 802, and cases there cited. 3. Sale.— A court ot justice will not give its aid to a person seeking to set aside his own solemn deed of sale if it appear that he has acquiesced in it f. b-Ot>, 10 L.C. U. b'.2. 9. .\ parly \vh" piivs the amount of judgment, without special protect, al'ier his arrest and wliile in pri-on, will mit lie held by such |iayment to b.ive acquiesced in :-uch jiidgmeiil, -^o as to take away his right of appeal, particularly where he had given in- structions to institute appeal. Oiiinut vs. Liifond, (I B. 1-71, Ram. Dig. i:!. 10- Tile voluntary ]iayiiient of part of the judgment appealed from is an ac- quiescence, and the fact may be establi iIjc plaiii- litrs iiltdriicy-, iili'T ilio ifiwIciiiiL'of llic jmlg- ii.i'til, wliii^li <'()Mi1i'Iiiium| IIu'Iji a- jnint iiti- iliviik'il owiKTH (it'uii iniMiDVi'iililc 111 iiliaiiildii it or |iiiy liic pliiiiilill'.H claiiii, iind licI'Mrc ACQl'lKSCKXCK. VII. 01'ERAT1<:S AS A KKLMASl!; IN TKANSACTIONS liETWHKX Tl'TOR AND MINOR. A sctlleiiK'iil l)y a iiiiiKir with l\'^ tutor, Imstil on iui iiivciilory iiicorrcctly iiiailc, ac- ciJMiil^ illegally rciiilcrf.l, altlioiif;ii voidalile, , . ■ ccJMiil^ Illegally i-eiiilcre.l, amioilgli voKiaiiif, iirilij \ I in.- Ill I ii'^i J »t m II V.M 12. The other delendanl was not l.onnd hy .j.,,^ „„|,| ..fu.Mlie' dealii' of the tutor, speai.isl,d I.etween him and ,,,.,,,„„^ ,,„, ,„,,,„. Iiin eo-defendanl (heyond the joint ownership .i^.j,,,,,,,,.,,!.. (//, ) of the iminoveuhle in ipu.-lion;, or that he had auliiori/.ed the wriling of till' said letter. ( lli.) 13. Proof in Appeal.— I'ldoi . i'ae(|iiles- eenee in judgment appealed IVon will lie ordered in appeal. Jm-ihui vs. ./c/^', Q. li. isTo.Uam. Ditr. 1: ici^oiint and inventory, and to set aside tir. \1II. FLK.X OF TENDMI!, ANI> I'AVMHNT. Hy their plea of lemler iiiei paymon' into Couit. tlie liefendanls had acknowledged tin ir 14. Where a petition has I,,.,.,, lii^l'iin.v to the phiintiUs, alt igh such temier iled, pr.aving the dismissal of an appeal on '""' ''^■'"'^" '""' '"■^'" "''"'^' ""-"'"^"l ii'jl<""«'- the ground of acpiie.scence, .■md alii lav, is are '"'"'"« ''"'"' l''''"!"-^'-" ' ''■'"'■ l^>"'">' ''"""" filed in supp'Ul ;ind again.-t tiie application of a contradictory i-haracter, leave will he granted to cross-e.xainine the deponents. IIdIIc vs. iVhimiKii/iir, Q. |{. Iss^, 2.') L. C. .1. 227, 'J Dorion's (.,). IS. Hep. 127, Kam. Dig. M. \'. LI'S-^O.; AND LES.SEK. ''(,. vs. ('miii'lii S/ilpjii:n/ Co., Supreme Ci. L-S(i, l:iS. (.'. K. .pi2, l.\. \V11.\T IS. 1. In its u iilest -ruse acipiiescence is an adiic- sion of a person to a thing done, it seems, however, it is only ii>iial to apply it to certain contracts wdiich e.vpressly recognize a state of Where the lease jjrnhiljits suliletting, the things a.s hindiiig. 'rechnically. therefore, it acceptance of rent hv the lessor from the s;ilr is for the most part applied to an implied tenant, and giving the latter receipts therefor, assent. The liaiiilitv to he im.'urred hy ac- ill his own name, constitutes an acipiiesceiice finiesceiice can only he estahlished hy such oil the part of the le.-sor in the siili-lease, hut proof as would estiiblish an ohligatiou for ii does not discharge the oiigiinil h SMC from lis like matter. An aci]uiesceiice which would obligations under the lease. Ju.'iep/i va. S(. Imve the cliect of resiliating another contract, CecwuZ/i, S. C. l.SDd, ,') Que. 01. or creating a new obligation, can only lie ; proved as a contract can he proved. But a VI. LKiUIDATORS— BANK right may .sometimes be lost by acquiescence i in a slate of things incompatible with the con- Wiiere a manager of a bank has made en- | tinueJ existence of such right. Pleudimr tries in the books of the bank, .so as to repre- | over to the merits of an action ia such an sent the bank as a debtor, in respect of a sum acquiescenc/ in a judgment dismissing an exception d In forme that leave to appeal will be refused. Cote \ a. McGvccnj, Q. B. 1875, Ram. Dig. 12. 2. Tho payment by tlie borrower of tliree instalments of interest on the entire amouat of the loan as expressed in the deed does not establish acquiescence on his part in the placing of the amount of the loan by the lender in the hands of a third person, so as to make which he had borrowed for his own purposes, the acqnie.scence and rati tication by the silence of the subsequent liquidating authorities would not render tlie bank liable to pay a debt which it never owed, as the liquidators could not bind the bank by their acquiescence. The doctrine of the Court below overruled. Banque Jacques Cartier vs. Banqued'Epargne P. C. 1887, 13 App. Cas. Ill ; 11 L. N. 6G. ' ACTION— ACTIONS CUMULATIVE AND INC0Ml'ATI15LK. 13 the borrower lialilo for tlie delanU of siieli tliird person to apply the money as ilirectid. Kiwx vs. Iloirin, S. C. 1893, 4 Que. .'ill. ACTION. ('0 .Irlioitfi i/iitrriilli/. (Ii) ('ii>iiiilatii:c II 11(1 tiiciiiiipiiHlite. {(■■) Ell Drii'iiiridlioii ilr jXiinril (Kucrv. (il) Form 1)1 , ((') hile)\nt ill. U) Julnl. ((/) yntnrc oj. ill) Xnficc of. ()') /'/•/(•//// I,/. (J) Sii.fpvnsidii of, (/.■) Union of Ciiiisia. (J) ]\'hcrc il may III lirmiij/il. {a) ACTIONS GENERALLY. I. Cll.WCil'. Ol'. II. Civil, I!i;mi:iiv \or Ai'i'KCTKii iiv ("him- in.u.. III. 1M' I'Kc.'v a.mai;ks — .SiiMiKi: — I'kh.-onai, \\'|!o.m;<. I .\ . 1 1 A M ,\ ( ; I-: - — 1 1 i: I \ T I ;i a! A M I ].:. .\. I)k( i.xKAVioN iiK I'aikiimti':- Al.l- .mi:nt.-. XI. Dk.MANH Idll C^N'lIM ANCK OF ^' I IT lOxKCIIIoN Ol' .lllM^MIA'T, XII. Dl MANll IN l)l.rl,Ar.ATIo.N OF .IllJi;- .\1FNI' — r>IFI", C'TIAIIV LfOATEi, XIII. ItFi.ivMiv OF Land — I'av.mk.nt ok I'fnai.iv. XIV. DiUKCTOIlS OF Co.MI'ANV — ilKTUIlNS. X V, niScjl'Al.lFlCATlO.N OF .Ma Vol! — AcTli.N TO VOID Im.IX'IIOX. X VI. Fl'.AUl) — Dffk.miants — ''oNCI.CSIO.NS. XVII. Hvi'OTIIKCAKV CitFDITOIt — OnK .\i-- TioN — Sfvkiial I)fffxi>ant>. XVIII. I'KTITOKY A.NI) PuSsli.SS0RV. 1-2. XIX. Pktitokv Afiio.v— De.moi.itio.n of WORK.^. XX. PliNAI.TlES I'XDEIl ELECTION ACT . XXI. Pleading— Du.AToiiY E.'cceptiox. XXII. Private axd Piklic Capacitv of Jl'stici: of Tin; Peace. XXIII. Resiliatiox of Sale— Attach, in Revexdication. XXIV. Resiliatiox of Sale — Pay.mest of Prick — Option. XXV. Sale — Action to have Encroach- ment.s removed — To fill up Ex- cavation. XXVI. Several Counts— Conclusions. il I 16 ACTIONS cr.Ml-LATlVF: AXD INCOMPATIBLE. I. ACTION t)N ACCUI'NT-HHNT. AUT. ir. C. C. P. Tlie appcllatil hicI llic rc-^i'oiilc i alcu-'cMUi.ljdini'd Willi llic nclion acnnnl l^r I gooclH f'ol.l. Tiic ilcfen.liint plra.lcd l.y .hlii- tory I'xci'plioii ilml tlic lu'iioii wii'' lonii'lr.l ! upon inc paliMp ■.Tuiin.ls aii'l lliiii .lln' | pluintiir HhoiiM I'c lii'M '" nn'lo' 'I'""" i betwcoii llio ilillcifiil iliMiiaii'l- — //'■'''. itial Article l."i of III"' '"iiiir ■>(• I'nurihiiT lia.l acMcil iKilliiiiL' Hi the 1)1,1 law ; il dhl imt pre- tend to "llcr it ill anv H-av. Il liii.i .iiiwn llip rule Ilml several cause- of aelinii may lie juiiieil in llic saiiie ,-iiit, proviile.l llicy are nut ineoiiipalilile or coiiliadielory, that tliey pecU coiiileninalioiis of a like naliire. lliat their joimler is nnl proliiliiteil iiy some e.\- press provision, and llial lliey are siisreplilile ofllic same mode nflrial. The Juiinier in tlii.s ease was moI ..pen I., any lorni ol' ol.jec- tiu... Til.' .iemaiels were el.'arly siiseepliMe of ihe-anie m.i.ie of trial, an.! lliere was ii.i incoii.piitd'ilily. .liid..'nienl reverse.). MulVni A- Vniij ('ink Ihiiiii Cn., Q.l!.,.Moiilreal,Sept., IHTi'i, Itam. iJi;:. 2:;. H. ACTION TO IM'.i'OVKU I'KNAf.TY AN!) AMOI'NI' FllArni'i.KNTl.Y OJ'.TAINKI). In an iieliuii ML'aiiisI a sciiool eommissioner, for liavin'4 frau.liilenlly pi'ocnred a sum oi inuiiev fr.iiii llie (lovernment on a fal-e eerli- ficale, plaimill eomdii led lliat .1. •fen. hint he foiin.i iiniliy of the fian.i,an.l emidi niiie.l lo refnml Ihe ■^ilin liaudiileiilly pincureil. aii.l to ft line of ? 111. In llie Cirmil Ciiil the aiMioii wa- .lis- mi^se.l h. iMuse llie i--n.-- wer.' li.'ld lo he ineonipalihle (l.j I.. C. 11. -Jll.'i. C. Cl. ISli.")). ISnt the Conri .-I tJiKin"- lieiieh rev.r-e.l this liecisioii, the majority of llw Court appai'i'ntly holding that aItlioiij;li the defeii.laiit could not he con.jemned liy this aetioii to refnn.l the amount Irainliilently ohtaine.l, yet the failiiiv of the iilainlill to clioo-e one of the above con- (dii.sions will not prevent the Court from con- demning the defen.lant to jiay the line of $40.00. Thai in .such an action the;" i.s no cunmlalion prohibited by law. (1) I'driiihl \<, I'oy, Q. B. USIiCi, V> L. C.J. 0.'). Ill ANNFLLINOSKVKRAL ELEC- TIONS HY ONH WRIT OF QUO WAIIIIANTO. The annnlliiif: of the election of several municipal .■oiinciHors cannot be demanded liy .ill.' writ of ipio wurranto. In such aciimiilalion of actions, the plain- nil will he or.leredto declare against wliich ..rie of Ihe defendants he intends lo proceed aL'ainst, an.J his action a- to the other de- fen.lants will be dismissed. Ilnurbonnais vs. l-itialnvill,^. C. is;i2, 2 Que. .'•)I7. IV. DAMAOH.'^, KTC.-nOUNDAllY. A demanii for dama;.'es or coinpen.sation f.ir fruits, issues and piofiis cannot be in- cluded in an action of bonn.lary. Lacell vs. l/f.lWmr, .S. C. 1W7, II L.N. M2. V. DAMAGF.S-ASSAIM/r AND MAT- TKllY-DKFA M ATI ) ItY I.ANO I' \G E— THROW INOSTONIvS WITH INTENT TO IN.IUUK. The plaintiiniron;;ht aclion tor damages, 'Citing np, by way of decliiiatioii, assault nrnl 1 attery, defamatory language, aii.l throw- in;.' stones with intent lo injure ; and the lefen.lant plea.le.l by way of .iemiirrer, that ihe declaration conlaiiie.l several causes of :.clion which c.MiM not be joiiic.l in the same -nil, an.l aske.l thai the plaintill be iiel.l to choose between the said causes uf aclion — //(/./, thai the .liircreiil caii-es of aclLm re- (•■rre.lto were not cmlra lictoiy or e\eii in- .■.)iii,ialiblc. an I were properly laid in the l.'i ;,iiiitioii. Tiijiil'liiij vs. I,(ipiiilt. S. C. ht;;, :^ ll. L.,".i:i. (Il Tus.'liereau .T., iliss., li.-l.l lli.il tin' i,'i-.iiiinls cf ai'Ii.'ii wi'i'e iii.'.'iii|>iitil.le. iiii.l IliMt iipLii (l.l.iuli .if plaiiilill' ti)eli....M' one ..I the ^r. .1111. Is .111 wlii.'h to jifdceeil, till" I'l.iut culil ii.it .111 so Irir him. ([i. iltl ; Ayhviii .1 , while auri-fiiiH witli llie iiiiijurity of the OiiiVt that the i;r.iiiii(ls (it ii.-liim were' nut' iiic.uii- patilile, went further in h.ihliiif; thiit tin- C.nirt shonl.l liMvi n.leiiineil ili'teiidaiit to lefiiiiil the aiiHiuiit fraiiiluleiitly obtiiined. (p. 7'-'.) VI. liA.MAC.I'^S-FlNH. 1. .All iiclinii of .lamage.s, which is a purely civil reiiie ly, i- iiiconipatible with an action for a line. ami liie two cannot be j.iined, except when e.\press|y anthori/.e.l by slainle ; bill where cattle caiiK on plaintill's ]iroperty, and can-ed damage, such joinder wa- p.-'rlccily jii-Mled byC. S. L. C, ch. 'ilJ, sec. ^, which ha.l not beei. repealeil by the Municipal Code (e.\cept as to corporations crealeil I hereafter) under which the action was bronght. Daoust vs. I'roith, Mag. Ct. 187.5, 7 R.L. ;!1T. 2. linl 111 another case, in which the plain- tili asked lor damages and a tine under Art. 381 of the Municipal Code, for nuisance on ACTIONS CUMULATIVE AND INCOMl'ATIDLK. 17 II ))iil)lio loail cuiiJ'cd [i\ wiiiiil wliidi the (Iprc'iKliiiit liHil |j|iioc'il tliei'i', tlip cuiiiuliitioii WHS lic'M iiol to lie luniiunzi'il, nii'l llie ik'iiiiiiKl for cliiiiiajrc.-' rcji'ctpil. (I) Labclle \ii. Grutton, Mai'. Ct. lH7-i, 7 II. L. :!'J5. VII. DAMAGHS-FKEIGUT. Froiglit and $(!() ilniiiapt's, owini; to illegal seizure of pluintitt'.i hurge, mav Ijo claiiiioil in and by the nainc aclion. Dtifrcsui' vs. /Jcc- ijeioii, y. n. lS7r), Uam. Dl;:. 2:!. Viri. DAMACJES— SLANDER— PERSONAL WROXOS, A party may. by une .«uit, claim daniaf»es for .shin. ier and ror))orsonul wron;:-. I'aijurUe --: aiobenski, Q. B. 1850, L. C. R. 185. IX. DAMAGES-RfilNTEGRANDE. .Iul;:inciit of nUntngrande and ol daniage.s may be asked and awarded in one and the pauie action. CoU vh. Jiiome, K. B. 1818, 1 R. de. L.505. X. DECLARATION DE PATERXITE- ALIMEXTS. An action <'i( .) XI. DEMAND FOR CONTINUANCE OF SUIT— EXEC 1;T10N of J UrGMENT. A demand t'or continuance of suit on a proceeding in e.ceculion ot judgment against the representatives of the party condemned, and a demand that the judgment be declared executory against them, are a necessary consequence the one of the other, and are not ipoompatible or contradictory, but tend only U) ihc same condemnation. B' Estimauville vs. Tousujnant, S. C. 1874, 1 Q. L. R. 52. M) Tliis cnse did not come under tlie AgriouUur.il Abuses .Act., f. S. L.C, «h. 2C, s. 8, as was the oftse with till- i)revious declBion.TK. I- Ml. XIII. DELIVERrOF LAND— PENALTY. In a contract for the sale of land with a Iienalty clause added, where also the vendor may exercise his faculty of redemption, the purchaser cannot, upon breach of the contract, in the same action, conclude for the delivery to him of the land and payment of the penalty. Cadienx vs. Jean Baptiste alias Debien, (J. B. 18G8, 2s L. C. .1. 827. XIV. DIRECTORS OF COMPANY- RETURNS. Tlie directors of a joint-stock company, incorporated under chap. CS C. S. C, may be sued with the company for a debt due to plaintiil', if they have neglected to make the return reipiired liy the ISth sec, l.'i & 11 Vic, c. 28. Henderson Luinher Co. vs. Ward, Q. B.. 7th Sejit., 187^, Ram. Dig. 2H. XV. DISQUALIFICATION OF M.\YOR— ACTION TO VOID ELECTION. Where the petitioner by his petition alleged that the person elected and holding the posi- tion of Ma) or of Montreal was, at the time of this election, disqualified from being so elected, and was therefore illegally occupying the position ; and alleged also by the same petition, that the election in question was null and void, for reasons therein stated — Held, on 18 ACTIONS ur.MULATIVE AND INC0MI'ATII5I,K. dilntory (.'X<:('|ition, tliiii nucIi iiIIc^ihIjiiiih ainl coiicliixiuriH were incotii|>iilil)li' wiiliiii the liif'Hiiiin? of tlio |irijvii-ii)ii- (if llic C. ('. P. Jieaudnj vs. Workman, S. (". IHCH, i;i L. C.J. 15. XVI. fu.\ui)-dkfi;ni)ants-("on CLUSIUNS. j It in not MM iiii|iro|ii'r jnindcr of uctioi).-< to ! chiirj^c one iif llic dcfi'iiiliiMtH iicciiscd, of parliciiMition in fniml will) llic cllipi' ■IcIpii- (laiitH, uIiIk>ii;;Ii it apju'itr-< tliai piiii of tlit'coii- I cluf*ioiis ilu not ullpi.'t liiiii, if the whoh- matter he to sume e.vleiit coniiei'teil. McVulliich vs. (,'rij/in, i-i li. , Montreal, June, 1874, Ua.n. I)i-. -'X ill wliicli they are inxlitiiteii, iiiiil, in consc- qilftice, in thi^ Province neven ilintitict nml Hejiiirale iK'iialtiei for conlriivention o( the Doiiiihion Klectinn Art iijiiN' lioeiiiMiillited, afl to aiiumnt, in one and the -aiiie action. Jntjal v«. Sntfml, S. C. IH-I, 2.') I- C. J. ItJC, and »vi' Luriridre y ■ TAw/Kf/, 8. C. 1n>2, M. L. IJ.. 1 S. C. Ii;i. I XXI. I'l.KADINd AI!T. l:>(i ni; c.C.l'. A ciiiMiilalion of actions -lioiiid ho pleaded hy a dilatory e.veepiion. IliUuiii/i'r v.s. yjcj- jiinlin.", K. H. IHli;, ;; Uev. de I/'i'. 7(1 ; Mi-lhnt vs. IVniii,^. V. Is7-»,.jl{. Ij. (I!).'). XVII. HVl'OTlIiiCAUY CKEDITUi;. The hypcjlliecary creditor caniKJt sue in one action weverai peiHons who have a divided proprietary interest in the property hypothe- cated, rami vs. Litiin'n, K. li. ls:;'_', I 1{. deL. 2:)2, 2R J.U. Q. 22. XVIII. i'ETITOUY AND POSSESSORY. —ART. 948 C. C. P. ; ART. 15 C. C. P. 1. A po9.«e.ssory and a petitory action can- not be Joined ; and if this has been done, the vice can he cured by consent of theiiarties. Tripanr & Ihipuii:, K.R. IHIO, PyKe's Reports, j). 24, A 1 Rev. do Lej;. 351, 1 R. J. R. Q. (J4. 2. If the plaintilt' state in the decliiration that he is i)roprietor and possessor of a cer- tain lot of land, Imt concludes ea conipluiiitr only, this is not a ciiiniilation of the petitory with the possessory action. IhuclicUc vs. Tach4,K. B.1820, i Rev. de Leg. 351,2 R J.R. Q. .'■)•!. x:;tr. pitiVATK and pumlic capa- CriY OF JrsTK'K OF TlIF PKAC'F. In an action ordanniges a;:aipst an iii.Jivi- dual in his privaie ca | piic i I y—//c A/, conlirm. iii^ S. ('., that acts coininitted hy him in siicli capacity cannot h( joined with other acts coin- mitled in his capacity a-a Jii.-tice ofthe jieace. O'Xeill vs. A/inilir, (). H. l,-,-,7, H L, (J. It. 442, 7 R. J. R. Q. ;!|li. XXIli. liESIIJATlOX OF DONATION— ATTACHMENT I\ REVENDIOATION. :Vn atlnchiiient in revendicalioii nmv ho .joined with an action for ihe resiliatioii of a deed of donation. MiHIiot \-^. /'eniii,^.C 1874,5 l{. L. G%. XIX. PETITORY AOTION-DEMOLI TION OF WORKS. Demolition of works may he demanded in a petitory action. Joyce \?. Hart, 1877, Su- preme Ct., 1 Supreme Ct. Rep. 321 . XX. PENALTIES UNDER ELECTION ACT. Suits under tlie Dominion Election Act of 1874, to recover penalties for bribery, are civil suits for tiie recovery of debt, controlled by the procedure governing actions in the Province XXIV RESir.IATlON OF SALE-PAY- MENT (JF PRICE-OPTION. An unpaid vcidor is not entitled at the same time to pray for the resiliation of the sale, and al.BQ that the;;ooiis be soM and ili.it he be paid by privile;:e from the proceeds ; but he is entitled !o pray for the re.siliaticj!! ,,t the sale ami the return of the goods witlnjut ollering the buyer the option of payinL' ilio price. So, where the plain tiff prayed for the resilia- tion ofthe sale, and also that he be paid the price out of the proceeds of the goods, it was iield that such conclusions were incompatible, and the defendant, under C. C. P. 120, might. by dilatory exception, have calkd upon him to declare his option ; but a demurrer to the action generally, will, conclusions for its dis- missal, was held bad becau.?e the demand for ACTIOX-l'ORM OF. 10 the reNilialion of tlio snip wim well fouridctl. mjliew^. Taylor, H. C. iHHt, M. L. U., 2 S. C. ;U4. XXV. SALE-ACTION TO HAVE EN- CIlOACriMEMTS IIEM0VKI)-T() FILL ri' EXCAVATION-DAMAGES, ETC. Wlure tlif pluiiilitr liy \\\<< ili'cliinitioti »et up u deed of Hule liy him (o the dt'feiidiinl, mid compliiiiit'd of llie deCpiidBnt for hiiviii); en- croiiclu'd iipi>;i lii- properly, askiiii; tliut ho ho (•on(l duina;:os : — livid, thai tho>e coMclnsiun-' ''on- tallied throe ditlorent and iii;;onipatihleactionn, and, allhoii'jh ari-iiii;: oul of a deed of sale iVoiii him to del'eniiaiil, Iho same could not li > joined. iii)l)i rlrioa \''. Slmirt, A, C. l"iipi!, IH J.. C. K. M\l, 11 11. .1. It. (i- 161. XXVI. SEVEHAI. COUNTS— CONCLU- SIONS.- ART. 15 C. P. C. Several count.'' in a cleclaration for XlOO, each founded on promises which are within the Hcopp ofoiie and the fume action, hut witli cenclii^ion." for .ClOO only, is a f/fiod and valid form of action. Cnxci/ \rt. /iro?c;(, 3 llev . do L''i,'. .Tj, K.:;. for (t) ACTION EN DENONCIATION DE NOUVEL CEUVRE. 1. 'J'lieuctioiu'N ihUionciniioi) dcnnvrcl wuvrp may he taken at any .»lai:e in the erection of the woiks comiilainoi' of, ('rawfunt vs. Fioicstaiit IIo.\))i(al for the Insant, IHSS, M. L. R., -t S. C 21.'). CoMlirnied in Appeal, M. L- K., V Q. H. :>T. 2. Action was l)rou,iihtaskint;dama;iesand the destruction of a wliarf which the ilefendant had erected on the ojiposite .side of a navij;ahle river, therohy altering the course of the river, and injuring the plaintill' — Held, conlirmin!; the judgments of the Queen's Bench and Superior Court, that such an action would not 'ie, inasmuch as it could only he hroiight hy a party claiming protection against a work com- nienced, and still in progress, and hy which, if compleied, he would suH'er injury. Brown vs. Gugy, l>. C. 18G4, It L. C. II. 21:5, and Q. B., U L. C. K. 401. (d) ACTION- FORM OF. I. AU.E0ATIOX. Contract. 1 . Promissori/ Note. 2. II. MONKY ADVAMED IN CoNSI lU.HAT lOX OF TlUNSFEB. III. KKSTIlAINt.S-li CoM.MtSSION OK li.ri:(;.\[, Al'T. I. ALLEGATTON, 1. Contract. — liofipoiident hy a vi rial ugreeiiient undorlook to repair a house for the appellant, and healso made several n ■ pairs toanotherhuilding. Ilesued the appellant on a simple nccOI!Y NoTK — IXSOI.VKXCV, IX. MlCEIVKliS— FOHKIGV L.wv. 1-2. X. TiCANSl-'KUK'- OK Pi.AIXTIKK's RiCIITS. XI. Tl TOR— OPPOSITIOX BY. Sec also Avkkeigiitmkxt — Demurrage — POWKI! wK Ma.STER ok VkSSKI. TO SVE KOU ) also Frimght— Power of Mamer of Vessel TO .SIK FOR. 1. ASSIGNMKNT--RIGIlTOr ASSIGNEE OR Tlil'STEE TO 1!RIN(} ACTION IN RKSPEC'J' OF THE PROP- ERTY ASSIGNED TO IIIM. 1. Assignment— Trustees— Assent of Creditors.— Art. I'J C. 1". C. i.^^ applica- l)ic to mere iigont.s or mandataries. It in not a|i|iiicalile to trustees in wliotn the .-inliject of the trust has heen vested in pro|K'rly and pos- session for the henclil of third parties, and who have duties to jierform in tlie protection or realization of the trust estate. Overnilini;; Ihownc vs. I'i.isonnctniU d) (;; Snp. Ci. Rep. 102). and Burland vs. Moffatt (2) (11 .Snii, Ct. Rep. "()). Therelore .an assiL'iiee, niider a Nuluntarv deed I'f a-signmeiit \\y a debtor for the benefit of h.- cicditors, can, assitch assijrnee, sue and he^ned in lespect of tlie estate and property assijined til him. In the present cftse, the trustees hiivin;;; derived their title, with assent of .all the credi- lur-. from the oilicial assii.Miee appciiated to an insolvent estate under the Insolvent Act IKTo, ■.,ere i.ssigiiees of his rijrhts, and were entitled to eid'oree a contract entered into with them in re.-pect of the trust ])ropenv in their pos- session. (.')) Poriciius vs. licynur, Privy Coun- cil ISS7, II L. N. 9, ID Aj.p. Cas. 120. 2. Trustees — jlegistered Deed. — IlehJ, aflirmini; the judj^inentof the C.iurt below, that Art. i!) C C P. is not applicable to tru-tees in whom property has been ve.'iteii by a re;;isterei' deed, and to which deed the defendant was a ))arty. (Biirlaiii! v,j. MopiU, 11 Can. S. C. 11. 70 and Browne vs. I'huonueuult, ?> Can. S. C. R. 102, disiin- <;iiished) ; Mitche.ll vs. Holland, Supreme Ct. 188t), 10 Can. S. C. R. 087, 12 L. N. .^IS. 3. Assignees— Non Assent of Creditors. — An insolvent trader assi<.MK'd to *hree per-oiis for the benefit of his creditors, hut without their assent, and on a seizure of his ellects by a creditor wdio was not a party to the as.signnient, the assij^nees intervei;ed. Held, tiiat they had no interest to plead on behalf of others whom they did not represent, and that their intervention to that etlect would be dismissed with costs against them persoii- (1) In /iroiriicM^, l'iiinoiiiimiill,utu'^. traaslorrcil li'< interest umlei- ,i certiiin lease .■out in eerliiiii tuniiliU' to apiiellMiits, " .-letiii;; a.s inistecs lor imil on lirlnMt (ifilivers persDiis iind tlrins, ereditors of llic said s under a eertain papier writing or nieinorandnni lii iiKreonH'nt nnide .and entered info liv and lietwei'n tlic said S. .and Iiis eifditir.i, and liereunto annexed"— Uelil. Ill ,,;. a. tidii liy i,p;-"Unnts. in their qualitv of " tniKtee.s duly named of tlie oreditoi sol S. ," tleit tliev hnd no riflit or .standing to a|.|.i)ar as sneh liidoi-e a coni't of dnstiee. And in lioiiiinll vs. I',riin old 1.. C. ,1. 'Jt, ('. H. IH.'Cil. it was held tiiat an opposition to tlie seizuri' of tho ertects of an inscdveni delitor tll.'d bv a Inisteeiir as- signee under a vrdunlan assijininint' l>v said debtor, eventlioiii;li it alL'^i's the aeiiniegrein'i' of tlie plaintill' therein, will be .iisniissed on a demurrer, on ilie uroiind that Iheopii.jsaiit lias nostandin^', and sliows r.o ri^ht or title 10 the saiii iini].ertv, lieiiif; inilv the mandalarv of the ereditors. In Mmi v.s Fniiriiiir CJI) L. C. ,T. liid, S, C. bss.")), it was held tli.at an .assi^nre, a.-tin^ in his cpiality as tniatei' and in tlie ini.a-est ol the rstate, cannot, since the abolition of the In.^olvcnt Act, sne on behalf of the creditors of the estate. (2) In litirlniiil \n Moir,il/,it w.as held tliat an .as- si;.'nee holding property nnder.i volniitarv assi(.'nnient toliini by an iiisniv.nt. for tlie hcnctit of creditors, li.arties to tlicdced of assiijnmcnt, is ni>t entitled to plead in his own name in reference to sr.eli jiroperty. .Such ,an assij;hmcnt increlv en.ahles him to represent the assignor and to e:ercisc the assignor's actions and not tli..scp,rtainiui,' toe edit. as alone. i.t) -fheir l.nnlships fully adopted the rcasoninL' of I loci , nsti.'c |),,ii,m in M.ijmrt vs. Itm-h.ml, icp,n-tcd 111 the ^th volume o| Dorion's cases, where, at p. 7ii. be dcsenlics the i-.inadian aiuhoritiee .as tin unbroken cliain ..f preecdcnis, K,>inK as far back a.slsll.and a.l.ts • that the jurispriel. c ..f a eonnlrv on any Ktyen ease when ceiiain ian.it only the best, but the sole ant hcnlie evidence of what the" law now is on the Sll t)JCCt. ACTION— INTEKEST IN. 21 ally. (I) Tourmu/cau vs. Dubeau, S. C, 1884, 10 Q. L. R. ;»:'. 4. Assignee.— The ciise of /Vcco,s-< v.«. Dmht, Q. H. 187-4, 18 L. C. J. liOO, ic- ptirlcil as lioliliiig " tiiiit an as.aijrnec, under an assifriiiiient lo liim by an in.«olvciit t'ui' the ;;en.Tal licnelit i)f Ium creilitoi-'-', not made utnlo- ihei>rniisioii-< of Ihe Inwlvcnt Act, has no (pial- ity to sne in liis own name for anything con- necteilwitli siich ussi^^nment," is incorrectly re- porteil, -IS is noleil liy Dorion C. J. in Mnjl'dlt vs. Jlintdiid, 1 Dorion 75. In the Snperinr Conrt, liailjilfv .I.iillowcl the action ofthe as- signee as such, 'ii appeal the hoMingof Lor- anger .1. disscuieil Crotn this view. Ijut the judgment oftlie ("curt helcw was confirmed hy the majority ol'tiie judges m appeal. 5. An i']ngli~li conimissii.in of baidirnptcy operates in Canaila as a voluntary assignment liy the lianicrnpt, and therefore the assignees may sue for ilebts due to the bankrupt, or foi' ins prop^M-ty. lirurc. vs. And, moil, Q. I!. I'^IS, .Stuart's Rep. Vn . 6. Assignees in their sdlc ([nality as sucii have in Lower Canada no ipiasi cur- porate or representative caiiacify. (2) S. C- 18t;i, Chi'V'dt vs. Di C/ianlal, < L. C. .1. -<,■), 7. \Vh"re a commercial lirm placed in the haiiils df defendants, as securiiv for thi-ii cli'.ini, tnur bo.xcs of tirbacco, and shortly aflerwai'ds, becoming insolvent, made ail assignment o; their estate lo the plaintitl' as assii.'nec — Held, that the plaintilt' was enti- tled ti) re\e:idicale the four boxes i.f (obacccj in hi-^ own mime, after having fu!Hbed the conditions on winch it was a'.;reed wiiii the insolvent lirm thai llie appellants were \-\ deliveiMip tiie tobacco. (W) S'i;iinneiii an*! aetimis t here nm lei* m 111(1 lull Iheereilitiirs i if the iiisn, em eniihl ei mi plain. .\iid ,>iee <;,i/ix 1 1 III, vs. iiiiiillii-r, I liev. I.'r'.t. 4s|, t.i same I'll'eet. lijCliief .histiee Ii.iriiiii eites this as the only ease which ilisliu'lis the loii;{ anil iiiihnikeii eliaiii ef pri'. oeileiits holillii;r the eoiitrarv at that ilate. 4 Doiiiin I). H. at [1. 7(1. Bat see Whihini vs, ItmUiui.r, VI H. h. ,-|18. i:i) 111 this ease ileiVmlaiit was a [larty to the ileeil nf assignment. II. ATTORNEY GENERAL. 1. On an exception to the form to an inform- ation (signed " Moreaii, Oiiimct it Moreau, attorney.s for Attorney General, jiro Regina '"— lldd, that such information would be dis- misseil with costf, as the Attorney General in appearing f.ir Her Majesty could imt appear by attorney. Oartier v^. LnvioUlte, S. C. 1S()2, (i L. C. d. .'iO'J; contra 6'((,s7/,'((//j vs. La Cic, df, Ciiro.sseric, S. C 1.^9o, !) Que. ;!8:! 2. The Attorney General of the Pi'o\ ince of Quebec lias the riglit to appear on behalf of and to represent 'Ter .Majesty'.s interest in all 1 suits pending in tlie Courts of said I'l'iivuice. I In any event this i> a question the Conrt cannot consider at the instance of a private j individual, the upponent of the ('rown, inas- j much as to decide it adversely to the Attorney I General's appearance would elTect a virtual I disavowal of hi^ action, without that being i asked for in the regular mode. Monk vs. : Ouiinet, Q. B. lS7t, I'J I;. C. .T. 71. IfL CRO\VN-PLE.U)ING RIGIIT.S OF. Where a (letitory action wa> taken again-t the holder of an immoveable — IIeld,\\\».l he could not ])lead that the grant of the Crown to the plaintilb had lajjsed owing to the faet that tlie pli'.inlill' and tho-^e from whom he derived had not conl'irmed to the conditions oftlie letters patent. Robert vs. Ltblinic, C. R. 18S'J, U R. L. I!).1. IV. INSURANCE-RIGHTS OF SURERS. IN Action to recover the value ol' a cargo of [ eas lost on the scow "Marie Joseph," in consequence of a colli-'ion with a steamboat bielonging to the defendanis in [ja{diine canal. I'lea, that plaintill' had been paid the value of the [leas by tlie insurers, for whom plaintitl's were a mere prtd<-nom, and bad no intere-t — //tVW, conlirmiug the judgment of the Court below, that notwiilistanding the payment by the insurers, the latter had no right to sue until notice of the transfer and subrogation, and that the action was properly brought. Uichrlini A Ontiiric Narii/alion Co. vs. Lufre- nihr,iop vs. HiK^t, K. I!. LSI 7, 2 J{. del,. 79. VIII. PRUMIS.SOUV N'OTE-IXSUL- VENCY. The defendant was sued on a promi.-sory note, and pleaded that the note had been made by liim in favor uf a cominevcial tirni since in.solvent, that it had jiassed into the hands of to. assignees of the said lirm, that it did not appear thut the insolvent had ever legally recovered possession of it, and that the plamtill had no int. test, bm was merely a pri>tc-iwm for the creditors to whom it belonged. IJild, 1 bat the defendant could not plead tjie rigius of the creditors, but was bound to pay^he amount of the note to the holder. Lemwj v.s Il'-i.s-sinoi, .S. C. 1883, 10 Q. L. R. 90, I.X. RECEIVERS-FOREIGN LAW. 1. WJiere an action wa.s brought in the Pro- vince of Quebec, by the plainlil, a" receiver to a corporation in liquidation domiciled in On- tario, and it was proved by the production of the Ontario Statute that the plaintiflf, as re- ceiver, was duly authorized to represent the corporation in judicial proceeding.'!, he may also appear in his quality of receiver injudicial jjroceediiigs before the Courts of tiie Province of Quebec. Giles v,s. Jicqucs, Q. B. l.S87,M. L. K., 7 Q. H. IJG, 31 L. C. J. 2(l(i, reversing M. L. R, 1 S. C. Kit;; Giles vs. Lalumih-e, C- C. I,s8t, 2^ L. C. J. 2S7| Giles vs. Fitueuf, M. L H., 1 S. C. 322. 2. lint where the foreign law is lot proved, it is lahen forgranteil that it is the same as that iif the Province of (Jueliec, and the foreign receiver in such case could not sue here in bis uch at tiie same time, iiwiy be contested by U) i>vr|-niliiig FraxiT & />■/,■>■<;• v.s. Grave'.le, Moiitrciil (;ou(liMisc(l Kcports a,"); SiiiKinl V8. I'ermuU, 1 1,. C. J. 21!), IS.'iT. .-^oe Mathiini Mun. Oouo (1(JU4), p. 1B9, Notes 4, ,") , G. a single petition, even though the grounds of such contestation are .separate and ditlerent as to each of theconncillors, (2) Ltiwfvnl vh. lio- berlson, C. C. 1872, IG L. C. J. iflJ. II. r.Y TWO PERSONS NOT PARTNERS —CONTRACT. Iir an action bv two persons not co)iartners, on a \orbal agreenjent, by which tbe defendant and another iruin agrecil to furnish a certain qu amity of coi'dwood to be delivered in a certain ]ilacc, and the plantills advanceil njoiiey for the purpose, but the ilefendants failed to carry out their contract — Held, that llie action was properly brought, and judgment was rendered for |,ilaintitis accordingly. Tnidaia vs. Memird, S. C. ISW.^L. C.,1. .-)•}, 7 R.J. R. Q. ;)r.5. V. INSURER AND INSURED. The insurers wiio have pr.id jjart oi the loss, and are sin.rugated />;o /(/)i/o,and the owner of tiie buildings destroyed, may sue jointly in damages for their respective claims. North Shore Ry. Co. vs. .VcHV/Z/t, Q. H. 1S8'J, M. L. R., 5 Q. B. 122. VI. SEVERAL PETITIONS FOR IN- JUNCTION. Several jietitioners for an Injunction can unite causes in demanding the annulliiig of a jirods-vcrlntlonXvv'mg thechange of a highway^ and all proceedings thereunder, and to enjoin ! the municipality from opening or making the road upon the respective ])roperlies of the peti- tioners. Ldjhdc vf. Corp. de SI. Alinii, S. C. 188(i, U R. L. KCi. VII. WHEN ALLOWED. Joinder of iictions will be allowed where it promotes the ends of justice, the actions being otherwise identical. North Jiriliih (D Mer- cantilc Fire .£• Life Tn.s. Co. vs. Lainl)c, S. C. 1S82, 27 L. C. J. 222 ; Rorrette vs. Corp. de St. JSartltelenn', Q. B. 18;».S, 2 Que. 585. ig) ArnON, NATURE OF. I. Auri¥ Sale. VII. POSSLSSION OF CllUttClI PlOW. VIII. Rescission of Sale— RESOLiTOuy CON'DITION'. IX. Resolution of Contiiact, X. Tithes. .XI. Tiu;si>A9s ox Real Estate — Action iiV NoN-PltOl'IllETOU. ('.') This ileoision wan based on the imrtiouliir word- ing of the Muiiioi|ial Code and tbe elc-ctioii law, but on geiu'iiil priiii'ipU's Uainffty .1. denied tlu' rigbt of t.iinder of actioiiBof dlllereut persons in one siiiti though 8taii. Wulnh, (1) S. C. ' 18^2, fl E.N. -1(12. ! within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supe- rior Cciurt, and plaintilMias a right to costs of a Superior Court action, lldulr vs. I'oilras, C. K. IS'JI, .". Que. S'J; and lh,n-al vs. C/icnilin; 1-1 E. C. ,F. 'JCi.-i. V. DA.MAGES— RAILIIOAD— PERFOR- .MANCE OF NECESSAliY WORKS. Where the plaintitl' sued the defendant, a railway com))any, for damages alleged lo have been caused to the pronerty of the defcidant by llie construction of the road, and askeil that thedefendant be condemned to perform certain works (o jiut an end to such damages for the future — ILld.'m review, that such action wa.s not a real action. Denmhit vs. The Grand Trunk L'ailii-aij of ('ar.ada, C. R. 1805, 10 L. C. R. 49. II. ACTION TO HAVE ItEGISTER OF MORTGAGE CIIANGED-PAY.MENT OF CLAIM. An action by which tin plaintili' alleges that defendant colhisively made and registered a inorlga{;e before the meiitguge f.'iven to ])lain- tifl', and asks llial the order of registration be changed, or deftiidant be condemned lo ])ay the inikbledness. is a mixed action. Fauclicv vs. raimhand, S. C. 18.^0, .'j L. N. ;ilt;. VI. LEASE— PROMISE OF SALE. An action nndera lease with promise of sale is a personal action, and iiitiy be brought in les.sor and les^ee court. Mciizies \s. BcU, S. C. L«HO, ;! L. N. 159. III. ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED OF SALE. 'J'he jilainlill, a judgment creditor of one of thedef'enihiuts, brought action in the distiictof Montrea' to set aside a deed of sale of real es- tate situated in the district of Iberville, from the jiulgmenl debtor to the olhenlefeudant — Held, on declinatory exception, that such ac- tio;; was a purely personal one. So irtr \!>. .^tiipleiou, S. C. If'd, 2 L. N. 190. IV. DAMAGES CAFSED RY MILL DAM -DEMOLITION OF; An action for damages caused by a mill dam, which also concludes for the demolition of the dam in default of payment, i.x u, real action and (1) A motion Iiy defendant to he allowed to iip[R.al from tlusi judfiinient was rcjcotcd by the Coiut of Ai)lieals,28tli Nov., 1S8'.>. VII. POSSESSION OF CHURCH PEW. An action by a parishicner against a church corporation claiming po.-session ol a ],ew is not a real aclion. the right of properly being in the Fabriijue. Tremlduij vs. Les Curds el Jiirf/uil- licra d<; I'Quine (t Fabrique de la Paroisse St. Irrii. t . R. 1.S87, 10 L. X. 181, 13 Q. L. R. 2(1. Coiiflrming S. C, 10 L. N. 82. VIII. RESCISSION OF SALE-HESOLU- TORY CONDITION. An action to rescind a sale of iiiimoveal>!ep, based upon a contract containing a resolutory condii'on, is a mixed action ; and where the jirice of sale is under iJ-IOO. the party inscrib- ing in Review need dejiosit but .*20. i/ow/evs. .^7. /'/<;■; e,C. R. 1^'JO, 10 Q. L. R. 208. IX. RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT. An aclion by the purchaser to rescind a contract of sale ofiui immoveable because the vendor cannot give him u good title, and denuuiding the reimbiir.sement of the amounts paid on the price of sale, is a iieronal action, andean be brought before thecourt of the place where the contract was pa.sscd. Rough vs. Eiistcrn Townships Hank, S. C. 1884, 2D L. C. .1. 131. ACTION— NOTICE OF. X. TITHES. An action for titlios is a mixed action. Hoy VH. Bergn-oi}, C. Ct. 18G7, 2 R. L. 'on. Xr. TRESPASS ON REAL ESTATE- ACTION BY NONPROPRIETOR. The renicily for acts of trespass on real es- tate liy a ijerson not pretending to have any riglit of any kind to tlio property trespassed on is a per.-onal and not a real action. Bourijet vs. .¥o.//(,S.C. IBTr), I Q. L. R. 191. Con- firmed in Review {ZM\ Nov., 187.5). (/() ACTION, NOTICE OF. Art. 22 C. C. P. I. MOXTKKAL StKKKT Ry. Co. Waiver of Notice. I. What the Notice must State. 2. II. MrXlCIl'AI. ColU'OKATIONS. Application oj Art. 79.'5 Mun. Code. 1. Constrwtion — Kecorenj of I'enalti/. 2. I'leadiiKj Want of Notice. 8. Waiver of Notice. 4. When Entitlcl to Notice. o-C. III. PlBI.lC OtrKKltS. Pleailiny Want of Notice. 1-3. Procedure — Declaration. 4. What the Notice mn.. 2. What the Notice must State.— By 30-31 Vic, c 39. >ec. 7 (Qiu'.) the .Montreal .Street Ry. Co. is entitled to a month's noticeof action for all loss or damog.' caused by it. Sucli notice to be in writing and served upon the secretary of the company, ai its chief office in the city of Mi.ntreal, witli a detailed statement of such co^ts or damage>. It was proveil : 1st. That un the l.">th July, a letter ;';om Ramsny A' Son was adilress- ed to and received by the secretary, setting out the accident, charging the company's >ei'vant.^ with gross carel?ssness and holding it respon- sible for the cost nfrcplacing a pane of glass, as per a detail' 1 and enclosed acctpuni ; 2nd, That a letter from plaintili's attorney was addressed to and received liy the -secretary, threatening suit if the claim was not paid ; 3rd. That upon the I2th Septenilier, Mr. Lighthall, notary, personally went to the oflice and (dii;'f (ilace ( f business ef the Com pany, where, speaking to a clerk in said ollice, he sigi\ilied unto tiie conipany a transfer from Mr. Oraiiam to the plaintill' ot all hi.s rights in respect ol' said loss, and aUo ,-erved a copy of the transfer, wbich set forth details of the loss, its eau-e and amount; and the notary further theii and there served a copy of the notitiealion upon the company, in which it was forbidden to pay any other pei'^on than plaintitl'. and was nutilied that he would take legal proccedingri to recover the >i!nis so transferred. The secretary admitted that this signitica- tion reached him in the ollice. The plaintiff's action was not taken until the 1 llh Oct. following. — Held, sntficient comjjliance with statute. I'anixati vs. Mniiircal Street Ihj, Co.,G. C. 1887, il L. N. 2. IL M NICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 1. Applicationof Art 793Mun. Code. — That the notice of suit required by Art. 793 of the Municipal Code, as amemled by 45 Vic (Q.), eh. 3.5, s. 26, and by 18 Vic. (Q.), m'A 26 ACTION— NOTICE OF. I? I fli. 28, s. I J, ii|i|ili('-^ rint iiiilv loiicliuiis for the |ii'i)ully rliiTciii cniicti'd, Imt also to acti(jns lor iliiiiiiycs ic-iilliiij; IVoiii tlic iion-t'xociitiuii of tiii.' proris-virlitiii.1: lujil hy-laH's. ('litp. (Ic S/. lliihcrl, C. li. ls8S, M. I,. R,, 1 S. ('. -i:;i, .•!2 )„ (". ,1. ;ii).( ; SriK'nil vs. Curp. "I >■/. ]inii,.,, S. ('. IsiKl, M. J,. H., t; S. C. •'•!>< ; lliliiiiii V,-'. ('i,rp. ill- Sf. Fnivroin ilu Lii'. ('. C. IsSl), 17 Jt. I,. 7(14. Contra, f'ui-p. t,f Tiiii'itsliipuf Di.tujliis vs. Miihi:,; g. 15. IS^,-,; 11 (^ ].. It. 2:il. 11 1!. L. 4'); Tiininy^. i'lii-p. lie SI. LoHis lie Ifn ! j Jill ' S. ('. ISsD, 1,; Q. I,. ){. 2(;()j Liniriii vs. ' <'"i/i. lie Siiiill (HI ]frr,,llit,V. C. l!^ Hie irriallics jircsiTilieii liy .Art-. T'.t:i ami 117- I -. 1."^ -Miiiiiciiial Code, the I'oniiaiilics )iicsi'riU'd | ^ iciciii iiiiisi |„. Hrii'lly iidlicri-d U<. Leatic ' vs. r/,//„„„, c. C. l,s>i,12 It. L. 2M; I'd- ruiill vs, C.rji. ,lr SI. K.ipril, C. C. 18S2, 12 a. I,. 118. 3. Pleading Want of Notice.— Whin a uiiiijici|ial (.■or)ionilioM, sued in dniiia,i,'os under Art. 71).'i Mnii. Code, does not jiJead want of; iiolice, it cannot raise tiie oh.jeetioii at (lie hear- ing' on the merits. C„rp. Towii.sliip of Dn\ig- \ hi.^s vs. J/,,/,,,, g. Ij. IKS,-,, 14 i{, j;, .,.-_ i, lc SI. Iliihcvt, Ci. Itev. l.ssl, k; |i. i„ ,((,„, I III. PUBLIC OFFICERS. I I 1. Pleading Want of Notice— Demur- ' rer. — Want of notice is not aground ofdoiiiur- I rer, imt slioidd he ))lcnded to the merits, in I order to estahhsli liie good or Uii'. faith of the j i)uhlic ollicer in tlie exercise of liis functions. Joilvht vs. ArchmnhanU, S. C. 188,'), M. L. B.., , 1 i*^. C. ."2;! ; MfNiiincc vs. IJimc!, S, C. 18:)il, 3 L. C. .J. llll) ; Droiiin vs. y,:K,n/, C. R. 1>'8", ;!1 L. C. J. 28(1. Contra Lrrlerc vs. Corp. lie SI. Jnachim, C. Ct. 1K()2, 7 li. C. J. 8.S, see iiifrn No. 8. 2. Ilihl, in an action again.st a jiiihiic ollicer for tiie return of froods seized^ ju-Piivc iiriinl I'ltirc ilroil will lie ordered upon a demurrer alleging the oiiiission of one month's not'ce. Bal/upilr vs. Ddi.'^h', S. C. 1870. lo ]>. C. J. -I'A); I'liciudl vs. Qiiennel, Q. li. ISdti, 10 J.. C. J. 207. 3. Want of notice ol action to a pullic officer .should he iileaded hy prcliin- iiiary exception, ".ml, therefore, if an action he dismissed for want of sucii notice, on a plea to the merits, costs will only bo allowed as on a preliminaiy plea. Liijiuill vs. Lcc, S. C. 1881, 2(1 I,. C. ,T. 28. 4. Waiver of Notic3.-Siich notice i- not a iiiiitterof pnhlic nrder, :ind may he waived by the defendant's failure to invoke' the ahsei o of notice l,y their pleadings and hv iheir ad- lni-si„n of liahihly. <'l„irn,i, vs. Curp. ,lr St. Hiihn-I, C. R. 1888. M. I,. 11,^ ., s. C. l.il • Kill,/ vs. Ci,'. ill' C/i. il, F,r /•,./„„•„ ,/,, y^^^^f] I rnil. S. C, 2(;ih .M,.,rch, 1888, reported 10 U I- 'I'.'ll. (Note) 5- When Entitled to Notice.-The notice ' i.s also necessary when the action is of another kind joined to an action in damages. Snii'ml v.s. Corp. lie SI. ISruiw, S. C. LsDO, M L K c s. c. ;i;i8. ■ ■ " ; , ^- ^5'" i'l "nother case it was held •1"" ".uler Art. 22 C.C.P. notice of action in ' warranty against a municipal corporation is not ' necessary, although damages arc also ,le- ' •m.nde,l. (1) Hiiilli'!, ,..,. n^,,,,^ c_i. jg.^^ i (DSef /nw,.vs, /f".^^.H,n■f,■a,|,,J, ana notes tliereto. i 4. Procedure— Declaration —When a, statute reipiires iliat notice of action he given before suit, it is not ncces-ary to mention in the , declaration that such notice has been given. ; Simanlvs. TiillU; S. C. I.'^,')l, -I I.. C. R. 19:;, : 4R. .1. R Q. 150; /^((i/V.v vs. Mmpiire, S. C. •■ 18J4, 4 L. C. li. ;147,4 R. .1. R. Q. IsO. 5. What the Notice must State. —Wlieie thedelcndant, a constable, received notice of action under 14 and l.j Vic, c. ".4, sec. 2, and C. S. L. C, c. 101 (sec. 22, C. C. P.), for mali- cious arrest and imprisonment, which omitted to menlion tiie place where the party was arrested an,l imprisoned-7/(./,^, confirming the judgment of the Court below, that such notice was insufficient, and the action was dis- 111 issed . n, lla-Hicoflh vs. Hi,,iqh, Q. B. 1860, 10 L. CI. I«4, 10 L. C. R. 411). f- The Superior Court (Mackay J., 2 L N. ;i34) ^Hdd, that under theCC. 1'., Art. 22, and Consol. Stat. L. C., c.lOl, s. 1, the respondent was entitled to a notice of action, and that the notice criven was msiillicient in not stating the j.lace where the alleged arre-t was effected, and also in not stating the name and residence of plaintiff's attorney or agent. Tlie action was in con sequence dismis.sed. This judgment was confirmed by the Court ACTION— NOTICE OF 27 of (^icen's Heiich (2 Dorion, Q. B. R. tJ7,4 L. N. 'M'A) ; but that Court went fiirtlier, and JIcl'l, tlial the liefeiidiiiit was properly arrest- ed, lieiiifT a meiiilier of an illeiial association. On appeal to the Supreme Court i/C C'anaila, Jicl' that the notice of aetion waHinsuflicient, for the leafOMs given hy the Court below, and also because tiie cause or causes of action, as set out in thf declarulion, were not snflicienlly stated in the notice. Grant vs. JintiKlri/, Sujirenie Court 1Hm;5, Cassel's Dig. (new edit.) 5M1. 7. The notice of action ou;.'lil to specify aiiit indicate to the ollicer sued whether the coniplainl relates to an act done by him, or to an act done by one for whom he is le- s])on'^ible. I'roiif of fault on the part of the laller will not sn.slain an action against the former upon a fault stated to be persmial to him. I'dcKitd vs. Biirtris, C. U. Ifi8(i, 12 Q. J.. R. :»!). 8. When Entitled to Notice— Bona Fides of Officer.— A public officer is not en- titled to the notice menlioned in Art. 22 of the (\)i\i' of I'rocediiie wlien sued for damajres on account of bad faith. Fcrlmul vs. LtitoKr, S. C. I'-iT-l, (i 11. Jj. 77 J (nlii. irKcoIrs lie. Sti', M(irl/ir \<. St. Pici-yr, S. C. 1S71>, 2 L. N. ;M:i ; Benuitrhn vs. llamoinl. C. C. l^Sl, 7 Q. L. ]{. 2,') ; and l)r \'ic., c. 2'), and 11 and 1;5 j Vic., c. .")!. MvNdmcr \'>^. Hiwcs; S. C. 18r.9, ;i L. C. .1. 1U9, II . J. R. Q. :!S3. 10. Elections.— Where the pre- .siding oflicer of a municipal election had refused to grant a poll, and in consefpience there was no election held. On action of damages lironght — Held, on authority of J'a- (•mill vs. Qiu'xiicl (10 L. C. J. 207), that, as ho had acted in bad faith, he waR not entitled lo a month's notice of action. Jienintclirz vs. Ilcniiowt.. C. C. 1882, 7 Q. L. R. 25. notice of action. Gniiit vs. I'lrrii-nl, K. \i. IBlf), I R.deL. ;ial, 2 R. J. R. Q. .).!. 12. Rut //(/'/, that in an action against the collector of custnnis,to recover back money exacted hy liiiu as fees of oflice, he is not entitled to one nu)nlh'.M notice of action. (1) /V/cv vs I'erririd, K. R. 1821, SluariV Rep. 179, 1 R. .1. R. Q. 201. 13. JIf'Id. under C. S. C.,c. 17, sec. 91, that money paid to a collector of customs an duty upon goods to be imported, upon the con- dition that a certain portion ol the money so jiaid shall Ijc remitted by him, in the event of the goods arriving before a rise of duty takes jilace by virtue of an act about lo come into C^:\:^: is not in the nature of a ileposit |)laced jn the luinds of a |)rivate imlividnal, but is so [laid to him in Ins <:apacily orcolle(Uor, in tiie performance ol his duty as sudi, aial there- fore in such case the above section ap|)lies, and the collector is entitled to a month's notice' Step/irii.s- vs. n,„illiillier, Q. R. l^Cl, 9 L. C. J.;i09. 1 4. Officer remunerated by Fees. — Notice of action against a puhlic ollicer for damages, for acts done by him in the per- formance of his functions, is due equally to the ollicer whose remuneration is by fees, ns lo liim who receives a salary from llie goverinnent, or wdio performs gratuitous or honorary duties. Farmid vs. 7;,//»/.v, C. R. l88(i, 12 Q. L. R. 99, 15. — Omitting to do what the Law requires. — A public ollicer is not en- titleil to notice of action under Art. 22 C. C. P., wliere the action is for a penalty for failing or omiltiiiic to (111 what the law leipiires him lodo. .Iii iif fees liy tlie (itiieer in I'riie vs. Perrival was for his own Mistoin fe rant^.. .., .^... « ..^ ,.., lection of notice of action. (See reniarks of Bmltjlcy J, in Sti'phivn vs. Jloiitliilliu-, Q. H. )8(i4, '.I J,. C. J l(K?l-.) lees, and not as public property, aiul liciM!4 unwar- lantcd liy law the ilefondant haii no ri^ht to the |)ro- W '-' 28 ACTION— NOTICE OF. ccnm-il to l.c siii'li pulilu- olticcr. L(i'l■/. .lo'iiliiiii ill' riiiiili' Cliiirc, S, (,'• lHti2. 7 I,. ('. J. ^■' ! M''i-issilt. V-. Cin-junii- Hon (>' Vlll'iiir ilr U:, Ill-ill' nu'\ ('fi)i Q. L. n. 'i'i'i. 17. Wbcre DumogcstireSub sidiary fo other Demands— In an aciinn to r('f.'iiiii prHSicssinii of an iniinnvi'aMc wlii'ic duMia;.'!'^ aio al-^u prnycil fur. ilir ncliii' "f one niiintli rcfcncd lo l>v An. 'J'J ('.('. 1'. i- not nfccvsiiry. Jh.i/i.n v^. CniiH.inH'oi i,/ St. Jo.iqili, i}. H. l.'-7:!. 17 1.. ('. .1. ''.1.1. Ig. //'/./, liial nii'lir Art. 22 ('. C. P.. notice ol acliiii 1 f uan'ai.ly npninst n !nnnici|'al coipoiiiliori i- not n(\f<- snry, allhonirli tin' aclion cdi clinK'.-^ for (laiiinjip.--. Il'iill'i/ v.~. Jliii'ii, C, K. l.'<74, !'.» L. C. .'. 111. 19. Contra, in an action ill ilisln. baiicc hIkmc liani.i^'es areiilsii prnypd liir, the iK.licc of oni' nionili rclerroil to by Art. 22 (". (". P. i.« nccii-niry.i 1) lluinih \-. Cnrpnriiliiiii ,r frlaii'l,; Q. B. 1^8.5. l:! If. I,. 581 ; srfa\s() Siiiri'ii! y^'. Cor]). ilrSI. Hrniin. s. c. I.'*:!!!, M. I.. P., •; s. ('. : :!,«, Mip.ia p. 2ii. 20. Where Action Discontinued.— (.Art. 22 C. C. P.) Notice iini.= - lie reneweii liefore eoinineiu'inj; a iie'.v action. Di'iiiers v-. MrCnili,/, S. C. D^Sfi, M. I.. I!., 2 S. C. 12.^ 21. Who are .Entitled to Notice- Laborr r Acting for Road Oflacer.— In ae- lion for Irespa.-^,': liy tnaliin;: aiil oi eiiin^ ii rond on tlie plaiiilitrs fnrin, uhce tiie delendiiiit ]ileailed IJiat lie did so liy order of the road purveyor, and was entitled to a iiiontli's notice, the plea was ilisinis-cd. K.-'iiilinrl v.a, MiQiiilhiu, Q. B. 1,",')."), 6 I.. C. 1!. l.-it;, 5 H. .1. H. Q. l:!:i; i-ri-ei:-^!,i,i .S. C; //..//„„ vs. .1,7- A/n.s-, Q. Ii. !.^7.-), :i Q. L. H.2S1). 22. Army Officer.— 'Die com- liHindiiiL' <'llieer of a Hriti^ii re;;iineiit. who is Plied by a retired coiporal ol the rej.'inient f.r diinia^eH allegeil to have heen eau.-eil hv hi- arrest and iniprisoniiient by thecoloneh \vlii!~t in tliereyiinent. illeL;ally, inahcioiisly,aiid « ith- out jirol iible cause, cannot invoke the want, f one month's notice of action provided for in Art. 22 of the Code of ''ivil Procedure, even when it is jiroved that he acted, in reaiitv, le- gally, vvitlioiit malice, iind nith leasonableor probalile cause, liiinii:-: vs. yf'i.ttiiii, S. (". 1872, 17 L. C. J. 288, 1 R. I,. .'■)I2. (1) Tlie liittor case ik in eonfilet witli otluT declsinns coiitainiiig t'linilar issues. See infrn, p. 2JI tlie ease of IririH vs. lioKloii il!eirari(S of'C'liiif Justice) and notes tliereto, ; 23. Bailiffs.— .\ baililT i^ not a [ public otlicereiititli'd to notice of act ion iinile"' I Art. 22 of Code of ('. V. Mnjor \f. Ihiuchn; \ C. C. 1877. 21 L. C. .1. :i01 : Major vs. Char- I Iriiii'l. C. C. 1877,21 I,. C. ,1. TiOII; Mirhmi vs. ■ Vniiii. C. R. 1.^8i;. .M. 1,. R.,2S.C. :it;7; and see \ Irirhi vs. noslo,i,(l 1!. 18,". 2 I.. C.J. 171, ' .( R.,1. I!. Q. :i:i2, //',/'/■" N'o. oo. 24. Bot^rd of School Coramis- siouers,— -A Board of .^(diool Coiiimi.ssioners isentitli'dto notice of iictiiiii . I liaiiiniies npain.st . ijietii for acts done in the performance of their piibbc duties. (2j l'o.-. C. i.-7:>, 2 1.. X. ::bi. ' 2(5. Catholic Priest— A Catho- ■ lii' priest, wlio, in the e.xerc's--- of his |,i;blic function-, celebrates a marriiiL'c. is entitled to a month's notice ol action when beiii;.' .sued in claiiia>:es tor haviiiij; married a minor wittioiit the ■ eon-eni oflier parents. I'oln rl vs. liriiii, Q H. I8ii;i, 1 K. [.. i.-ii). i:: I., c. J. 22:.. 27. Church Constable— A eiinrch constable, sued for ■laniaL'es arisin;; out, , of an act d(.ine by liiiii in the per fori nance of bin official duty, isentitled to notice of action under Art. 22 of the Code of C. P. W'illnliiill vs. llrhrliol... C. C. issi, 27 L. C. .1. 17:"), 12 R. \ L. 121. (I L. X. 2Ti;. I 28. Special Constable —Also \ a special eonslalile. Liijoiill vs. A,,, .S. C, ' 188i,2i; L. C. .1, •i<. 29. Municipal Corporation, — .\ inipiicipid corporation is not an officer or person lilliiif; the duties (d' smdi, or po-^sessiiii: piililic I'linctions in the sense of Art. 22 C. C. P., so as to entitle it to a luontirs notice of action [W) Hlnlii vs. Corji.ot (iranlilj, C. H. l.-^7:l, .') U. I.. l>a,l» I,. C. ,1. H2: lirllxf. Corp. ofQinlicr.S. C. 1.^7(1,2 Q. I.. R. dd.^i ; Cii It »:is Ilcia ill ni'iill \^ < ,,i-/i. ,,;■ Crniihii (Cl. Hev. I.st:!. l.'^ L. i'. •!. tM-.'j. ihat a ciiriioraticin is not eiitillcit to line iiiinitirs iircviiiiis notice of action uiiiier .Art. ■_'■-' C. c. 1'. ; luit .!,,liii.siin ,1. pointeil out tliat " i'iir|'oraiii>ii> al.^u iii.-iv lie i-iiiici'i\ .'ilily tre.ateil as imlilic iitticers, ln'oaasc tiiey execute duties iiii- imsid upiiii tliciii individually". In this .-ense it is repiiited in tlie Uevue ( riti(|ue, |i,ni;,. 4.s(l. wlicrc ilie Cnurt lield a l'.o;inl 'iii'cl in iliuiia^t's for Ikiv- iiij;, !i~ II ini'iiilicr ot'ijio.si.jcwiilk' cminnitltM', Ciiii-^lnioli'il 11 >iiii.'\viilk on the |iliiiii!i(l"s |iio- pcrly. i.-> ciilillcii to 11 iiionlli's lu.tici.' (.(' uction. FiliiifraiiU v.-. Mcllml, (.'. It. 1,"'.)0, is i{. L. ;V2J. 31. Registrar.— In m; nction UiTuin-t a rcLjisli'ii!', for error in ccrliliciUc of rci:i>lriltion of hypotlu'C. llild to W )l publii; Olliccr iiiiil entitled to notice of autiun, iinil the relni'ii of >\\v,\\ notice not liavini: lieen roirn. larly sic;neil, woulil, in itself, he faiaj lo ilie action. Onuiicr v-. liindcan. C. 11. 18t*2, S Q. !.. H. 32;!. 32- Road Inspector.— An in- spector of roads and dilclies is a public ollioer, and is entitled to a niuiith's notice of action, wlien sned in damages for acts williin tiie scope of his iliity. Jcllevs. Choiiiielh:, Q. li. 1S57, 7 1,. C. H. (iV., 5 R. J. R. Q. 177, 1 L. C. J. 148. 33. Sheriffs.— (and see siipi-a N'o. 2:i). AslierilV, sned in an action of revendication, conpled with udeiniind of dainajies for nej^lect. ing to obey the order of the Court to deliver up |lie property, cannot claim the notice of action l.re-scrihed 'by 14 and l.") Vic, ch.. 54 (Art. 22 C. (L P.), because that statute only applies where thai ollicer is acting within the line of hi.* du- ties, or is at least under a reasonable and bomi fide opinion that he is so acting. And (by the C^hief Justice) the statute only applies in actions to recover dumngex from the ollicer, arisins: from acts performed in the course of his public functions, and not to actions wherein the deinaml for damages is only accessory to the jirincipal deinand based upon the ine.\eciition of an obligation imposed by- law or by sti|>uIalion. (1) Irwin v.s. Boston' (I) This lioldiiiy iif tlK'('liict'.Iusli<'c's is sustiiiiieil liy till' caBcMf />/■,-,■, vs. I'lninil i Iv. I!. 18-'l, 1 i;..l.lt.y. L.'»l— stmn-t I!c|i. 1711). wlin-r it wiis lielil tliut in an iirtiuii iiu'iiiiisl a collei'liM' of ciistnnis. |o i' iviT liack iiioiu'y I'Xiii'teil liy liini .■l^ tei's of ulliri', hi' is nut eiititUMi to one month's noliof of rn'tiou iiniii'i" "JS (luo, :inl, oh. 37, sec. 'S, lliiiiii'rial). .Sci' iilso niiprii p. L'7 ! note (1 1 In aiiKiiglisli ease liaseil upon a statute similar to | onr law in respei't f>f notiee of ai'iion. it was helit tiiat '■ where the iii'ini'i|ial oliji'Ot of an ai'tion against ii local hoaril of health is an injuuiiliou to restrain an innneiliate injin-y, if is not necessary toj;ivea month's noticeof the eaiiseot action." And it mnkis no ilif- /'rrt'it'-ethifl (fiimitijrsifrr rl'thnrit f>!/ H'ltff or' si(lj!i. Loi'nl Itonnlol Lme h iiton,i't. -App. 1,S77, .T Ch. 1 > :i47. , Je.ssel .M. K. .said that the .iction was intemleil to apply to an action at law for diiuniL'es, and its object was to give on opportunity to a local authority to make payment or tender "of coinpeusation for "the damage sustained, (at p. 35'2). (J. li. IsoT, :; 1,. c. J. 171. 7 1.. C. U. t:!:!, t R. J. R. (I yyi. 34. . — In the pre-entcase a sherill' was held n.,1 entitled lo notieeof action for damages lor using coar-e an I insulting language, and fi.r refiiial to communicate to the plaintitr the name of a bidder upon cer tain iminoveable property sti/ed at the suit of plointitl', beciiMse in using suedi langnaje he was not crimiufnliiinsli/ un.jer the lielief that he was thus performing his ollicial duly, and it was injt doul)|ed liy any of (lie judges that sheiitls are public ollicers williin tlie meaning of the statute. I'.iruiid v. Qin-^iud, Q. H. l.-^tiO, 10 L. V. .1. 207. 35. - Special Superintentient.- An iiclion in (iisturimuce and for damage- against a special superintendent nndei' tiie .Munici|)al Code will be dismissed ifthesupei- intendent has not received notice of action as re.iuired by Art. 22 C. C. P. (2) HoiKjk vs, C„i- purnlinn d'h-hmde, i}. H. l,->Si"i, l.'i R, L. .-,,S1. (/) ACTION, PRIVITY (LIEN DE DROIT). T. Rook Dkiits AiiVKUTisi,]) foi;S.\i,i: hit wiTiiiiiiAW.v bi;foi(i; S.u.i. — Dam.m.k.s. II. ('IiiEiii.ijs- UsAGi-; (11' Tii.vDj;. III. CoXTltACT 'J'llAXSl'KltllKl). IH. IV. Ixst'itAXii; AoKXT— Tiiii ^.s-sukku, V. IxTi:i!i'i:iuN'(j IX CoxTKArr. VI. NoTAiiv— Fi-:ks — Aiijidicataiki;. VII. RllYSlCIAX— SlillVIlKS— DoXOK. VIII. PlllNCIPAI. ANI) AtiKXT. IX. RlilOVJiltV OF (Joons TAKKX OLT OF HAXIIS OF (iilAlllllAX. 1-2. X. Rk.'ovkisv of Pi!ori:iiTV ji.li;(;ali.v SOI,.' jtv Plkdgki:. XI. Rights of Ci'.KDiToiis of Ixsolvent AGAlX.ST I'autiks IXDKHTKU TO THi: Estatf. XII. Sai,f of I.mmovfaiu.i:— Wak!!axtv — SfCOXD PfltCIIASFIt. XIII. StIIUI.ATIO.V IX FAVOK OF .\XOTlli:i!. .\iid in ll'il' iii'^i vs. I'lipl'ir />islri--/ Ilo'ird nf )l'iiri'.<, it was held on the .■iiiihorilv of tic aliovc case that notice, under sec. Inii of the Metropolis Local Manage- ment .Vol l.snj, was not necessary in an action for an ininnction to restrain a nuisance. «', A. IhSii, ^3 Cb. JJ, lltil. Also in /■'(«// v-i. Tlif Arnyor, I /r.. nf' .\tiii-iriti , ij. B, 1S.S3 (11 Q. I!. I>. ^ini). it was held that sec.' 'Jill of the I'nblic Health -^ct 1S7,-, (asA: ;;;i Vic. c. .Vj), whicli enacts that 110 writo- process shall be sued out ac;ainsi any local authority for anytbiiij; done or intended to be done under t le provision of this ,\ct until one month after written notice of action, ('to., and that any jicrson to who'n anvsuch notice of action is.i.'i\'''ii may tender amends to the plaintitf within one month after the servicoof such notice — does not api>ly toan action for the recovery of land. ;l ■ ^ '^?S '^ ' ' T ('2) But see Contra Ooi/nu vs. ''or/inrtrlioii dr la I'a- roUnc lie St. Joxeiih, 17 1,. (J. J, 11)3. No. 17 supra. 30 ACTION— nil V IT V. I. rt(JOK DHin'S ADVKirriSKD I-'OIi SAI,K UVT WITIIDUAWN' HKJ'OliK SAl.E-DAMAfiKS. Tli« ili'lci iliihl, in lii- (|im'il.v uf iissijiiifc to IV. IXSI'KAN'CE AOHNT-TIIH INSI-RKD. 'riici'c i- 11(1 |ii'i\ ily of coiiiriicl liclweeii an llie jij^olvciil p.-tiile i>f 1 1. inlvi'l'll^t ^.. The respoiideiits then (liscDiintcd for him a drad dh i'. tor .'?l;t,y4.'i..'i0, takim; a.s security tlie hill of ladingut the imat -o shipped, thus leaving an eslimaled margin revertiiiL' to -M.Dt' draft. ,s!'-',200. I', refused acceplance of the III. CONTKACT TliAXSKKRKHI). 1. W here two hliiclier.- Ilk V a contract, ty contract he lia-i which one cede.s to the other a to supply meal, and such contract is terniin- ahle at the will of the party In he supplied, no action will lie against the transieror if the contract is terminated iiv the i the hetf was, in Octoher, l^Tti, sold for the heiielit of the hank a.s holder of the hill ..fladi reah/.ing an amoiinl insullicienl to p;iv the advance ii.ade hy re; lie! poll lent to M. ore the sale t le respt.Mdeiil,- claimed pli De li ,w0 ;; ^ del very or security on ilraft at ;^l) davs, no notion will lie ly the pa'iy against the second party fo.- insisting on these coiiditi tl there I. ,'iving the" order ^'I- NOTAUY— FKHS-JIJDICIAL SAL sistiiii'on ilipso ! A stipulation made in the coiidition.s of .-; no privity between | L'onnected with the Judicial dii lem, I no ratiticatioii hy the former. Totirii/iti/ vs. W'hcda-, Q. B. lyS-J, Ram- Dig. 552, in a|)peal from Ct. of Review, 9 Q. L. R 198. 3. A 11 aiireement several persons with the proprietor of a cheese factorv, to iipply th lie po^al ofiiii- moveahles, that the purchaser shall he oblieed to \) iiy, in addition to the jirice of judication at the time of the e.xecution of the deeds of sale, to the iiig the same as i "III nil li proprietor with milk undercertain conditi docs not give to the transfe ree of the cliee.se factory with all righi.s appurtenant tiiereto, a right of action against any of the said milk suppliers for breach of contract. Beiuil) Renuitclicz, Q. B. iHHii, M R. L. 19;; ing S. C. 1885, ];) R. L. 281, reported sub. Birmitchez v?. Ikaniiiont. icn vs. revers- nom- notary superintend- acommi.-sion of four per cent., creates 110 privity of contract he- lween the notarv and give rise to a right of ac Ihe purchaser ?o as i<. fori D 'oiicct vs. /'/ :tiDn in liivor of the 23 L. C.J. 1 iisoiiiicKii, (I B, i.>j7h t),'' VII. I'lIYSICIAN-DONOR. Where a doctor attends I donor, he has direct action against the donee for the val ue of ACTION— PI! IV ITV. 31 luM Hcrvice.-^ wliure tlic liilliT lias Iw tlic dceil of (lonutiori iiiulcrlakcii in the evi'iil of tlic donor's illncMi' to call u doctor iiiul pay his fees. Liiportc vm- Gnivrl, S. C. 18->U, 17 H. L. 104. VIH. I'iilXCIl'AL AND AOKNT. (See also UMik-r title Adiixcv.) By till' .fiidjjini'nt of the Siipn'Mie Couit in this case, which wap, however, decideil on other grouiid.s, it was held liv I'^omiiicr and Henry J.. I., ihiit a valid action loiiiil not he instituted by an undisclosed principal ngainsi thinl parlies contractinir with the former's representatives • Strong J. held th It such .iclioii could he taken. Jlndon v.s. Cini. ShipjiiiKj Cmj. 115 Can. S.t.Mi. 4112 (IHsf)). The atlirniiitive was al.-o maintained hy Davidson .1 . iu .Vacltill vs Murijaii, 1 (^ue. (S.C.) 53u, which w:is reversed in appeal on another point. IX. IlKCOVEUY OF (lOODSTAKHX FKU.M (JUARDIAN'S. 1. Action hy plaintiti, alleging that defen- dants had niilawfully sold, and converted to thcirown use, certain ellects which the plain- tiff had caused to he sei/.eil iu another ca.«e under an attnchment for rent, and which the g\iardian had placed temporarily in the chai'ge of the present defendants; and praying that they he condemnetl to pay the value of such effects to the extent of 'he halance -.ue to plaintiff on the Judgment maintaining the attachment. Llchl. reversing, that plaintilf had a right of action against defendant. Morris vs. MiUrr, C. R. ISSt;, M. J-. R, -j S. C. 470, ;!1 L. C. J. 20!). 2. When a third )>ariy niilawfully takes away a sewing machine which was under seizure, thereby preventing its .salehy authority of jus- tice, the party who made the seizure has a right of action again.st him for the return of the machine to the guardian or payment of its price. S(iv(if/c\f. Singer Manufaclitrinc/ Co., C. C. 18S0, >,) L, N. 2(13. Helil, that the -ale hy the pleilgee wasa nul- lity under ('.C. 14^7, and that the pledgee might maintain an action agaiii>t the def( I'dant to recover the amontit received hy him in excess of the deht secured hy the pledge. Liilii:' vs. Gin.ii.'nl, C. R. ISHO, .M. I„ R., 2 S. (". I7i». X. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY ILLEGALLY SOLD RY PLEDGEE. An obligation having been transferred merely by way of collateral security for a debt, the pledgee sold the obligation so transferred to the defendant, who, with knowledgeof all the facts, collected the full amount thereof from the debtcu'. (ll As tollie i;iigiisli liiw on tliispoint.si'e liminiiiu) vs. Pivriiirhd his. Co. a/ Caiiiiiln, .', 1'. ('. A[>p, lit p. Xr. RIGHTS OF OREDITOR OF IN- SOLVENT AS TO PARIFKS IN'DEHIED 'I'O THE EST.VTE. The |ilaintill'sued, setting up that he was a creilitor of the insolvent lirtn of II. II. iV; Co., and alleging that llii' (ielendants had in their pos-essii II large sums ari-'ing from the .-ale of collateral security deposited with them for paper di-coniited for that lirm before it- insol- vency, and which was not met at maturity ; that the lirm of II. II. A; Co. had become in- solvent, and hail a-signed in trust all its rights and as-ets to one Stevi'ii^oii, in which assign ment the plaintill and defendants had aci|ui> esced, r'lid plaintilf prayed that an account might be rendered to him or the a>.-igiiC'', and the balance due H. II. iV Co.'s e-tatc paid in for the henelit ol the crediiors a- their com mon pledge. The derendants demurred to thie declaration on the gnnmds that no privity of contract between plaintiti and defcndauts ivas alleged; that the only piiity I'lilillcd to >ne was the lirm of II. H. ifc Co.. or their legal ie|ire- seiitative, it not being alles:ed that plaintilf was such; that the allciied insolvency and as- signment did iKJt prevent the linn of II. II.. V: Co , or the assignee bringing suit ; nor did the assignment give plaintill any greater rights than he would have had otherwi.-e ; thai there was no 1. and alleged, and that therefore no grounil or right of action elt there was no privity or legal right of action. The rights of II. H. & Co. he iiid not jirelend to be subrogated in, and moreoverhe e.\pres.-ly alleged that they were all vested in the assignee. C. C. Ulltl differs from the Code Napoleon, Art.lltii;, the last paragraph of which does not include the words, "when to their prejudice he refuses or neglectsi to do. so." The essentiality of the alle- gations of the debtor's neglecting or refusing to exercise his rights to the creditor's prejudice waa a question even in Frai ce under the Code Napoleon as it stands, and no doubt can exist :m\ *. ; ■i*'*Si .' > r ii IS ■j;: ACTION— Sl\^FI':XS ION ( )F ill gm-lMC, iiiii-iiiiii'lia-'iiurCo'lcfxprfs-.lv it iluttii. If II wcrr |K,.s-iljl(' for |iliiinliirii I. I!Y DKATII OF 1" AKTY-KXl'HRI'ISli titiii the Ilium iiii; llml 111' wiiscMTci it CKiilil nrilv V (irillllll-'l'OIUll Wlllinlll |irclrl|.l 1. If if till' 1 iiiriic- .lit' jipii'liiiv! "11 siriu-ll.II. AC ,i|iiiry liy fX|"'i'l.-', Ilicir |ir(K:ci'.lin;,'i inii-*i re III lln' liiiii'l^ of lliiiil iiiirlic- tlii-i' I II I'll lull." iiri' fiiiiii'l nil luiic y II sci/.ii Aiilli.irilifH III ni|i|«iri o Huit. .i.T Art. I(i:!l ('. •' hr ipllllllllH S CiillllM'l IT| ilv III'; Unit 111' lirill'' ?,„•/„ 2. A Jji'riiisciii', K. r.. isio. ,! 1{. (le \i II iicliiin >.!.' Jrlirlii, wliicli i- jiiiiit uiiil uii> cxiTci-iiit' 111- uwii ri;:lil-, jn'ivily ciiiirely iiiiiit'iK'r^.-nry. Art. IHHI ,.f iIh' Civil Cip.ji.' proviijc.xlhul llic t.'OuiH (il iidi'liiiiriirc llic x'vcnil iiuiiiii-l ^fuTiil iici'i'^iiii-', i* nut siiriiii'iii II- tu llic 'iir\ ivur- tiV till' ,.-'t'>.''iiiii pi'i MrlM'J'tll,(l. B. IsTT I \.. N. 4. IpCI'IV ( if llic linn of 11. II. k Co., in wliicli lilaiiitill wiiH cntillcii to ■^liare a-* crcililor lliMl in ilieir rcfii-al lo rci,'o;.'iiizc lii- liKlit-' lie wiH cnlillcij to liriii;; anacliun a;:ain-l llii'iii „l II. IN CHIMIN'AI-.MATTKIIS-CIVIL O l''illl]lCl lIlCMl In llil .'-(l. I (liMlllS-Pll. (C. ('. I'.lsl, Huh.tiiin ii TItihitiiiltdU, followcl.) T/ioiiips(iii vs. S. C. is-,-., .'^ L. N. lie ilciiiiirrcr vva- mill 7 L. X. 1!7I. ACTION I'KNDINC. Ai'l. .'i.'Mof llic Ciiininal Code ninv enacts llial '■ aflcr tlic cdinniencciii iiicnl of tliis Act no cnii rcincilv lor aiiv act or oiiii''.~i(iii t1,M. L. R., 7 r. 27.-1. slay ))rocecdings upon the several contesla- tions until the (juestion involved therein shall I in an action brought .s])ccmlly deter I Mil. STI IT NATION IX FAVOR OF AXOTHEK. II'I'I. lliiil one ill wlidse favor a stipuluiiun ; made liy another may hriiig an aclioii lo ilorce il, though himself not a party to the for the purpose ol testing it. Nurlh British (I- Mercantile Fire & Life Inn. (Jo. \», Limbe, S. C. 188li, 27 L. C. J. 222. eiiiitraet. Ilrishi 21 L. c. J. k;. (tiiipc S. C. [> ( / } ACTION, SUSPENSI )N OF. I. Kv Di'ATii. 1-2. II. In Citi.MiXAi. Mattkiis — Civji, .Vrriox Pknuixi;. III. To I)i 1 KUMiNK Issn-; Common to Skvk- itAi. Actions. IV. L'xTH. CosT.s 01' FoiiMDii AcTiox Paid. See under title " Costs". V. UxTii. Is.sfK IX AxoTiiKK Cask Dlciued. IV. rXTIl. COSTS OF FORMER ACTION PAID. (See under title " Costs.") V. FNTIL ISSUE IX ANOTHER CASE DECIDED. Motii'ii hy ilefciidiiiits, to suspend llie pi'O- ceedings in tliis cause until the dc i.simi of the issues in tlic cause of Ainolilirt ill. against Tilliii. It is alleged that in the last naiiicd sr.it the delendants seek to set aside or modify the deeds invoked by the jilaintills in this suit. The declaration in the suit of Arnoldi et al. against Tijin et plni.itill'" ; Iml lliu question if, wliollier tlicy Imve foiiiilil tin- right rcnipil)'. Tlici't' seems to tie no (|iieHiioii tliut at an earlier .■'tii^e ut' tliis cu-*e lie iiii;;lit liave olilaiiieil leav<' to call on the (larlien to iliis (Jpeil to Cdiiie into this Kiiit to hear llie ileedrt (ieciaml ii;il|. Hut lie never sought this periiiiHsion. ile took out a new ae.tioii, and some tinieafterwanls lie uskeii leave to re- unite the Inter case to this one. Leave was refused hoth by the Coiiil below ami lieie. Dclen| appellant ; that the deed of sale ought to be declared null, anil that, in being declared null, the lease also must tail, and with it appellant's ilemand for rent and in ejectment. Uespondent also brout^lit a direct action to set aside the deeil of sale an regards all the properly so sold by him to ap|iellani, alleging the same facts. Hothcii^es were in the Superior (Vjuri, and both came ut the same lime before the same jmlge, the case under the Lessor and Lessees Act on the merits, ami the suit to s?t anide the deed of sale on a deinurrei' to a plea ol //< /lendfii-'. flfU/, that they were properly united. Clirr- Nai vs. Coivlri/, Q. U. 1882,,". L. N. 2118, iV 2 Q. H. R. •W>. And where two cases have been united in the Court of ;'-si instance, the party '.ho con- siders himself aggrieved by i!.i* judgment thereon cannot again separate iheni for the purpose of bringing one to review and one to appeal, but mii.-t inscuibe tliciii together either in review or in appeal. II)., I Q. H. I{. 3'.il, 1881. IV. qi'I TAM ACTIO.VS-KLKCTIOX ACT. There i- connexity between several i'incr L. K.,r)S. c. 111. (I) ACTION-WHERE IT MAY BE BROUGHT. I. Casks hoi.disi; that tiik W/icIc Cal-.se OK ACTION Ml'ST HAVK AHISKN OIT- SIllE TMl: DlSTUMT OF DkFKNPANT'S DoMlrll.K TO OIVK JlKLSnilTlON 1 V SITU OiTMlJK DiSTBHT. I'i.'i. (See also caees under No. IV.) II. Casks iioi.iukc that Dkfkndant can hi: .MADi: TU Al'l'KAIl WMKRK Illliirf OF AfTION HAS IIKKX i'FlU-FlTKll. WIIKRE IJkkach of Co.\ti;,act akisks, ok WHKiiK Tin: Whom: is donf. '12. SumC.—'W'UKRf. DtFKMlAvr RKSIIIES OFT- SIDE THE Provixck. 1-T. (Sec also under title ■' Ajisexci:." HI. Piiii.K Officfrs (See Action— Notice of— I'nblicUlliccr.) IV. WllKUK DOCMMF.NT SfED ON DATED, OR iiKri.ARKii TO m: Wadf and Sm;ned, \t OTHER THAN THE HfAI, !)oMirn.E OF Defendant. 1-ii. V. Where Note ou other Promise to Pay MADE Payahle, there niE Action may HE TAKEN. 1-8. VI.— Where several Defendants. l-il. Sec also '' Service".) I. CASES HOLDING THAT THE \VH( CAUSE OF ACTION MUST HAY APISEN OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF DEFENDANT'S DOMICILE TO GIVE JURISDICTION IN SUCH OUTSIDE DISTRICT. 1 . Gteneral Principles.— Art 34 C P. — To f^ive a ri'Tht of action in a di? Other than that n which the defendant his domicile, c erytliing which constitute •LE E . C. trict has • the r\.,U of action jiiiist have taken place in .«uch district, and several actions or cau.«c.« of action belon-'ing lo ditlcrent .lisiricts cannot be joined in order tobriiig the defendant from the juris- diction of his donucile. ArrhamhmiU vs. Bol due Q. B. 1881, 2 Dorion's Ke)i. 110 ; and Fau- Cher s-^. Brown. Q.li. 1881,2 Dorion-.s Rep. lt;8. 2. In an action against a defend- ant raiding in another district than that in which the action is taken, the plaintifl' imi'it, upon declinatory excei)tion, prove that the ri-ht of action arose in thisdislrict. McCremhj s^. FrrfnnUihH'S. Ct. 1889, 18 R. L. 118. 3. Goods Ordered by Telegram.— Where a merchant, dcniiciUd at S., asks by lelcj^rani Ironi a merchant domiciled at M., a ,, notation for certain goods to be delivered at S., 10 which the mevchant at M. telegraphs I I, rcplv, cdering certain i|Canliiics at cerlain ,,rices,a.id the merchant at S. thereupon re- sf^onds, accepting the prices, but changing the (jminiitits, npcn which, the merchant at M. sh \y> in accordance with tiie last lelegrani, no complete right of action arises in the District of M., and an action brought in such District \vill be dismissed. .VciVt vs. 6''(i(//o)(, 188'J, M. L. R.,r, s.o.:!;;7. 4 . Letter.— A sale etlected by conesiioiidence between the plaintitl and the defendant, residing in ditlerent districts, and delivery made in the jilaintitl's district, payment to be by note payable in defendants district, does not constitute aright of action arising in the jilaintiH" district. IFtH/'cnvs. Kioj, 11 L. C. R. •l'.)2, R. J. 1!. Q. 15:i, S. C. 18:)0. 5. Through Travelling Agent. — Wlicn goods are sold by the traveller of a Montreal merchant, by sainide, at Isle Vertc, Kamouraska, subject to ratiticalion by the principal, and tlie sale is ratified by hiiu, the causcof action arose at Isle Verte. (1) Gault v.«. Jicrlnmd, Q. B. 1881. 2,-) L. C. J. ;M0. confirming S.C, 21 L. C.J.'.). *Iii ]'ol,i/\!> T'linitt (., ;.. ('.,1. liis, ),-, I,. C. li.'.'i:.. Q. ]t. ISCf)), it WHS lii'Iilliyilic (.■ml ol .Aii|ieiil tliiit wlillolln'oi iirt.'nii»i<(pry notes, all cf wliii'h wi'H' ihii', mill thepU.'is wcic iik'ntif.'il.iiionler. anionR otlii'r ri'Rsoiis, to snve tlie oxpi'iiso r i issuing fc'ir coiiMi'iisiuns to oxuminc \vitlle^s instrjulot one. the Court refiised toiloso wliere tlm iiliiintill' I'esistccj tlio Mjiiilieaiion. (Sec alpo Lalilierti' vs. ChinardAt Q. L. It. IJ.) Anil ill Siiiiiird vs. I'irmii'i, It was lielil not eoinreteiit to unite two iniises together, on t'le grouiidtlint the matters ami iliiugein contest, in hoth cases, r.ro ideiitienl. 1 L. C. J. '.'49 (S. t'. 1857), 4 It. ,1. It. i;. 477, (1, .hidct I'aiiiMiftu ill IheSiipeiior Court held lliat the rij;ht of aetioii did iiol whcdly arise in either ot the districts. Imt partlv in each. That Art. 34 of the (■.('.]'. has not elian^edthe old law, whicdi used the term " cause of action." To j,'ive the .Montreal Court iurisdictii'no*crdctciidaiit,the/o«i/i (U-oU mmi have heen coMiiplelcly foiiiied in this district. (CuiiMrnicd unaniiiiouslv hv v^iueeu's llencli.) The ca'^e of ilmi: vs. i:ilfh< i/, !S.C. 180:!. 9 h. C. .1. 2.14, 14 L.C. It. 4s, Kives a coiiclusUiii directly contrary to that of r;,n(/rvs. IUi-li\iiiil, but lor thi^ reason that the judge thoii(;ht that in tlie case of an order given in Toronto, partly hv letter and partly through a travel- ling agent, for gc'ada in Montreal, the whole cause of action arose i.. Montreal. The learned judge re- inavked. that had he taken the view that part of the cause of action had arisen in Toronto, be would have held that the Montreal Courts had not jurijdictlon. ACTIOX— WHERE IT MAY BE BROUGHT. 35 i.e. rtc, the tlie wit ;mo. , that Mt of il the ■dtlio uOiirt [ hiive lined C. .1. itniry that veil In rtikvel- use of ge re- o£ tlie have tior. |jlaiiilitts, niorcliiiuis iloiii;; Imsiiu'ss iu Mon- li'tal, surd the .leli'iiiUuit in the district of .^^||lI^cal for a balance of SSli. 90 for goods .sold ;iiid delivered, 'I'iio ilcfeiidunt was described ill liic writ as of New Kdiiilmrgli, in tbe Co. of Carleloii, Ontario; and iie was served person- ally ill the city of Ottawa. TliJ jjoods l.ad been snl.l on i'.ii order obtained from deleiidant at bis domicile l,v atravidlin}; agent of plaintill's, and ratified by tiiein in Montreal. Defendant (xcepled to llie jiirisilictioii — Ilt'hJ, fallowing Giiiili vs. Bciirtuid, that ilie riirbt of action was not in Montreal, and action disinif'sed. Dr.vnarteaii vs. MunsfvhL .S. C 1880, 3 L. N. l.'lfi. 7. Where good- are lionglit in one district and delivered in another, the pur- chaser cannot be .sueil in the district where tiie purciiaso was made if it is not his doinicil:' and he was not iiersoiially served in the -aid district. Bioinl vs. Lnhic, C. Cl. 18152, L. C, J. lie. 8. Subscription to Stock.— When a -nlwriptiiin lo the capital stocU of an iiicor- poralcd cwinpany, having i;s head otiice in the di-lrict of Montreal, is niude by a defendant ddini^iled in aimtlier dislricl, and whu has >nb-cribed lo this stock in such other disirict, the defeiidanl '■aiinjl lie suninioneil In appear III lliedistnet of .\Iiinirral. (l!) X,i/i(iiitil Jus. r„. vs. /',//,/,. Q. IJ. lai)y had its iiead oirice. Rosa vs. Fontaiiir. C, U. 18S5, :!0 L, C. J. 2:i". (.') Iioriiin J. i-eiiwirUeil : '•Tlie appelliuils say tluit tlii'sliiok wasiillcitted by the ilirectors here in Pont- ile;, I. Wo think Ihe wliole eauso of action did net arise bcii — part of the cause was tlie promise to pav wliich was given in the UiKtrict of St. Krancis." 11. Meaning of Term "Cause of Ac- tion." — The words " cause of action " mean tlie wdiole cau.se of action — tliat is "everything that is requisite to show the action to be maintainable.'' Coiiiuilli/ vs. Brannan, S. C. is:.-., 1 Q. L. K. 2114. .'■ — Wliere a parly is .sued in a district other than that in w iiich lie resides, on the ground that the cause of action arose in such a district, il is necessary that the whole cause of action should have arisen iheroiii. Si'nccal vs. Chenevcrl, Q. B. 18G1, (I L. C J. 4(i. 13. Contract of Hire and Lease of Work.— li. agreed verbally with H., at Ni- colet, to tow his raft from Nicolet to Quebec, upon whicii II. telegraphed lo his agent in Quebec, to instruct the agent of R. in Quebec to send up It 's :teaiiiboat from Quebec to perform the towaL'e in question, which was done, and the raft towed to Quebec accord- ingly — Hill, that the cause of action did not arise in Quebec so as to give tlie court there jurisdiction ; the cause of action inean.s the whole cause of action or all the circumstances coiineeted with the transaction which gave rise to the action- I'liiiMsenit vs. JIiif//ie.'i, ii. V. I8r,7, 8 ].. C. R. 187, (1 It. J. U. Q.'iti;}. 14. — A suit iiroiight in tlie District of Quebec against a defendant residing at Jloisic, in the Di-^tric't of bagiienay, for work done there iinjer a veriial hiring rt Qiieliec, will be dis- missed on ileidinatory e.xceplion . Triulcl vs. Diinil, S. C. 1878, -IQ. L. R. 180. 15. . — The Defendant, domiciled at .Montreal, wrote lo the plaintitl', a resident of Arthabaska, reipiesiing him to take charge of liis, the defendant's, lands at Ihe latter jilace, and ]iroi lising to indemnify iiiiu for his services — Held, that an action tor the value of such services brought in tlie district of .\rthabasl\ii v, as ])roperly dismissed on declin- atory e\ce;,iioii. Clonticr vs. Lapknr, C. R. 1878, -IQ.L. R. ;!21. 16. Damages— Breach of Contract.— Where the action is in damages for failure to perform a contract, *hc debtor may be sued at the place where the contract is made, though the failure to |ierform occurreii in an- other disirict. Qiielicc SUunnxhip Co. vs. Mor.jan, Q. B. 1883, ti L. N. 321. 17. Qoods Ordered— Sale- Action of Damages.— iJcW, where both tiie contract of sale and the delivery of the gooiLs .1. ■"•i \l- M: 1 I I ACTION-WHERK IT .MAY T.K BltOUCHT. are triade ami complpted in Ontario, wlicrc tlu' veniior's dotiiicile is, tlic piircimser's u-^V.t of action in rcHpectof mich ci^ijlract arise-* llierc; and the fact that tlic pnrcliascr, wlio i- d..nii cilcd in anoliuM- prcivincp, suljspiinenlly C'lni- plains of infi-riorily of i|nalily, and ciiimis daina;,'Ps, tioes not entitle iiim to iinpleal the vendor before the court uf tlie iilaiiilillV domi- cile, where tiie demand is not MTve.l upon the defendant personally wiliiin such Jarisdii.tidri. lipoml V.S. (Irimiiitin, S. C. 1S!»:1, :) Qne. .MiH. 18. Libel. — In an ai'linn of damages for lihcl, in order lo j-ive jnrisdictic.n to a court outside the di.strict of tlie d'lVnd- anl'.s domicile, il \a necessary to limit the allegation of Idiel and damages tn the district in which it is sought to mal R. 20; Trrmbhnj vs. While, S. C. 1S77, Dec. 21, Stuart .1. 19. In Two Districts.— In an action of damages for overflow of water cansed by a (him erected across a river ilividing two districts, atui which was therefore sitnateil in two districts, the defendant co'ild not he sued in that one of the above districts in which he wa8 not domiciled, the wliole cause of action not having origiinited in that liistvict. Curpora- tion (If ]j(tnditou vs. Millikcii, C. K., 2()th Feb., 188'J. I9r(. . Where plaintiff bonglit a sleeping-car ticKet from New York to Montreal, and being e.xpelled from the : sleeping-car while on the New York >ideol'the boundary line, took a place in an ordinary car until he arrived at Montreal — Ilrhl, that although the e.xpulsion took place beyond the province line, yet, as it eontinncil tinlil the plaintiti' reached Montreal, the whole cause of action arose in this province. New Vurk Ci-iilral Sl(rjiin:!, •! I- N. l.J-1. 21. Obligation— Place of Payment.— ()l,li:;ation executed by the defeudant atMont- ical, where he then resided. No Jihic- .-lipnlaled in dei-l l^r payment. When ^ it fell line delendant resided in district of St. Francis, where he still resided at time action was taken — //'■/'/. that the right of action for the recovery of the debt originated at Montreal. and not at the place where deniaml of payment jiad lo 1 , made. I)iii-/i,:^iiei/ vs. hii(,r,j,ir, C. I!. 1H8I1, 2.-I L. C. d. 22<. 22. Transfer of Shares -Notarial Do mand of Retransfer Made at Another Place.— The declaration alleged a transfer by plaintilf to defendant, at Quebec, of certain railway shares, which the latter, by omilrc- IcHrc signed and dated there, undertook to return within two months, upon payment of $!.'>0,(IO(l. It further alleged a notarial demand of retransfer. accompanied by tender of the amount named, made upon the defeinlant at .Montreal, and his refusal to return the >liare-. and that, in fact, be had .s(dd and converted them to his own use. Conclusion for •'?2O0,0ti(» damages. The writ issued from the Superior Court at Quebec, and was served upon the defendant in Montreal, his domicile, and be declined the jurisdiction. Hehl, that tlie cause of action had arisen in the Uistrict of (Juebe;. and declinatory exception dismissed with costs, MrUrnni vs. MiDoiiijiiN, S. C. HSC, 12 Q I. 11. 110. 23. Insurance Policy.— Where a Life Insuiance Co., having its home otiice in New York, its pi'incipal ollice lor the Province of Quebec in Montreal, and a local office in Quebec, had, upon application made in Que- bec, issued a jjolicy to apersoii residing in that city, anii being sued for the amount of such policy, was required I'V process, served at the .Montreal ollici', to a|)pear and plead before the Superior Court at t^u(diec, and declined the jurisdiction— //c/'/, that it was incumbent oi\ the plaintill to show that the fiolicy had been executed in the di-trict of Quebec; that the proof adduced was insullicienl for that pur- pose; that on tiie contrary there was rca.soii to presume that the policy had been made ami e.xccuted at tlie home ollice in New York, and that the declinatory exception must in coiise- the llic to act tli.-i <'f ; c,;> 4 der lo ; Moi has ho„ II 4 1,1 IIIM.!, Ii»l,| Woul aillrl ■lot,, was I It'll ACTION— WHKRF: it may be BlIOUGHT. 37 qneii'je lie iiiniiitaiiicil. (1) I iziiKi \'^. T'le Xcir Ydik I, lie tmoiidiice Cn.. 1 Q. L. R. 2(1", S. V. iJ'TCi; !in!.:■ .trciil, for the |)ri(:e uf izufuls. tlie ■ircater part ciC wliicli were li(.iiiilit liy liiiii in .Mon- treal, anil tlie reniaiink'r onlercd liv letter- r,irl,fri:i/ilv<. .lA-r,,//,-,y, S.C.lslKi, M. L. R., S. C. H. 2. — through TraveHing Agent. — Where the cii'.ler tVir the ^icmiU which tnrnied the consiileratiuh ol' ihe notes sne'l on \va- uhtained in another ili-trict hy the travelliii;.;- ajeni of a Montreal lirni, s\ilijeet to the appro- val of hi^ ]irii:cipals. ami the order was aeix'pted hy the lirni in Montreal, and the ;:in:d> wei'c delivered al the ra Iway station there to the purchaser, w ho paid the freiflhl, the ri;iht iipply, ill vii'w iif An. :<'i l. ('., .'is ' illlhlMli'll ."I'J \il' . (•. IS. \\\i\ Mllhllll h'il-i /lis. ('(Kill i .IMiilli vs. Ihsrnii.' in adillerenl district to tiial in which a conser valory allaciiMienI has issued, the proceed iiii; is nevertheless lejral, if the rraudiilent eircnin- stances wiiieh gave rise to the alliichnient occiirrc I there, ('iiiil'uiihc v-. ],i niimx, ^. c. is(;,"i,!i i. <' ,1. ::;. 12. Attachnipr'*^ in Reveudieation.— Wlicre the |ilniiiliir. ( omiciled in die ili-lriut of .M., revendicntes us his properly guods in tlie I ossessioii of a defendant (Juiniciled in another district, and alleged ht he illegally detained hy liiin therein, tlie action tieing based on defendant's possession of the goods, should h» hroiiglit in the district of his dunii- cile. Gohlic v :. liii.trouie, 1 l^iie. lis.') ((i. li. 1892, conlirniing .\I. !.. It., (I S. C. I'.l.'i. ^■((Hir.—WllHRE DKI-'i'lND.WT liKSlDES UUTSIDK THE IMIOVINCK. 1. Ill/ (ivtirin- (iS aii'I (!il f;/7/ic Cinlrof CIril I'roccdiiir, n.t timijiiiliil ]!. S. (J. Art. ."i-(17, (intl r>.'> Vii'. r. ."i"). .s'. S, a is 11(1 I(iiii/t.i- iiinsxiini Hint fill' ill I'l iiildiil sliiiiilil liiiri.' ]/ri)jii lii/ I'nI/ii' Proriiur uf (fiu-hfr, in urilcr In ijire Urn Ciniiis there liirisilii /inn orcr 1)1,11. II is an 1 1/ ui'ies- unri/ Hull III!' •' rniisi uj' nrliuii '' slimilil /mrr iirise.ii lliiii, iiii'l lliis irlnlliir the ,liii lulniil rcnidcs ill II I'ln-rii/ll l-nlllitrll nr ill 'niC III' ll'li other I'luriiin s III' (\iii,iilii. d) Ran III vs. ,■'^/^, s. C. Is'.i:;. i Qm.. :!;ii. (1) It is n,.|i,'i';il)li! lll.'ll IllrliTIn lliMC uscil is •■ cail-r of iiction," not "riiilit ipf iictinn" as imhIit \it M • '.(.'. P. Ii:iiii~.'iv, .r., ill />.(/-;r/..- ,/ vs. I.iim-i.r 1 '|i,,- rloi|-s(.i. B. |{,.|,. ,it |,, ;;(;!i, ;,.||,:ii-ki'.l;tl.:ii it liiisbi-.'ii aqii.'sliiin wli.'iliiT tlici-haii^'" fr.mi " (■.■ois,. ot iietimi arrisi' ■• hvUna the <■.«!(■ h. ■• wliciv [li.. ri;;lii ,,| .iction oriKiiuiti'ii." rciiliy iilliTi"! tlie law, or \\ as nurclv aii- iillliT \va.\ nrsa\iiii; till' sanu' tliilij. Ilr r.'VU'u s tli,' amlujritics .m iIh^ iniini, ami arrives al tin- cinii'lii. sioii thai '■laiis.' ol ai-linu" laiiiiut .s.'ii.iiisly h.' (■cinti'iiili'il as s\ MiiiyiniMis with ■' ri^lii.ii Mi'limi " ami hnhls that a •• lifilit nf aeliiiii " arisi's wlmiv tlli'i-o is a lirracli n|' tli.><-i.iilrai-t, whi'ie tin- parties have airreeil tci act. ami where ihe unaii; is iluiie. ThealmM- eases appear In li,. in a.-ennlauee Willi tini .leeirine, Jiui when we eiillie In eas- s ileeiile.l e\press|v lllliler \rl (iJIcirils eiiiiivaleiil asini; the term "eanse ,if aelinii '' weKIIII finil llie Ciiiiis liiihlin^; the same as amfer "riKht n| aeliuii- ii, Art. :!t. Hut tlmse .leeisiims wliieli are citeil imhIim- the headiiiL' " i 'ases hnlilin.' that tlie whole eanse (ir aelion iiiiisl have arisen out" Bilelliedistrletorilefemhiiit'siioni.eilHto yivi' iuris- i (llctioii to sii.'h ijutsiile (liM-rict," in so far as tlicy are I ,A[AY BE ])ROUGHT. 2. Goods sold.— //(•/(/ .• -\n action for tlie : price of goods sold and delivereil at Montreal may he hroiiglit in the District of Montreal, though the defendant lie domiciled in the pro- vince of Ontario and he served therein; aint since Ihe uinendinent of Arts. (18 and Gl) liv o:! Vic. c. .'i.'i, it is no longer c.ecessary in siich case that llie defeiidiint shonld have jiroperty in the Province ofQuehec. Uncclle vs. Iluli , \ Que. WA,^. C. l^'.i:!. ,3. Ordered by letter.— Whereg.iods ai-e iirdeied hy lettei' written in the Pro\iiii.'e of Onliii'io. and addressed loa merchant in the ci'v nf Miiiilnal. and the goods are sliippcd liy the veinlor at .Miiiitreal, addressed to llu. pin- cha-eriii (hitario. a declinatory exception will tidt lie to an action institiiteil at . Montreal for the recoverv of the price. Giiiiiiini vs. Siinrr, 111 L.N. liil. <'. ('. 1.--^:, and Oratlnii v-. llri'iiiiiiii,^.L\ ISsT, 1.-. R. L. 71:;; M. I.. R. H.S.C. ;».'). 4. Overdraft.— Where a ri.ii- sigtiee in .'^lontreal, of good- lamsigned to him from Upper Canada. iicrepN a draft drawn by the consigiior in I'lipei' Canada; in aiilirijmiinii of product of sale, which sulisi.||,i,.ntly proves to he less than the ui'ceplaiici', 'he i"iii-e ol' action 'o recover hach' I he excess nf the anion nt paid under the accepfuice over the net prodiirt of sale, arises ii, MnnU'eai. O't'iiniinr v<. I,', Ill/mil, Q. H. IsCT, II L.C..1. \-l:>,. 5. Through Broker.— Wi, tie guild-; liiid heeii sold hy a hrc.Aer in 'J'orunto, and ratilied and -hipiied in Montreal, then.;lit of acliun arii-o in .Nlmilreal. I'nriis! \-. .Iiirl.soii, c.C. l-sn.:; 1,. X. i:;i;. 6. Contract of Partnership abroad.— In an actiiin jnn sm^in ari-m;: mit nf a pailne;-- ship ciniti'acle 1 in liie l-l,iiid of .lersev. and having it- head n!li,-e I iiri'e, hill caM'ying n!; its principal hii-ine-- and ipWiiiii'i prnpcrt v in ihe Dislrict nf (ia-pi., tlie deleiidaiils udio lia 1 l;ever heeii doiiiieiiiil in the said district \\f<;' siiinnioned tiirniigh the iiew...|ia|iers tn appear and plead lii. re; 1 1 aini declined the jiirisijiL.t;. n. Ifilil, cnnliiniing cnml helnw, ihal the dcc'i- iialory e.Nciptinii was well lal^eii. (jns-.^i'l v-. 1,'iiliiii,^}. I!. IsTi;, :! ti, I,. K. ;ii. SiY a-.i-t hase.l on Ihe lau prilr Im th . r,.,le. niu't he re;.'a;,le,| •istlle sl e..|i,-is 1 H ilh tile leriii lisei]. vi/., '. e.uise lit ..(el;. III.-' tor tlie- «or,h luiil.inliie.llv iiiean-.-iiel 'i''^'" ' II ^" lii'I'l li":ii iheearliesi limes in l.;iiL;laiiil every lai.I whiel, is niateri..il to he prove, I to en.ilji.. Ilieplaintill tosneeeeil. I Ai.nnal I'r.ietiee, Kn.r. Iss'l- -"■■.''•;"'';•,'"„''■■' '"• '''"•^'■. I'.iiii; /.'"e/./. //vs. iiiiii, .1 Kveh.4.);«,,,v,.,,, vs. 117,,/.. H). |). |>.42:i'; AV,„' \sj ACTION— WHERE IT MAY BE BROUGHT. 311 7. Hiring abroad.— Dec! iiiiUoiy ex- ception on the ground that the contnict of hiring was not made as alleged in this Prov- ince, but in the Province of Ontario, and that the service, whicli was a personal service in Montreal, did not bring the defendant before the Court so as to give it jurisdiction. The de- fendant reli.^1 on Gosset vs. Robin {supra). Per Ciiii'im, " Gosset vs. Itob in was an aalion pro socio where the service depended upon the domicile of the party, and it was pretended that in such a case as ihuL where tiie action was not p\irely personal, as it is here, that tlie defendants being absentees, and having their principal place of business in Jersey, where their propeily might have been liable to divi- sion under the jiulgment of Court, could be called in by advertiseincni, because they hail jiropertv in C.a-ipe. .Such a case as that is of coiu'se clearly distinguishable from this. Here the action is purely personal, a* required by Art. ^l of the Code of Procedure, not mixed as it was llii're. and the terms of the jndgmeiit in that case leave no doubt of ihegninnd upon uliicli It rested. A personal action, however, fiillows the person, and a personal service in Montreal in such a case gives us miderAit. lU jurisdiction over it." Liij'rani-f\-i'. .lacksan, S. C. ISSl. IL. X. CO . IV. WHKliK DOCUMENT .SKEI) ON DATED 01! .SIGNED, ETC., AT OTFIER THAN REAL DOMICU.E OF PARTY S.-. C. C,,— .-.2 V. (Q.), c. 1.^. 1. ILlil : — .Altii'ming Ihe deci.-ion of David •on, J. (1 One. [S. C] liCO), Where a deed or writing, irlielher cniiiinerrial nr rlrl/ in its na- ture, !■< dateil, or I'eclared therein to be made and signed, at a place other than the real ilomi- cile of the partv sought to be charged iheie- under, he is con.'idered lo have made election of domicile at such ])l.ice (il there be no indica- tion of a place of iiayment), and an action based on the writing may be brought against him before the Court of hia elected ilomici'e. Lcrlaire vs. Ihniilai; <^l!. 1S'.)J, 1 Que. :!.".!. (1) 2. . — Where action was taken at Que- bec on a promissory note purporting to have been signed at Quebec, though in fact signed at St. Luce in Riinoiiski. Hell, that the defendant in signing the note and transmitting from St. Luce to Quebec to the jilaintills, ac- cepted the jnrisiliction mentioned in said note, and the action originated at Quebec. Danjnii vs. T/iiljuiidemi, ^-C. 1880, (> Q, L. R. ;'m1, Q. B. 1880, 1 Dorion, Q. B. 08. 3. . — Action on note ilated Quebec made in amHlier district. ITcl'l, following Danjoit vs. T/iibiindettit (snprd), that action couM be taken at Quebec. Thibanilcdu vs. Wri.jlii, S. C. 18S8, 14 Q. I,. R. i:i t. To same etl'ect, GiiaeiUnejer vs. H< rtrand, (J. C. I'^Vll, 2 L. X. :!77. 4. . — The cause of arlion arises where the policy i-^ dated and ap|)licatiiin accepli'd. and at the place where the bead ollice of the company is situated, and not where the depiSit note and application are made. Matval Firi: Ins. ('„. vs. i><'.v/-o».vf//",s-, S. C.188I,4L. X. 220. (1) 'I'lie ciiiitriiivili'1'isi..iLSMii' llnilirnii it .V. irspnii, r Jilri rliiiiiii I'n. vs. //■iiiiHtiiii.S. C. 1S7.%. 'Jll 1,. ('..I. JS. WliiTc llii' I'oiitrac'l, tlioiitili lieiiriiiL' \ril Ut Iim\o t'ccn iimilt' at Tm-nnto. in iiiiliirio, llie c'linse nf iicliun :nii!igiied in the district of Ottawa where the prfimi-^sor has his domicile. Tlie promis ';/■ //(e Cii-il Cn.h; ,is iiin,n,le,l ', iiiitki's l/ic indiriillon ni' k plin-e <;/' jiin/iiient ' in (1111/ null or ii-iilimi {irlhi-i n !■ il is ilaU-il) fijUinili lit lo nil i/e'llml nf ilniilirilr ilf l/lr pliirr .fii iii'liciilr't (">2 r/e.. r, (S). (1) (I) 'I'lius I'l'iiiliTinu' liu);:iti'ry the ripllcnviiiiiilei'i.">. Ill I!. I,. L'."iil. .\ bill id I'Xi-li'.ni;.'!) iniide mid iliiti'il ut .Moiitreiil mid |i:iy;ibli' IbiTe, bm :i('iMi|ited by defeiidiinis at ( 'oalioiioli, ■■aiiiinl \n', ivrnvfieil nn a'l MoiitiiMl. Tlieiirlion slioiild bi' liruu^lit ut tile idaco vvliere the bill w:is ii(;iO|iled. Mnlhiilliiii,! vs. /.a Cii'. ./,■ /■'o/e/. n- . 'Jl I.. C. .1. 114, 1^^ ■I I! ? i;;i 40 ACTFOX-WHEIIK IT MAY BE BROUGHT. ii '1. By (jiilinjr iiiiii niiiUiiii piiviilile a note at Monfreil, tlioiigli sii;iipiied at th" (ilace where it is pavahh', althoM/h he re-ides in another itislrict and has not heen personally served in the di-tricl wnere the action u-ns taken. /i''i6///'')v/ vs. Finn, ('. Ct. ISS,-,, SL. N. Til. I. Acli )i on note thc and accepted accordin;:ly. r/rtv/fc vs. niitiiclu'lle, 8. C. IRTG, 'JO L. C. J. lltC. il. .\clion at Montreal on note dat(ii and jiiiyahlcat Montreal, iiiado in St. Francis and defendant served tliere. Declinatory excep- tion dismissed. Lunii/le vs. Cotiii'illi/, C. Ct. lsuranco Co. The application was made in the district of Bedford to a comiwny hav- in;: its head ollice in Sherhrooke, in the di.s- tri.jt of St. Francis. The note was made payahle at Sherhrooke and the piolicy issued there — JIclil, that the action wa« properly hronght in Sherhrooke. Miilnul Fin' Iiioir- mice Cdiiip'inii of Sliiiislfriil vs. Onlipiit, (1) :, L. N.2;!9, C. K. 18.°0. .'<. Where an insiirance policy issued by a Montreal Company, and dated nt Montreal, has heen sent to the insured nt QueWc throui.'h the company's anent there, by virtue of a risk aL'reed npori ut the oHice of their a^'ent i n (Jueliec, and vhere llie policy is made payahle at Qnehec — 7^/'/, that the company could he sued at Queh.'c. (2) (r.Uallei/ vs. T/ie Siollisli Cmiimen-iiil Ins. Co., S. C. 1878, 4 (.). L H. ■J'JCp, anil see '/'«,»)•/./»// vs. Ottawa Aiiriiiillnriil Inx. Co., '.'< L. X. I'Jli. riU'iiiea". •'• (S. r.i ISTT. -Vii iii'lion on ;i pnniiissorv ih'ti' (luted at St. Hyai'irUlh-.aml iiayalilc .it .Mciiitrcai. slionld bo liriiiiKlit in St. Itvai'liilhc'. /../).i;/. vs. Ilillfi. {(■.(■['■ l.sTs, 4Q. I.. t{.:KI. 'I'lio il< teiiilaiil gKvi' til one If. :\[ I!imiiusl»(' eop/e " was so endorsed, a declinatoiy e.\ce|itioii on the part of the co-defendant will lie maintained. I'liraiil vs. Ilon-iinl, C. K. I8S5, 12 (i. L. 11. 111. (1) CJi .\rl.:Uor IbcCodcofl'nicediire provides (as ainended by 1!. S. «^ ."iS(d) tliai in siicli cases tlie courts of tliedistrict wbereltic insured moveables or iinniove- aliles were burnt, and in case of life insnraiiee where the insnred has bad Ids domicile, have .iiirisdletion. Draft New (.'ode ot I'locednre, art. 1111. " had or has Ids doniieile." i:)) Draft New (/ode ol Procedure, art. !!•. ADOPTED CHILD— ADULTERY— ADMISSIONS. 41 ACTS OP PARLIAMENT. Sec Sla'utes. ADJUDICATAIRB. See Sale — .Iiuiicial. ADOPTED CHILD. RHMOVAL 15Y PARENTS-CLAIM FOR MAINTKNaNCK. llihl : — Wlipi't' a poi'son undertakes tlie r-n))porl and maintenance of a child of unknown )iarent.«, witli tlic object of briiigin;^ it \\p as liis own cliild, and this |)nrpose is frustrated by tiic parents, who subsequently appear and claim the chil 1, lie is entiilcd to recover from them a reasonable allowance for llie nminten- aiiKC of the child durinir llie time it was under hi- care, aingiiv vs. Girnux, S. C. lH;t2, 2 (iM. 2.55. ADULTERY. .Sec also Dowkk. .See also Skparatiox dk Coups. See also Maiuuace Covknaxts, ACTJOxV I'.Y HUSBAND AGAINST AC- CO. M PL! CH—KVIDIiXCE. lOvidence of lulnltery in a civil action by a liusband ai:ainst his wife's accomplice can be proved by parole testimony, and by indications and prpsumptioM^i. In order to establish tlie oilence it is not necessary that the j^uiltv |)ar- tics should have he' n surjirised //( /y).v« turpi- fti,J!itr, but it ran lie e-tablisiied by very >t-on<.' pre.-uiiiptions based on well-establisjied .■lets and tiie Ichaviour of the parties which leave no doubt in Ihe mind as to their guilt. Adiilttry proved in the presetit case and jud"- ]iient of Superior Court awardini; iftoOO dam- a;:es confirmed. .S7. Ldiinii/ vs. Ilamd, Q. B. Is92, 1 Que. 43S. ADMISSIONS. I. DivisiDii.iTV or. — Gi;ni;i!ai. Puinci- 1'i.i.s. 1 2. II. Casks inhkii Aut. 124.H C. C. 1 >t . Where the A tlmlxsioii (rd.v liflil 1<, hi- „<,t Dirisihic. 1-1. 2nd. ]V/ii re t/ic Aihiii.ision ir/iK liihl illhr ])irisihU\ Ml. III. Casks uxdki! Autici.k 2:11 C. C. P. l(i. IV. IX Pl.KADIXCS. 1-1!). V. MrsT HE ExiMlKSS. VI. Of A(!KXt. VII. Ok Pahtxkiis. 1-2. VIII. Of Tiiiiti) Paktiks. IX. Rbtua.mt. X. RKTROACTlVt: Ekfkct. XI. StATTS (Ql'KSTlOXS OF). See also " Attachmknt iir Gauxisilmkn't, — DkCI.AKATIOX OF GaRXISHEK," " AliTK.'C'I.A- TION OF l-ALTS,"' " ('oXFKSSIOX OF .1 IDG.M KST,"' " EVIDKXCE— Co.M.MKXCK.MEXr OF PllOOF IX Wiiirixc ; '■ " IxTKiiRouAToiuES OX Arti- culated Facts." ni VISIBILITY OF. 1. General Principles— It is a general rule that a judicial avowal or admission can- not be divided. (I) It is only in exceptional circumstances, and lor special reasons, tliat Coiuts will allow the answer of a party to lie divided. (2). FiiUan vs. Mcyaiine, Supreme '^t. 187.S, 2 Can. S. C. H 471. 2. -Vrt. 2;U of the Code of Procedure pro- vides for the divisibility of answers to interro- gatories upon articulated facts, unijer certaiti conditions. The provisions of Art. 1243 C. C cannot be (lualilied by the application to it of tlie dispositions of Art. 2:!1 C. C. P {■'<) (il>-). DIVISIIULITY OF. II. CASES L'NDER ART. 124:1 OF THE CIVIL CODE. \st. M'/iere llie Achiiixniun was lirld to lie net Dirisiblf. 1. Admissions Cf'iUained in a plea cannot be divided, but must be taken entire. FliiUand vs. Wilxon el (iL, 1 L. C. 1!. (iO, 2 R. J. R. Q. 40.3, Q. B. 1851. 2. In an action to recover the value of the use and occupation of a certain projierty, in which tiie plaintiff replied specially to defendant's plea of payment that true it is " that money "was paiil, as alleged h^' defendai.t, but not " at the re(piest of the party deceased, lint was " pai, a writ of attaclinicnl aclioi, was instituted owed defendant notliiii;.'. On re-examination he said the amount wns inidiiiled iti a lari;er aniount paid to a third person, lldd, that as he had not told the same story throii;;hciiit, his adnii.ssiona were divisilile. Cvliiiiir vs. I'arenlcitn, Q. I!. Isso, ;j L, N. -IVA. .'!. Where the admission of a defendant that he received part of the sum said to he loaned him, hilt had since paid it. is in contradiction under the Insolvent Act. IS7.-i, was issned to his plemlings, it may be divided, unles.« ho a.L'ainsl F. C and S. J. M., carryin,L' on liiisi- pleads payment . Uanr v-. Loi.srau, C. R. ness as prin-eis and jmhli-hers' at Montreal. lii>^^, '-'^'^ 1^- C. .1. VX'; 'JO li. L. :l2t;. and appellant was a| pdinled iissignee to the estate of the firm, as well as to the individnal •I. In an action for the price ol' transfer of a 111 Marcii, l«Til. tl le estate.* nf each partner. respondent" presented a petition to the Siipe- taverii licen-e till leteiidant, beini; ca led rior Court, prayinj; that the a| si''nee of C. A M., 1 le onlercil to ilant, del a witness, admitted that he had not paid plain lillthe price stipulated, hut added that one C as as was to do so. In tl lie of transfer tl ivei' to them certain plant and machinery, which res- pondents claimed to he tlieir property in vir tile of a deed of sale in llieir favor hv tl plaintiff acknowled;:eil receipt of the conside- ration, lli/il. 1. That the accessi.irv state- ment, 111 the defendant'-^ answer, having; rela- solvent C. sed before Xotarv 1' the .'!rij May, 1875. In tneir jietition the res- <„• "' 111- tioii to u fact wholly distinct from the ])rini'i- •^ "11 pal fact mentioned in the liisl part of tlie an- er. the answer was divisi il.le (doh pondents alleM "That the said purchase C. .1., -//.vs.) The defendant havin- admitted wa.s made by your petitioners in ;;ood faith and that they paid fur the said articles above ennnierated the sum of $.'i(IO0, but thai the said deed erronetmsly stales the price to have been .;ii, 24 L.C.J.:!)!-'. I! L. X. //(( vs. )',//-,/>, (I li. ls7;i. ;; [,. x. fiar Cli, respon leiits lIrJ,L tl , that the appellant could nut divide the respondent's lui-wer in order to avail himself uf what was lavorahle and reject what was unfavorable, and jiidirmenl of conn below conlirmed. Fiil/i,, II. .\ juilit;ial almis-ion (•aiinnt be div ide iiid. llierefore. an adiiiissiun thiii the pri of .*^npr( "t. U Cr .S. C. , .UrX, 1711. sale was not really paid, a- -late.l in tiie liw], coupled with the ,-latemciil that the deed uas really a ilonalioii. and not a dclit but set tip matters in com- penwalion and in payment. The only evidence of llie loan was tlie admis^ioM in the plea, and of the defendant examined as a witness. In his deposition, the defendant admitted havin;; re- ceived the .*i300 as a loan, hnt said lie had since paid it. It WHS also in evidence that suhse- qncnily to (hese (lansactions, the motlier of jilaintifiand wife of defendant had died, and a partition of the property of the community had been made in which tlie plaintiil' claimed no- thin},' on account of the loan. Ilrlfl, that when the aijmission is conplel with a plea of cdnijjensation only, it may lie divided, Iml when with a plea uf payment it is indivisihle. .\ction dismissed. MarniLH vs. Jlfrtrwf//, S. C. li^8l, 10 Q.L.R. Wl. 10. An admission li; a defendant tinderoath that lie received a volunluiy ileposit Imt had delivered it a.s reipiesied, cannot he divided, and verbal evidence is not admissible to con- tradict the accessory statemenl of delivery in a case where proof of the deposit could not be made by witnesses. Diibinjnr vs. Di(biiijiiey C.R. is\'!. 7 L. N. ,".2. il. Where the defeiiilaiit, in his plea to an action ajrainst liini for a sum of money wiiiuh the plaintiil allejies to liave lent him, admits tiie loan, but declares that it \vasa<:reed on the occasion of the loan that tiie capital should only be returned on the death of the lender, and adds thai he bad i)aiil all interest due before the institniii;';; of the suit ; such ;i,dmi^- sion cannot he divided even to form a com- mencemen'. of )iroof in writing:. Ftlrvil vs. P/(r(np»/, C. H. 1892, 1 Que. 19, contirminj,' M. ],. U. 7. S. C. 2S2. DIVISIHILITY OF. Ill, CASES UXOKR ART. 2:!1 OF CODE OF PROCEDURE. 1. The defendant interrofrated on arliciiiated facts had answered tlins — " The note is in my handwrilini:, hut it was in part an usurious con- tract for cnmpdund interest." 'I'he Court held the siirnalure to the note ]U'()ved, but would not leccivelhe defendiml's declaration (jf usury as evidence, the (| nest ion leinsr merely : " Did you sign the note? " ]/(nf v^. Pmrlow, Q.li. l^'7t'>, 3 Rev. lie l.eir. Mob 2. .\ judicial admission may bedivided, when one part of the answer is I'limballeil by indira- tions of fraud and simulation, or does not a^rree with the ])leadini;s dfihe )iarty interro'.'iiled. GoHdvcanll vs. I'ois.'ioii, Q. \i. ISGCi, i:! L. C. .1. 23"). .'i. The ansiver of a jiariy to interro;:atiirie> on articulated fact- may be divided according: tocircum-tanc es in the discretionof theCouri, when the part of the answer objected to is im- probable. L('i/iiiilf (lit I>i:'. ,1. (-iince dead; to defendant, to be depo-ited in lheSn\in;:-< I'.ank in the name of |il:diiliir. Tln' eniiipiaint \^ as that defendan t had mnviiled ibis -urn to hw own u-e, and paid intere,-l on il for twn yen:-. Plea, ireiieial denial. Drienihiiil on i)iic)'io_;,i- lories admitted rerrivini; llie -iini in i|iit'-:iioii, but said thai he had rrliirned il to hei', .-avf it;2 and a few cents. He admitled also that the deposit was made in bi< own niiine as he had so iiinde iheni before. Fnlliei- explanation-i L'iven by defendant weic eniitradicted by niiicr witne-^ses, to sneb an e.xlenl thai the (.'onri was of o]iinion thai tliei'e was no reliance 10 be placed on the answers oi defeiidanl. aiid liiat he had eoimnilii'd piijiii'y. /// /V Ouliuwini: Goiiilii'iiiilt vs. I'liisui,)!. Svjii'i No. 2), tiiat the admis-iiins in -uch ca-es could bi'divided. and abo wliere ilie .-lalemeni under oalli di I not a;:ree willi lb;' plcadinj:. .)/«////>' /// v-. I',:hii;h,ni,\ L. X. in;. S. C. I--1. ."i. The admission ol' ibe dei'iMidaiit upon ailiiMibued I'aeis which llie plaintil! rnjiNre- luily a^ a comniencfine;'.! oi'pr.ofin uriiinj, cannot be divi.ied so a-' to allow of pavob- evidence of an umoiuit ;:iia;rr than liiat admitted, and ot oilier nmounl- alleiicd in put t(,i be repaid, winii tl.i- e.\eepliuii- of Aii.'.'.U are not applieubie to iIm' ea-^e. /•).(//•/././ v-. Mor!it,q. 15. l--:., 11 I). 1,. U. :)^ revei>ii,i: C. R. IS-I, 111 I), b. K. 12'.i. G. The admission of a pai'ly who alinits the receipt of a sum ol'nioney .-lud tor, but who pretends that be received it as a "ilt and iiot as a loan, may bedivided whi'n -^11011 pnic^ion appears wholly improbable in vii w of the cir- cumstances of the caerve a" a conimencement of proof in wnliii:;' to e-talili>h the real facts. Hiiiininiid ilif Zi(/'c»/(('.s.vr vs. Lii/nii-tisi ,i). li. iSs"), M. J. 1;. 1 (,». 1!. :!21, 2'.i I,. C. ■\. Isd, l;t R. 1.. (Wi. '^^1 ill* i f' i: i:. hi 1 ^ ' j i ' 44 ADMISSIONS. IV. IN i'M',.\i)iN':>; 1. A UDiiiiui ."iicl 11- III'' wMiiw •<{ .\ I! ii'i- iiiii-^ lifi- iii(iri'in;;f iiml Hit' ik-iitli ul lur lius- , linml if i-liiMldi'- 11, )t riii-i' liy o.\c>'|iiiim licr mm- i). -J i:,.v.,lr i."-. .■:::!. 2. Uii.liT 11 \'h-., cii|i. 2', -cc. S.-,, il i.s lU'cc.'- HUT, ill il jijca 111 llii' I'll-'. Hi ('.\|ir('.''^lv 'Iciiy I'ViTv liirl iillcL'i'l ill llii' I'lililitill'.'' il'' 1 iiirmiiiii, i.ilii'iu i.-c -iicli furl- will lie liclii lo I'l' il'llnilll',1. r,,y,y,,v \^. ('i,j,jis, tl. H. l-.'il, ; 2 1., c. i{. 111.-,. ; '■'■■ Jii nil lU'tKJii 1(1 rcM'in'l 11 vcrliiil |iriiiiii-t' lif-lllc Ol till illllllOMlllill', wliii'li \Ml- llillllit- j tP'l liy ihc ck'lVii.liint, litil «ilii ilillfirnt coiidr Hull- frmii tliu-c alU'.'til I'V lli./ |phiiiilitl— V/c/'/, ;X'\iT-iii;; ihc jiiil.'iMCiil urilirtoiirl bflow, tliiil liii' I'laiiilill. ili.iiijli iiJiiiioiivu uocviilciii'i', nil- ' I'liiiilcil Id Jii,l;:iiiciii ill (.■uiifciniiiiy witli .■^iioli lli|||ii.«s|i,iis. Lm-iulx \y- Luiidiilt, (l.M. 1 S(;2. ii; ;. (Ml. -i-i'.K 4. A |ik'a of |iayiii(.'iil (ir coinpen'^ntion is a ■•iillificiit iiiliiiissiciM of till' |ilainlill",- (it'inanil, | I'lii II |)lea of |irt'.-oi'iiitiiiii iillcLiinj: iiayinciit, | aciXiiiipiiiiit'il liv a iiciici-il denial, i^ iiol .-iicii an ailiiiis-iuti. Tlmiltr \s. Wilsruiii, (I. )i. I-lil. :i 1,. CI. 1. .'i. 1 11 ail acli.in liioiiillit hy lui a--<'s-^or a;.'aiiisl lln' ciiy it'i Mmitreal fir llic valiio of hi- -ci'vicc- — //(/.', I'l'vcrsin;: tlii' jini^'iiicnl of tliu coui'l licluw, lliat llic pica in tlic I'au.-f. '.vliicli n.ltiiittcil tliiii tlic siuii of X'liiT H-i. 111., ivitli inlcrc.'Ji anil i;o.*is, \va- iliie lo tlii' plainlill, lirayiiij; n-lr of a .It-pn-il nf tliat -inn in court, aii'lal-o p'ayinj: that tlif plainlill"- action for ill"' >uipln.< be (lisniiH-cd eiitir(.'ly, ontitle.-: tlic jiiaintill to a jiuiL'tiitiit f ir llic sum lenili'rcd. J1'ii(lini;/rr \<. T/ii' Miii/ni-, ,{■'■., aj' .Mnnhral, ^l Ii. ls,v.i,:i L. ('. l!.:;ii;; '■. Till' di'ft'iidanl was oonviotcil of st'lliiii; li(|iiur without a lii:c|i-i'. Tlicri' was a ])l('a of aiilri liiix (irijiiil. and llii'ii tlinii' was tlii' ;.'en- I ral i-'suo. Sulisi'iiui'iitiy tlii' dcfi'iidant with- drew tilt' plea of milri I'lii^ ((Ciiiill, and, there lieiii;: -nine ilillii:ulty almut the identity of the man, ilir ease wa- di-mis-ed in the court he- iinv. The revenue inspeclnr. Imwever, liroii;riit il bef.iie the Superior Cuiirt. eontendiiiL'' that the plea ol '"(/i('^,/.v (/''in/.<.. c. iMiT, :; I,. C. L. .1. 'JO. 7. In an aelimi of daiiiaf;es li>r assault, the fii'M lliul the defendant pleaded Jli'ilty 10 the cliiirjie of aisauli before the Recorder's Court, is an ndniinsion tliul lie tlid actually eoiiiiiiil ihe assault, of which adiiiNsion the pl.,iiilill may take iidvnntage in the civil action. Fmiii'i- vs. So^in', S. C. 1^88, M. L. Ft, 4, S. C.30. H. Adiiiissioii.s conlnineil in ii fnctinn in Itexiew are bindiiii; upon the parly I'iini; the Slime, ('(iiihii vs. f.eiiiKiii. C. R. 1872, IG L.C. .y.:i:!G, 2 R. C.2:i2. |i. The allei.;ation.s of a decl.anition fouiiiled upon notarial ileeds of sale, and .seekin<< to fasten ii personal liability upon ilefendiint lowards plaiiitill. will not be [iroM'.! by a declara- tion made bv defendiint in another deed lo a third parly : no privily of contract is thereby created between ))lainti(l'aiid defeiulanl. I'el- Irlirr vs. /,'i(^>//c, S. C. 1874, 18 L. C. J. ">. 10. A iileadint: or part of a pleadiiiL' cannot be abandoned in order lo net rid of an admis- sion. LamVi- vs. Ihiit. Q. R. (iiie., d Sept., 1877. 11. The failure by plaintitl- to an.swer a plea denyini; that the proper formalities have been observed in respect of calls on shares in a company, caniiol be rej^arded as analmis- sion of the allegations of the plea under C. C. P. in. Stinlacdiut Iii.i. To. vs. Tiiidel, C It. 1871), (1 Q. L. R. ;')I. 12. Art. 144 ('. G. V. does not imply that where a party is in default to answer lU- reply to an allirniative plea, he admits what it con- iMiis; but only that when he au-wers such plea, and fails expressly lo deny the existence of a fact alleijed, he is held toadmil it. lieaii- i;,'u vs. n,rricii, Q. Ii. Que., 4 Dec, 188:!. 13. The allegation of a defendant, who, in an action against him on a note, alleges iii his jilea that there was no co'isideration for the note, is held t) lie admitted unless formally denied according to an. 144 C.C. P. Baxter vs. Jhiin II, S. C. 1884, 17 II. L. .'iGO. 14. A defendant, vvl.^j in answer to an action on a verbal lease, |)leads a claim for damages as set-otl, adiiiits the existence of the lease. WaLsh vs. Hoinird, Q. B. 188G, 12 Q. L. R. 295, 15 K.L. 8. 15. The defeiidauts by their pleadings not having ex|jressly denied an allegation as tollio existence of a separation as lo property, must be held, under article 144 C. C. P., to have admitted the existence of such a separation. I'aniiiil vs. liris^ini, C. U., 18t^G, 9 L. .\ . 2:-!G. 111. Where defendants, sued as partners, plead a denial of the facts alleged but do not , specially deny ihe existence of the partner- ADMISSIONS. 45 snip anil tlieir reli-.iion an pmincrs hh sttilpil in llie liclion, and only pli'iij tiiiil lliey owe nothiiij! to llic pliiinlill, tlie cjiialily in wliioli tlicv lire s'lf'il nni.-t lie taken as n'lniitliil. (Art U4 C. ('. 1'.) Ii'einliiii'lt vf. Durid.ion, (^ B. ISST, 1.-) H. I.. Vl. 17. Conijiensaliun plcadcil iiinicr reserve is no ailtnissKMi nf liuliilily. Sini/ltlnn Vfi. Kiii;//!/. Q. iJ \Hxi, 14 g. L. K. :;'j. Is. 'I'll an action to recover tlie valne of a mare lliip has ccasiMl, is not ivlilfiii'i' t" rliai-^i' tlii' nthi/r in any li'aiit^ai'ii..|i wliii'h hint lU'curi'i'd >iin'i' their srpaiiilioii ; Inn tin- power of partiii'i'r. with ri'^pec-l to riyhls crratecl tiritt/hift Ifir intrt ii'i-shiji !■' miilif^ 'ii'ti r th*' ifi>isntnfion. Siiu'n it is clear that onn piirlnnr can himl the otlie: 4l'.iriii;j all tin' parlnnrship. upon wliat iiriin-iple is il tliat.lroni III.' inoinriit it is ilissolviil, liis arconm „t their joint lanilrui'ts slioiiM .■.■asr to he ex iiluma', ami that those who are to- 'ay as ■aio iiiTson in iiitere>I. shoulil toiiiunow lii'ioiiir",'iitii'ely ihstimt in inteiv.-t ill ri'giii-il to past tiansai'tioiis wiiii'h oeenr iil wliile they were soiiiiittal." In the United States th intrai'v iloeirini' is o^en- orally lu hi, I'oiiiiiii'iioiii;^ with //ac/./t// vs. I'ntiiik 1-1 .rohiis 5:!ii), although ihc'i-e are several ileiM'ions loi- lowing the above English rase. (Hates on I'lutiiot- ship, §61111, 700,701.) f4' il h ■ '.; till ..■ JtU r : ' IJ 46 ADVOCATES AND ATTOKNEYS. rflni\il Micli ailtiii-'.-idii will r.fii-'v Ui unv cllicl. /''iiilli- v-i. Lii.isif.r, S. C. M."r,. It. I,S. C. l.lii. llllVP \. I!I:TIU)ACIIVH effkct. A writiiij.', si;,'iio(l liv till' ilcfeiulunt iil'ier tlic institution <>( llic iiclioi:, ami in wiiicli lie ackiiowlcilgcs ilmt he i^ imlcbli'il In llif plain- till', ami proirii (■.•< In pay llip iiinount Hiied for, lia-i not arolrnactivcclU'c;!, ami is not ■'iidicienl oviclcncc in il-cif wliereun to ubiain juilKtncnl in an action prcvitn-ly iiisiitnlcil. Baxhr v.", Ccrtic, S. ( . is.Ks M.'l.. U., I S. C. JK). -XJ. STATrS. ••JiiesliojH of siatn- cannot hi' allcitlcil hy ailniiHsioiiM of the parlies, wlii'tlicr vohintar}' or forced. Tiioroforc, tlu' arltni.ssinn by tlie liofondant—a^'iiinst wlioni an action t:ianntil lier niarria;.'!' Iiini Iccn taken— to llie elli'd tlint slic wii- married at the time of enterini; into lier second miirriage iiii.s no valne as evi- dence, wliellier made in licr plea to the action or by deposilion nnder oatli. Jfan-ci/ vs. ¥'■1(11,/, S. ('. isl).-!, I Qne. IKi. ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. (See also Costs —Action contim-i;i) i-or ; Costs— DisTitACTioN of; Coxti:.\ii't of Col'liT; PliKSi'illl'TloX ; Skkviii:. J. .ViTiox Against, l-li. II. Ai'i'KAHANcii. (.ScealsoXo. VI. infra.) Jut/iorizaiiiin. 1-4. I'liwr III' AttijriKii. ")-H. III. As ."^1 f.KTIKS. 1-:!. IV. As WiTXKSsiis IN riii: Cask. l-(i, v. Ci-.Asi.xi; TO I'isacthk. W. DlSAVOWAI,. Ads uf A,ivj,l. I. J:/i'iil, Action tahen in iSaine of. 2. A/ta- Unal Ji((li/menf—Si(.tpension of Execnfion. ',]-\, £/r>. Fur liailiff's Ff.i. (i-8. For G'liitnliau's Salari/, '.•. For Injurious Slateiimnls. 10. (See No. XVI. infra.) For Moni'ij collected, Direct Aclioii. 11. Ititei'fHt. 12. Joint liiiil Sevcrul. l.'Ml. /•'(/)• Indemniti/ of IVitncsses. 15. XV. POWKII OK. To Cerli/)/ Copies of Election Peti- tions, etc. 1. To Coiiiprnmi.ic. 2. To (fire Discharije. .'!. "o Renounce Appi'dl 4. LVieotive Act of Pioceduve. o. •liKt^nii'iit. (J. XVI. Piiivii.KCKii Communications. 1-9. XVII. Pll()Kl:SSIOXAI. CONDI'CT. 1-2. XVIir. PruiiATiON or. 1-2. XJX. I'r.oMisi: TO. XX. KiciiT.-i or. XXI. Rights OK Pautnkus AnKit Dissolu- tion OK FiKM. l-;>. XXII. SiiisTnTTiox ok. ED'eit of Dentil, Abisence, WiHidrawal or I'rnmotwn. 1. .\p])eal. 2-1. Dehats de coniple. u. Effect of. (;. Formaliiie.'i in, 7-12. Piirti/ iiddre.'i.nnij the Court. 13. Promotion of Atlorney. 14. Prcliminnrie.s to. 15-17. XXIII. WiTHDKAWAI,. I. ACTION AGAINST. 1. An action may be instituted liy an officer of the court iiiiiiinst an attorney, by petition, bc'cau.=e he is always in court. But all the rules of law ami iiractice which woiiM govern the case and proce('dinj.'s in ordinary actions must afierward.s be observed. Pcrrault A- Po.-.s vs. Volliires, K. B. 1810,2 liev.de Leg. 471. 2. A practising attorney is properly sued by petition witliout writ. Perrault & Ross vs. I'lamondon, K. B. 1816, 2 R, de L. 470. n. APPKAUANCK. 1. Authorization. — Where two aitumeys '/'/ i/7t'w iiave appeared in the same case and fur tile same defendant, the Court will not liear tlie case until it is decided which attor- ney represents the defendant. Giijuire v.s. Jkniipnrlant, C. Ct. 187;), 4 K. 1.. iJM. 2. —— An attorney who appeared in a case for a defendant upon whom process had not been regularly serveil, and who denies tlial he employed such attorney, is bound to showr tliat he was authorized to appear, before lie can recover costs. Disavowal in sucli case is not necessary. Fclton vs. Anhcdlo.i Puckimj Co., C. K. 1880, 7 Q. L. H. 2(15. 3. Where an advocate is a; liorized by a party to represent him in a suit, lie does not reipiire a special aulhori/.ation to con- tinue to represent such party upon execution of the jiiilgmeiH obtained by him, and upon I di^tribution of the funds collected, ioini/ I 'lit Freniire vs. Wiirtele,(i. B. IH^H, 18 K. L. I 577. 4 The only way a party can get I rid of the appearance of his attorney is by dis- ! avowal according to Art. 102 and tVillowing of I liie C. C. I*. Where no siicli disavowal is made, he must be taken to have waived, by I tiie iij)peurance tiled in his name, all the irre- gularities in the service and evei. the entire ab.-enct' I'f service. Dawson vs. Macdunald, 10th June, 1880; CassePs Digest (last edit.), ]). 587, and .see Fonrnicr vs Trcjinnnier, S. C. 1894,5 Que. 129. 5. Power of Attorney. — .\n attorney filed an appearance for a defendant, upon whom process had not been served, and no special power of attorney was produced. The attorney for the ])laintiir moved for the rejection of tlie appearance, and the motion was granted. Gkason vs. 3/o.«, S. C. No. 47, 8th Feb . 18,37. 6. In aiiother case where the defendant liad left the Province, and the ser- vice was made at the place of his last domicile ill the Province, an ajipearance was filed fiir him by an attorney, which the plaintill ignored, and after having called in the defen- dant by advertisement the former proceeded ex parte — Held, in appeal, that all the pro- ceedings had must be set a^ide, as the service was covered by the appearance which the plaintiff hail no right to question. McKercher vs. Simpson, Q. B. 1850,5 U. J.R. Q. 115, G L. C. R. 311 ; Dawson vs. Macdonald, Supreme Ct., 10th June, 1880, Cassel's Digest 587 (la.st edit.). hS ■r:. I If w It:- M h 1 1^- s •r^ IT iijUim-jiii'iiiif II ii'irmri-iMM 48 A])V()CATtS AND ATTOKNEYS. 7. - IrOllIld All altoriK'y proiiiice \uf aiilli'irizaticiij ii|i(im ilfiiiiin.l (if llic mlvciso pnrlv. even wlini a[i|ifuiiijj^ fnr acor|)oralion. N'cillicr is ll ncrcsfiiry fiT liiin to jiroilucc a icsoliilioii ol a coiiiily coiiiK'il aiillidri/inj; liiiii to up|iC:ii-, anil to tiike aniipfcal. (Questions as to tlio f.vislcincot' tlic rcsiiliitioii coiiiilonly arise liotewccn the oorpoiation umi the atloi- ney reprrsriitii ;! it. Ihiririiin/ vs. (V./y*. (/<■ ,S7. I!e Milt. Lili Ins: Co. vs. Tin- Sun Miitiiiii />//;■ //(.v. O/.. s c. if^rs, \ ],. n. 1.19,22 L. C. .i.li.-*. siiniinons, Milh:^ vs. ,'' objection to an altorney or counsellor appearing as a witness in such cases re.sts . ,. , , "P"" '>'■'' l''"^ 'ni'l fiivor towards his client in (our days from the return of the writ of It goes to his credit, not to \m competency. ' tes 7,'/ Col (1« ( foi- ls the caii tail tioii tlie Loz ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. 49 The [.ractice of attorneys and counsellors testifving for clients in suits in tlieir charge !:< reprobated. It is an d'-.i which \\i\\ work its own cure in the loss jf character of those in- duij^ing in it. (?ifew York case.) IJtilt vs. McKeon,&. C. IG4S. Reported 3 H. de h. ;it]G. 2. 'J'he attorney of record, even in a non- coniiiiercial case, may be heard as a witness on liehall of his client if parole evidence be ad- missible. Iter. Dames Ur.siilincs vs. Egan, C. Ct. I8T9, C Q. L. H. 38. 3. Held, that an advocate eni])loyed as attor- ney ad litem in a cause cannot testify as a wit- ness in it. Bolsrcrt vs. Bernier, S. C. 1878,9 R. L. 509 ; Lee vs. Hunt, Q. B. 184G, 3 R. de L.370 ; Can/ v.s Boss, No. 128G S. C. 1851 ; Lei'esquc vs. Laviolette, Sept., 1857, S. C. 4. And in appeal, said to be a great abuse for lawyers to give evidence in their own cases whenevfr it can be avoided. Mol.son vs. Carter, 3 L. N. 258, Q. B. 1880 ; Waldron vs. W/ule,yi. L.R., 3Q. B. 375. 5. Tiie attorney of record is only allowed to oiler his testimony in fuvur of his client under exceptional circnmstances ; and the intrudnction ol the evidence of the tielend- ant's atturney, as to a private conversation between himself and the j)laiiitiir, was, under tiie circumstances, impruper, nnd such tesliniofiv would lie rejected by the Court. Ji'iellc \^. Jlnniiii,/, M. 1.. R., A &. C. 219; conlirnieu in ajipeal, M. L. R., i] Q. B. 3G5 (1«:h)). 6. Where the attorney ail litem is witness for his own client in a cause, and an objection is taken by the other side to ii (piestion put to the wiliic.-s un his examinatiun, tli° witness cannot iiirnselra)i)ieiu- liel<.ire liu' court to main- lain ill'.' jierlinency and relevancy of tlie (|Ues- tion, but the client must tie representi'd before tlie Court by another counsel, Ainjrr.s vs. Lozeau, S. C. 18G8, 12 L. C J. 211. V. cI';asing to practice. 1. A court cannot take coj:ni/.a ;ce of itself of the fact that an advocate lias ceased to practice. Daij vs. Devousse, S. C. 18G1, 12 L. C.J. 2G5. VI. DI8A\0WAL. 1. Acts of Agent.— Where a creditor hands over an account to a collecting agent with iiifii'uctions ijot to sue thereon or incur any e.\p^. es in regard thereto j and where such agent, notwithstanding such instructions, hands over the account to a lawyer, and suit is taken and judgment obtained the.eon ; the creditor must, if he wishes to avoid the liabil- ity of paying the cos;s of the action, renounce the judgment, and disavow the attorney who obtained it. Bernard vs. Lalonde, Mag. Ct, 1889, 12 L. N. 275. 2. Agent— Action in name of.— An agent who has not authorized the use of hia name in an action at law can disavow the attorney ad litem charged with the case by his princijtal. Meunier vs. Corj). de Quebec, C. R."188G, 12 Q. L. R. 134. 3. After final Judgment— Suspension of Execution.— Rxect tion of Tinal judgment should be suspended until a disavowal and petition to revoke judgment is decided upon. D'licson vs. Macdonald, Supreme Ct., Tith Jan., 1885, 11 Q. L. R. ISl. 4. But such execution cannot be suspended without an order by the Court or a judge. Union Hank vs. Dawson, C. R. 1885, 11 Q. L. R. 329 ; Dawson vs. Macdonald, tj. B, 188.3. 5. Elfect of.— Disavowal by a party is I equiviilent, as regards the other side, to a dis- I continuance of bis deniaml, even if the dis- avowal IS rejected as to the attorney of the petitioner. Diifi/ vs. Cliislinhn, C. R. 1892, 1 Que. G2. 6. Exception of.— 191 C. C. P. A ]iarty who jileaiN liy way of disavow.al must state thai the disavowal was made by him personally) or Willi the aid of his attorney, or by his attorney's legal sub^^titute. Ifiirl vs. Hart, S. C. 1S51, 1 L. C. R. 307 ; 3 R. J. R. Q. 15. 7- In appeal— W' ire a disavowal was raised in a ca-e pending before the Court of Aiipeal — Held, that tlie Court could order the taking of evidence on the i-^siie raided. Cure ct Mariiuiiliers de I'CEiirre ct Fahriquii d-la I'aroissc de Sle. Anne dc Viirennes vs. Tlie Bowan Catholic Bishop of Montreal, Q. B. ISO I,. I R. L. 127. 8. Notice. — A proceeding in di-avowal ilucs nut rfipiire ten day-* iirevious notice. , MarCtaniii/lian vs. Harbour Commissioners, < S. 0. 1879^ 23 L. C.J. 321, 2 L. X. :,00. 10. Parties.— Where a petition in di.-- avowal has been served on all parties to the suit, and is only contested by the attorney •>hose authority to act is denied, the latter I ci not on an a])peal complain that all parties I interested in the result are not parties to the - ifr "' ■ 50 ADVOCATES AND ATTOKNEYS. til St 1; i W ^ appeal. Dnirsnii vs. Dinnont, Siiprenie Ct. 1891, 20 Can. S. C. H. TIO. 11. Prescription of.~Tlie only jn-crcrip- tionnvailnblc ii;.'iiinst a petition in (li.=avo\val is that of tliirtv years. Mclh,i,ahl y^'. Dairf!oH, Supreme Cl., 12 .Ian, ISS.'i, 11 Q. L. R. ]><1 ; JJiiirsoii VH. Ihitinml, Snprenje Cl.. Nov. d. l,snl,20 Can. S. C. K. TO',1. 12. Procedure.— Where an action wasili^- misM'il, ami the pliiintilf, on e.xecntion heiiijr issued hv tiie attorneys lor ileO'nilant. came in by opposition, ami (li.savnueil all the procee.l- i,ij,s._7/,/ition siionM have been contesicil by the allorinT ilisavuwed, aii'l not by •.he attorneys lor the ilefeiice, ami the i-ecor.i wa.s sent hack for that purpose. Sindlr vs. Jinize,n,, C. U. 18H1.4 L. N.H.M). 13. Eight of— General Principles— A party will not he allowed to disavow his au- thorized attorney unless lie has been injured in liis puit hv the procedure of the latter. Fnhfij vs. Wtn-lel,; Q. 13. U'?*!'. 1« !!• I- ■"' ; '^V" guin vs. GamJ,:!, Majj;. Ct. ls8'.t, 12 L. N 2tlG. 14. And it i.s for the court alone to (lelerniiiie whether the party has been so injured. Scf/niii vs. Gdwkl, Miij.'. Ct. 1S8'.), 12 L. X. 2ui;- 15. Absence of Party from Province. — Where a party authorizes an attor- ney to appear in a case for him, hecannot after- wards disavow such attorney on the <;rou;id that he was absent I'roni the I'rovince when the action was taken, and that i)leadin;;s were intro- duceil which he had iiot authorized. Dinrsnii vs. I'liidii Bunk tij' Liiircr Cainvln, '*. B. IS.-jO, 14 11. L. 101, i;5Q. J>. R. 20. 16. Action in Separation froTi Bed and Board— Reconciliation- Costs. — Where the plaintill' had taken an action ajiaiusl her hushaml, in separation from lied and lioard, and after inscription for proof the parlies were reconciled and ]ilain- titr.s attorneys continued the action f'' their costs in opposition lo the plaintill's wishes- — 7/r/i/, that the plaintill had a x\fi\\\ lo disavow lliein, as the action was e.\tinj:ui.-hed by liie reconciliat on. Gerdnl vs. J.eniire ((■ ,S7. Fi'i-ir, C. R IS-'.), 2 L. N. 25.".. 17. Authorization.— (See also — Anvoc'.Mi:— Ari'KAiiAXci:, ;\i-tiiohizatiox). An attorney ad litvin in jiossession of papers is not required to justil'y or prove iiis author- ity, but liie presuinptiou if that he has a (gen- eral mandate from the party for whom he acts. And wliere proceeding.'i in disavowal are brought against such attorney, the plaintif!" must prove all the allegation.^ of iiif declara- tion, and pariicularly tlmt no authority or power to aiM was conferred by him upon tiie attorney. M..ss vs. A'ow, S. C. IKOo, !) 1.. C. .1. ,'!2S. Ciiii/ra where attorney has not pos- session of papers. Liijiuiwssc vs. Aii;/^, M. L. R , 7 S. C. -i.jy. 18. Evidence of Authoriza- tion—Action was hniught in ISOn against (wo lirothers.,1. .S. D. and W. Mel). 1). One copy of the summons was served at the domi- cile of J. S. 1). at Three Rivers ; the oilier defendant, W. McD. D., then residing in the Slate of X<\v York. Un tlie return of the writ the respondent liled an appearance as attorney for liotii defendants, and jiroceedir.gs were suspended nnlil 1874, when judgment was taken, and in DecemlKT, 18.S0, upon the issue ('f an alias writ of execution, tlie ajjpellant, having failed in an opiiosition to jmlgmeiit, tiled a petition in disavowal of the respondent. The disavowal attorney jileaded inter nlii( ihnl hi' hail b'cn aulhori/ed to ap- pear by a letto- signed by J. S. D., saying: " lie good enough as to tile an appearance in the case to which the enclosed iias reference, etc.." and also jirescription, ralilicalion and insiilliciency of the aile^'ations of the iietitioii of disavowal. Jf(lil, thut there was no e-'idence of author- ization given to the respondent or of ralilicalion by appellant of respondent's act. and tiierefore the petition should be nniinlained. I):iii:iiiii vs. Ihniioiit, Supreme Ct., Nov. (I, 1.-'91, 20 Can. S. C. R. 709. 19. Instructions to Disconti- nue Proceedings— Continuation.— Where an altorney receives in-lructions Iron, his (dient to discontinue his suit, which the latter believes lo lie helbre the Court, but which, from a defect of firm, ha-^ been rejected, said atlorney is act- ing within hismandale when he )iays theccsts of the lirsl action, and brings a new one which he comlncts to the ]ioiiit wdiere the ru>l one was supposed lo be when he receiveil tlie in- struclions from his (dienl. And the altorney, being compelled bv the other side lo proccei'., and having notilied hi.« (dieni ihtreof, was not e.\ceediiig his mandate in continuing ihe case, and tiierefore could not he disavowed after linal judgment dismissmg Ihe action. Giifufre vs. Ck. di' C/i. th Fer Q.M.A: C.,Q. R. 1S9:?, :?Que. 40'.. 20. ResJudicata.— Tiie right of disavowal is not lost because the party demand- ing it lias had recourse to otlier measures to ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. 51 revoke the final jtulgmeiit against him. Daw- son v?. MacdnntthI, Siipi'ctne Ct., I'ith Jan., iss,-), 11 Q. L. R. 181. 21. When Necessary. — Di-^uvowal liy pe- tition iH not npce.^sary wiien the attornc)'.* ad litem ili.-iavoweil produce a written ivcknowh.'dg- ment tliat they were not antliorizcd to iippeiir. Cooke v.«. Curon, Q. B. 18S4, 11 Q. L. 1{. 20-^. VII. DISBURSEMENTS. 1. An advocate i.s not hound to advance iiioney.s as dishursenienls in a canse; and wiiere lie does so, lie is not oblijred to awail the resnit of the suit before he is entitled to sue for the rciniliursctnent of such adviinces. J^ordiii/tr vs. Filiiilraiill, S. C. ls<)2, 2 Qne. :i,'j(;. VIII. DEATH OF, ETC. (See Suhstitl'- TION OF.) IX. ELECTION OF DOMICILE. (See al>o under title " Skkvick."') 1. Service on an attorney nuisi he niaile at his cdected domicile, hut he is hound to have some one in char;::e of it ; in defaiilt of wiiich service can he made ;.i the ]irot',ionotary's oflice. AIiiiIhiiiII vs. lUttt-s, S. C. 18«!». L! L. C.J. l:!lt; LnitiUI vs. C/zfry/YLV, S. C. 1880, Vlil. L. 11 IT. 3. .\ jiersonal service on an attorney resi- dent ill a district adjoiniiij: that in which the suit is procei'dini: is good, notwithstandint; iiis special election of domicile in the latter district. Mc.Calhim vs. Ilanroml, S. C. 18Ts, 22 L. C.J. 2Tlt. 4. Where an attorney has made no election of domicile, >ervice iijion him is [iroperly made at the prothiinolary's ulllce. Jinbdi.soii vs. M^irlnir, S. C. h^T'jJ2 L.N. 181. X. EXGACEMENT OF SEItVICES. 1. Wlieica lawyer is employeil through the iiiteriiiiiliary iif a third jiiirly, he can recover nis lees Iroiii his client wlio has lienelile 1 hy liis service,--. Ilovnard vs. K/linl/, Mag. Cl. l"-'8:). 12 [;. N. 1 Hi ; Toiisijinaiit vs. Ihidcuii, C, U. 18-,\ 11 Q. L. R. ;il;); aiohniskij vs. IhMonti.jiuj, S. C. 1879, 2 L. N. 1T8. 2. liut the contrary was held in a case where an attorney in Quebec, receiving instruclioii from an attorney in Ontario to take action on behalf of his client, was not allowed to look to the client of his corres|)ondent for his fees. Keller vs. WaUon, C. Ct. 1879, 2 L. N. 400. See remarks on this case ih. at p. ;t9;{. 3. But the general i)rinciple above stated has been adhered lo wherethe jiarties resiile in the Province. Thus where A. was einploved through the insirumentality of \V'.,by divers ]K'rsons who had signed a petition for the|)ur- pose ol'tditaining letlerspulent for the incor- poration of a company and the parlies failed to pay for the services of .\., who issued an action to recover the anidunt. 7/''/'/ . — Confirming the judgment of the Superior Court, that the parties signing the ]ietitiori were lieneliteil by the services of plain- till, and were liable for the value of such ser- vices. Atwuler vs. The Iiiijii,rter.i A- Trndern Co., C. R. 188G, :!l L. C. J. 52; Amja- vs. Curneilller, Q. B. l'^92, 2 Que. 29.S. 4. .\nd the same has been held in the case ofmmiicipal corporations; that such cor|)ora- tions ai'e liable to the advocates who rendered services in securing their incorpo-'ation, al- though at the lime the services were called into requisition there was no body corpin'ate to contr.vct with, the engagement having been made by the ratepayers interested. Ihlielle- J'eiiille vs. Miiiiirijialilij oj' Mile End, S. C. 1880,25 L. C. J. H. 5. 7/r/i/ aho, that where certain ta.\-payers had engiiged a lawyer tor the purpose of having a village nuide a town coriioration, and others had retained another lawyer to have the bill amended and watch its progress through ihe Legislature, such second liiwyer wcu'king at Queliec in conjunction with the lirsl lawyer, and the bill lieing passed, wa- entitled to look lo the new corporation for his remuneration, iliirroii'jlis \s. Coi-j). de Luc/iuk; a. C. 1891, (I Que. :-!:>:!. 6. The Crown is liable to a counsel fur ids (ees as in other cases, iu;/. vs. iJoitlrc, P. C. 1881, 28 L. C. J. 2(19. XL EVIDENCE OF ENGAGEMENT OF SERVICES. 1. Oath — Retroactive Effect of 54 Vic, ch. 32, 8. 2.— By •">» Vic, cb. H2, .-. 2 (amending Art. 3,-)97 R. S. Qi. "The oath of the advocate makes proof as to the services rendered by him having been reiiuired, and as to the nature and duration thereof, but such oath may be con trail icied in tiie same way as any other evidence." This has been lield ^ ilLiil t' w •il' m J f m 62 ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. l; lii: II: to apply to services reiuiered before the ))u^'»• iii^^ol'snid Act. (1) BiaiihieiiM'. AUaiiCjCAi. 1892, 1 Que. 275 ; C/iai/non \f. S/ Jean, S. C. 181tH, 3 Que. 459 ; BurrotKjhs v.^. Corp. dc ht ViUe dc Larhutc, S. C 1894, G Que. ,39;!. 2. ■ Commencement of Proof in Writing. — No coDimcncement of proof in writing is required to ad;., it parole evidence of tlie requisition (if a lawver'H services, (2) tlie latter lieiiig allowed tc prove such requisition \i\ liis own oatli. ,S7 I'ierre vs. Lepage, S. C. 1891,0 Que. 511. 5. Joint and Several.— Where an advo- cate presents a jietition to the Court, on behalf of a nuiiiLcr of bailitls, and conducts the same to judgment, lie lias no right of action for liis fees against one of tlie signers of tlie petition (on the ground o( solidarity of liabil- ity), in the absence of proof that such signer ever em|iioyed the attorney to act for him. Dou/rc y^.'Dciii]>sci/,C. Ct. 1305,9 L. C.J. 170. 6. .—But Held, that clients XII. FEES AND KEML"NERATIOi\. (See also under titles "Costs," " Prk- PCRIPTION.") 1. Action for. — An action for professional fees and disbursements is not an action " founleil upon detailed accounts "' witiiin tlie meaning of Art. 91 C. C. P. jMiit/lois vs. St. Pierre, C. K. 1883, 9 Q. L. 11. 95 ' \ 2. Illegal Agreements.— An agreement between altoriiey and client, to tlie etlect that ; the attorney shall be paid a proportion of the ' amount whicli iiip.y be recovered in the suit, I in addition tu hi-' taxed cost-, is null and void, 1 and a deed of transfer of the clionl's claim i based n'"r* ';?K','",yJ "8 /;'"'.'//"•'' V8. ValU-nnwh, S. C. defended by an advocate in the same case and I by one defence are joinily and severally liable towards such advocate. (Routhier J. remark- ing ; " How, then, coulil Monk J. in Voutre vs. Demji.ii'ii i\xv'\\e ai thedecision liedid in view of the authorities cited. Tliat decision appears to me, to be grounded on no valid reasons.) Fr6- neltc vs. Bedard, S. C 1889, 12 L. N. 302. 7. Bight to— General Principles An advocate of the Province of (Juebec, being by law and the custom ot hi^ profession entitled to recover payment for his jirofessional work, those wlio engage his services must, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, ex- press or implied, be held to have employed him u))on the usual terms according to wiiich such services are rendered. Fir/iiia vs. J)oittrc, P. C. 1884, 28 L. C. J. 2Q'J ;' Bamsm/'.'i l)i,,., p. 1045, 7 L. N. 242; DevUn \^.' Tnnihle/i/, S. C. 185S, 2 L. C. J. 182 ; Ami/of vs. Gin/y, (3) Q. II 1876, 2 Q. L. R. 201. 8 Independent of the TarilT.— And the same held to be the ca.9e irresjiective of the tariir, where the value of tiie services is proved, (4) C/irisliii vs. Lacoste, Q. B. 1893,2 Que. 142; Be.siardin.i vs. Ditrassc, S. C. 1879, 2 L. X. 270: Beuitdri/ vs. Oiiimet, C. R. 1805, 9 L. C. .1. 158. — . — An attornev ml 9. litem to be entillcd to receive his fees iiiid dis- bursements from his own client need not pro duce a taxed bill of costs. Clierrlcr \-^. Titus, Q. ]!. 1851, 1 i.e. R. 402, 3 It.. I. R. Q. (52; Leliniif vs. Jaihzoii, C. Ct. 18s-,, m 1{. ]_,. 23. ^^- ■ . — III the absence ofasjiecial agreement between advocate and client, there is 11 jiresiimption that the tariff shallgovern asto theadvocate's remuneration ; but this ijresumpiiun may be rebutted by evi- 2i I „ i , V "^'■:"' "','"l"'''>' I" :i caso wiis (lisallowod, VI , linn ,'! "" '",'!''"■'' '■'"'"•«'•( was repdloU by tho lelatioiK.l tlR. parlies a.s ty)i/V('/-e.'i. (4J Contra <;rim. N. 170. 13. Advocate Arguing his own Case. — An advocate who conducts his own case, and describes iiimself on the face of the jiroceedings as attorney of record, accepts all I I'.e duties and rcspDiisihililies iniposeil on attorneys acting lor ordinary clients, and is en- titled to his fees for services performed in the cause as an attorney. (?(','/// vs. Brown, P. C. 1807, 2 L. C. J. 222, 11 l! C. J. 141, 17 L. C. 11. 33 (overrtiliiig Gikjij vs. Ferijusuiu 11 L. C. H. 409, Q. B.). 14. in Supreme Ct.— In the Supreme Court, advocates arguing their Ortfu case are not iiUowed fees. Lamjlols vs. VitUii, Supreme Ct. 1S80, 3 L. N. 331). 15. Arbitration under Rail- way Act. — A judge oft he Superior Court may, in his discretion, allow fees to counsel on an arbitration to fi.x the indemnity to be paid for iandslaken by a radway company under 43 anil 44 v., c. 43, s. 9, pars. 20 and 37. Muntreal (H- >ioreJ Railiray Cn. \~. Vincent, Q. 15. 188 J, Ram. Dig. 172, 17 R. L. 3r,. 16. Contract for Services- Status. — 'I'he contract is not dependent upon the law of the place where the services are to be givei . but upon the status of the person employed. lieii7(H V- Ttimbtitii, S. i'. l.^S.S, 2 I,. C.J. 1,S2. 1 CJ) Sii|iiioi'tiMl liy Frcni'li eiisu rcportcil .'i It. I., lot. (:)) Tliis ^ .r'f^jr^ '^^jisKr: vcjciiijj- 54 ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. if i! ' clftirncJ liy tlin lawyer from tlic del tor, a^ llic fee for niicli lelter, and lie iniiy fiie therefor in the niuiip of liis client. Mirhdrh vs. Plim- soil, fi L.\. 01, ami 27 L. C. J. 2!); and Laimv vs. T/iom,V. C. l.'^8:!, f. X. L. H. (1) 26. Field, ill e.\l(MUiilion uf tlie above ua.^es, that where the delitor has no direct dealing's with the lawyer who wrote the lelter, l.nl pays the dehl to the crcilitor, the lawyer cannot recover the co^ts of the letter from the debtor. (2) Oiilniit v,«. (,'i-iinl, C. Ct. 1884, 7 L. N. ;!s:!. 27. .V lawyer cannot reco- ver Cor the co^ts ufa lelter written to the defeii dant, where the latter settles the debt with the creditor, even thoiifrh he promises the creditor lie will pay the costs of letter ; such promise could not hinil him toward the lawyer, for he was not legally bound to pay to him the debt. (.'!) L'lrcdii vs. Leclerc, C. Ct. 188r), 8 L, N. ?:U ; ]>t!siiiiirr/„ti.i V.S. Dni/I,', C Ct. 18.si7, 10 L. N. l.U. 28. Lioitation.— Where the plaintill', attorney in licitation, had been paid the sum of forty dollars, mentioned in Art 111 of the laritV for all proceedings on a licitation of one succession or more after judgment rendered, by the purchaser of the first im- moveable sold. — Jkhl that he had addition- al aright to the same fee on the immoveablep, the sale of which had been retarded by opposi- tion. (4) Brnnd vs. Pdmiuiii, S. C. 1875, 11 U. L. 720. 29. of Counsel at Enquete.— Ac- tion on a pr, missory note, lieing inscrilied for enquete, the parties contented themselves with an admission of certain facts signed by the attorneys of the pliuutill and the counsel at ciiqitele of defendants, and countersigned by the attornevs of the defendants. The action was dismissed with costs. The prothonotary having refused togrant a fee for the defendants' counsel at iiUjiiele, the defendants appealed from the ta-xation of ihe prothonotary, and their pretension wa.s maintained. (5) Cor/innr lion of Quchor vs. Pit,,,,, S. C. 1879,5 Q. L. ]{. 231); and llmiijne d' Jhic/ic/aijn v-. Ewimj, M. L. U., 7 S. C. 40. (1)|2)(3) Tills question is now settled V.\ tlie jiew tnritf nlli winji a suited fee for letter in" diireient olimses of aetioii. See iilso note 3 1,. N,:)7. (4) Tills ■leeislon \s one rendered under ttc tarnTof fees 111 loree in IHT.'i. (5) By the iiresent tiiriiV, in foive since May l»t ISM no provision is made for any feo to Special Counsel at Knquete. 30. — . — Thi.s case was in- ,-cribed on the roll for ^1, 8 L.'n. 90 ; and L'tllliertcv^. I'aii.i, S. C. I,s80, tl Q. L. U. 201 Contra. 31. — . — The production ofau admission of facts in a case inscribed for proof and hearing is not e(|iiivalent to an e.\aniina' tion ol witiies.ses. Ldriiion/k vs. Mnreaii, S. C. 18811,9 jj. i\. :i8G. TUe eiK/iu-le fee allowed by Art. 29 of the tariir of advocates" fees is only chargeable wdien counsel other than the attorney of record coniiucied the enijKetc. ]li. A coiin-cl whoiloes not conduct an enijuele, but merely countersigns an admission of facts, IS therefore not entitled to the fee. Ih. (7) 32. on Taxation of Bill of Costs.— An aitorney has from the service of notice of ta.xation a right to a lee of .$3 on the taxation of his liill of costs. (8) Duroelier vs. Srhasliai), S. C. 1891, 21 R. L. 8.'5. 33. Recovery of, when Paid.— Xo action can be maintained to recover a lee paid to a barrister. Iirr,/ei-i,ii vs. Panef, K. I?. 1809, 2 Rev. de i.eg. 471. 34. Rehearing.— On a motion to revise the prothonotary "s taxation of the defendant's bill of costs.— 7/e/'/, that no fee for rehearing would be allowed unless the rehear- ing took place by special order of the court and to enable the court to be more fully informed of the case. liciircll vs. Mw/r/, S. C. 18G2, U L. C. R. 18. 35. The fee for rehearing will be allowed when the delibere is discharged without the fault of the attorneys, and a rehearing oniered. Gn.sliMu vs. (2iiehec X.S. T. Ji'owl Tni.ilce.-<,S. C. 1878,4 Q. L, R. 203. (0) (7) See supra note 5. (8) The taritt'of f«os in force since Jtiiv, Ist imi iiiakfs no provision for ii fee on taxatiou of bill of wi 18;) wlu and J'oi L. T„> 470: 185 ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. 55 36. Beprise d'Instance — The fees of llie petitionee' uiivouiite upon a petition in continuance of suit, dismissed on ii peremp- tory exoeptioTi other limn a pleatotlie merits, arefroveriied by Art. 30 of tlie tariff. (I) Guil- hault vs. Dcsmaniis, S. C. 1890 18 R. L. 517 37. Retainer for fixed per iod — An attorney for legiil liusiness isa mandatary ami lilt the parly is that he is right ill his preleiisions, anil that he will there- fore succeed in the suit ; and under any circum- stances the attorney cannot beheld responsible for the issue over which he is no lousier to have control. Such an iittorney may recover extra pay fur services rendered by bin) in connection with expropriation matters because these, were i;ot strictly speakiiu^ jirofessional services, Derliit vs. Ci'/i/ of Monlveah Q. B., II! March 1878. 38. Second Counsel — The fee for a s'.caiid counsel provided by Art. 25 of the tarifl'i/f the Court of Appeal musthe demanded before taxation of the billof costs and payment of the same by the adverse party, liitr/io/ vf. CartliiKil, Q. B. in Chumbers 189'), ;j Que. 73. 39. A special bargain between an attorney and his client is binding. Holftiu vs. AiiilfrKiiii, (i- B. 187(), Ram. Dig 29. 40, Tariff— Retroactive Effect. — The new tariff of fees is applicable to procedure subscriuent to the 1st September, 18;)1, the date of its coming into force, even wheic the case commenced before that date and was then pending. (2) Quebec Jiank vs, J'oiris; S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 100. Contra, 1 L. C. R. 105, 2 U. J.Q. 418, C. Ct. 1895 j Tnnstidl vs. Hoht ■(.son, S. C. 1851, 1 L. C. U. 47fi, ;i R. >I. Q. 7;! ; Delery vs. Qui(/, S. C- 1851, 1 L. C, R. 193, 8 R. J. R. Q. 8o'. (1) Art. 39 New Tariff 1894. (2) And see supra, p. 51, " Evidence of Services- Oath." 41. Where it Arises— With. drawalfrom Suit— Action for Fees.— An advocate has no right of action for liis ftes until the cau.se wherein he claims them ha.s been terminated by judgment, settlement or discontinuance, or until his client has with- drawn his mandate from him. Aoyvafi/tc vs, FiUatruult, S, C. 1892, 2 Que. 35G. . — .\n advocate cannot '.'ilhilraw from a cause without fhe per- mi^-sion of the court or judge; an. I even where such witliilrawal is regularly made, it does not give the advjcate a right of action against his j client for hk< fees before the termination of the I cause. III. 1 i j . — The fact that tlie client retained another lawyer in another , case ill which he was concerned, and did not ; respond to a notice by his attorney to inform liim what he iuteniled to do in the case in j which lie represented him, does not justify an advocate in withdrawing from a case, or give iiini a right of action for his ftes before the termination of tile suit. Hi. 42. . — Anattor- j iier at law bos no right of action a'.'ainst his I client for costs of suit, until the suit is ended. Atwell vs. Browne, Q. B. 1865, 9 L, C. J. 155; Moloney vs. FUzijerald, C Ct. 1877, 3 Q. L. R. 381. 43. But it is not necessary that there should be a judgment declaring the case ended before gii'ing a right to fees ; it is sufficient if llie suit has been ter- minated by settlement out of Court. O'FarreH vs. Reripvocilij Mining Co., C. R. 18G9, 4 Q. L. R. 198. 44, Where Action Settled before Return. — A lawyer whose client has promised a retainer, in consideration of ser- vices expected of him in the action which lie has instituted, cannot recover the amount of such retainer, beyond lii.s fees, where the action was settled before the return day, Mon.s.sean vs. I'iaml, S. C. 1873, 5 R. L. -180. 45. Where the Tariff is Silent. — Cases where the tariff omits to pro- vide for prothonotary's and attorney's fees should be decided in accordance with analogous cases provided for by the tariff. Corporal ion des ILii.'isiers vs, Caisse, S. C, 1890, M, L, R. 6 S. C. 32. ,,.»■*' 4 ■fff c6 ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS. k i ; Xlir. INJURIOUS RKMARKS CONCERN- ING, MADK BY OTHER SIDE. ART. '.) C. C. 1'. A jiarty to an action has no ri^lit to identify the attorney of tlie opposite party witli the dispute involveil in tlie ca.'e, nor to inai. 134. XIV. LIAIillJTY OF. 1. Error or Want of Skill. (1)- -^.n attorney at law is not liable for ilaniai,'es, when the suit lie has heen coniluciing is liisinissed for failure to proceed during three years, in default of proof of iiej;li;;enoe on his part. Beaudii/ vs. Otiiiiiet, C. I!. I>^li5, L.C.J. I5S. 2. An advocate, who, in the Ixdief that the writwasnull, advise.s hisclient to resist execu- tion even hy force, cannot be incriminated for such advice. JiC(j vs. }forrisson, Q. B. 1872, 3 R. L. 525. 3. Although an attornev,f;rossly deticient in integr'*y, care or skill, to the injury of his ch'enf, is answerable fur the loss he occasions by such deliciency, he is not answerable for neglect wlien merely presumed, nor for want of fkill in cases of reasonable doubt. VaUii-ren vs. Berniei; K. B. 1820, 2 Rev. de Leg. 471 ; Trcnholwfi vs. Mitchdl, S. C. 1890, 10 R. L. 355. 4. No action for damages lies against an attor- ney ail liiciii for registering ajudgment in favor of liis client, when the registration is made bv him in bis |)rofessional capacity ,\s acti-ig for such client. So/monr vs. Seymour, S. C. 1890, 21 R. L. 31). 5. Liability of, for SherifiPs Fees.— Attorneys are personal iy liable tothesheritf for his fees and disbursements on writs ofexecution issued on the /(«/ of such attorneys. Boston vs. Tiiijlor, Q. H. 1857, 1 L. C- J. 00. &• for Bailiflfs Fees.— Attor- neys are personally liable toa bailili for his fees. Dedbi vs. Biheaii, Q. B. I SOI, 30 L. C. J 101. 7. . — \\\ attorney (/(/ ?//<■»« em p'dying a bailill'toexeciite a writ, and lualiing a special aL'reemenI with him as la charges, without stipulating that he is not contraclir.g for himself, becomes personallv liable towards the baihtl'. Panndoii vs. GuiUc't C. Ct. 1380, 7 Q. L. R. 250. (1) See 1 K. do I,. 48!). 8. . — Unles.s tliere i9 an agreement to that etftct, or the attorney liaa received the money from liis client, he is not personally liable to the ba'.litJ'for his fees for services. (2) Gilinas vs. Dumi,'it, C. Ot. 1880, 10 R. L. 22'J ; Theroux vs. Pacaud, C. R. 1.S79, G Q. L. R. 14. 9. forGuardian's Salary— An attorney is not liable to a bailitf for the remu- neration of the guardian apiwinted by tlie latter. riaiite vs. C<(2Pa/(,S. C. 1875, 1 Q. L. R. 203 . 10. For Injurious State- ments.— An advocate is not responsible in damages for making, in a case, injurious state- ments concerning a witness under e.\amina- tioi), unless the words complained ofare foreign to the case in which he is at the time en- gaged. (3; Gautliier vs. St. rierre, S. C. 1884, 2H L. C. J. IC, 7 L. N. -14. 11. For Money Collected- Direct Action.— An attorney is liable in a direct action forthe recovery of a specific sum alleged to have been collected by him, asadivi- dend in an insolvent estate, and the principal in such a case is not limited to the mere actio inanduti. Pliillips vs. Joseph, S. C. 1871, 15 L. C. J. 335, Q. B. I.S75, 19 L. C.J. 162. 12. Interest on. — A lawyer is not obliged to pay interest on sums of money received at difl'erent times, and belonging to hisclient, when the latter has not put him in default, or when there has been no accounting between them. Chai/iion vs. St. Jean, S. C. 189.3, 3 Que. 459. 13. Joint and Several.— Pro- fessional attorneys who carry oi\ business under a firm name are joiiitlj' and .severally liable toward a client, whom they have represented ad /item, (or money.s collected by the firm. 0»/»ic;ive a valid dischar^'e for a debt for which his client lias obtained judgment. And supposing that by present usage the mandate of the attorney ad litem permits him to collect the moneys for the recovery of which he has brought action, yet in the present case the ;. andale of the attorney having expired at the time the money was collected, after judg- ment, such usage could no longer li.Tve applica- tion, and he could notgivoa valid discharge. (2) Vlonin vs. McClaiKD/ltaii, S.C. 188.3, .M. L. R. IS. C. Til. 4. To Renounce Appeal —Per Tasche- reau, J. An attorney adlilcni has no iiuthority to bind his client not to appeal by an ,igree- nient with the opposing attorney that no appeal would be taken. Sorii'le Can. Fran- false lie Constrnctlon vs. Dacduij, Supreme Ct. 181)1,20 Can. S. C. H. -U!». 5. To Benounce Defective Act of Pro- cedure. — An attorney ad litem can, by virtue of his mandate, desist from an act of proce- dure void for defect of form, and replace it by another. St'ijuin vs. Gaudet, Mag. Ct. 188'J, 12 L. N. 2Gfi! 0. To Renounce Judgment.— .Vrt. 177 C. C, P. The attorney of one of the partii's in a case cannot, as such, renounce the whole or part of the judgment given in his favor, but (li Si'O Kiiglisli Case of M'llllii'irK vs. Mitnshr, (.'t. of .\i)i)wil 1SS7, Itepoi-tfil 11 I.. X. (i. i2) Sec asi ti> tri'niiii.ttioii iif mandate Sorh'lc Cnii. Fraiiiaiae v.«i. /hinliii/. 'J'nsi-lii'nau .1. at p. 4iy, liO S. C. K ; anil HikjI/i vs. Lurroi.v, 21 I.. C. J. 307. such renunciation, to be valiil, must be signed by the party himself or by bis attorney ad hoe. (.S) I'refontainc vs. llroicii, C. R. 1875, 1 Q. L. R. GO XVI. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. (SeeLiuEi, .\xi) Si.andkii— Pkivii.koku COMMUSICATIOXS.) 1. AiiT. 275 C. C. P.— An attorney may be called on to declare the residence of his client, but he cannot be compelled to answer, though it would be no breach of professional eticjuette for him to do so. Jiaii.iom vs. Curporaliuii of Montreal, S. C. 18(iG, 1 L. C. L. J. '.'1. 2. Art. 275 C. C. P.— The attorney ad litem of a party examined as a witness may refuse to answer a (piestion tending to disclose iv Ciimmunicaiion made to him liy his client jiro- fessicinally, and not iirisingout nf the exiimina- tion in chief. Fdrni/th vs. Charlvhids, S, C. !8G,-', 12 L. C. J.2GI. 3. Rut such coniniunication is not pri- vileged where the titlorney is himself a party to the transaction as well as adviser. Klliicr vs. Homier, S. C. 187:!, 18 L. C. J. 8:!. 4. An advocate and att(jrney, //«•.< .s-r?/.--/ in a cause, cannot refuse to declare what moneys he may have in Ins hands belonging to :i de- fendant in the cause, on the ground that his doing so would bo a iietrayal of professiunal confiilence. Maekenzie vs. Mackenzie, S. V. , I8G4, 9 L. C. J. S7. 5. On a charge of perjury, alleged to have been committeil in an alii lavit made by the de- fendant in order to obtain a writ of capia-^, I'-e counsel for the accuseil, plaintitl'in the capiat suit, was asked to prove the identity of accused, as the person who signed and swore to ilie atKdavi;. Held, that this was not a private or con- fidential matter, and further that the fact that thv' witness was also retained for the accused in the perjury case did not excuse him from answering. Ex parte Kavanai/li, Q. R- 1884, 7 L. N. ;UG. 7. Communications between Folicitor and client are jirivileged, and accordinjily it was Held, that the managing director of a company could not be forced to produce letters written to him by the solicitor of the company touch- ing the suit in which said company was de- fendant- Ex parte Alibott, S. C. I,--'. 7L. N. 818. ^^ I \'% (li) See II L.X. pp. 1 and C. reniaiksiv tliisca^ 58 ADVOCATK.S AND ATl'OHXEYS. 8. Tlieri^lit of privilc;;e hm tDwliat Ims liecii coiMiiuiiiicatpil lo uii mlvticali' by lii-^ fiii'iid (JopH not cxtcriil Id coiiver-iilioiH in tlic pro- fence of anotlicr party wliii^li liail notliin;; of llii'cliaraclcr of secrecy uliuiil lliciii. ami coiiM not lie consi.kreil conlMenlial. lUilmnn vh. AiKlnwx, S. ('. IssH, \2 K. I.. WM. 9. All aihocate, ^iHllllnonell a- a wiliiesis, cannot lie c(iin|iell('il to reveal (MinininnicatioiH made to liini liy liiH clienl, or lo relate acts perfornieil liy siicli advocate cm the latler's behalf, if these coiiininnicalinn-' and acts relate in any way l 10 ; .S7ca;//.» vs. n„ss, Q. H. 188'.), .M. L. R., 'j Q. B. 1; BnineUe vs. McGrern/, S. C. 1 8f', liixi'il utter litiiriti!,', or notice given to llie parly, " tnn-l lie conHtrned Biricliy ; mill ciintiol lie exleinlpil ho aH to in- clude retiiiner, or disliursetiient-, not la.xablo again.'.t llie otiicr party, lint for wliicli llie attorney may have a valid claim ii;,'ainst liii own client. McClauaghan v.s. Gnutliier, S. C. 189;t,4 Que. 72. 16. . — On adeniaiid for snli^titii- ti(>ii o( attorney, the parly miikinj;tlie .statue is only bound under Art. 2(1.') C. ('. 1*. to pay bin attorney.", who bad also replaced otbci - dur- ing tbe proceed iri;.'-^ in tlie ca>e, ibeir fees and disliiuseiiienls earned by Ibeni fi'oni tbe lime they took up tbeca.>'e ; and they cannot claim in addiliot) tbe bill of costs of Ibeir predeces- sors altbou^li it ajijiears that ihey have not been paid. Wintder vs. Davidson, S. C. 1.-<8J, !i L. N'. 1 1 . This point was also similarly decided, but inoidenially, in Moiilrail vs. WilliaiiiK, Q. U. 1879, 24 L." C. J. 144. 17. . — Wliere a su}.'j:eslion of tbe (Icalli of one of several defendants was tiled of record, a motion to compel the reiiiuiniiif; de- fendant to substitiile an ullorney in the place of the attorneys of record, one of whom bad been elevated to the liencli,will not be firanted until such suggestion is removeil or disposed of. Saavagam vs. Jiobcrtsoii,S. C. 1859, 9 L. C. II. 224. XXIII. WITIIDKAWAL. It is in tbe discretion of the Court to allow an attorney ad lilriii to withdraw from tbe tbe case, on giving notice to the adverse partv and bis own client. Jrchambiutltvi'. Weslcoll, Q. B. 187J, 23 L. C. J. 293; Loraiigcr vs. FiIktlr(wll,S. C. It>92, 2 Que. 35(;. Reijubiridj of. C-7. SigiKiiiirf of . 8-11. III. I'llOTII'^Nor.VlllES — I'OWKIl.S OK TO MAKK. See also Attaciimkxt, Cvpias, Insoi.vkxcv, Ui'i'osiTioN, and other particular titles. I. AFFIPAVrrs AS EVIDENCE. 1. Attidiivits to procure revendiciilion, capias or aitacbment are completely exliaiisted by iheiss'ieof the writ, and are of no value as proof in the case. (1) Ciclicii vs. Ildgvr/;/, C. C. 1877, ;i (}. L. n. 322. 2. An atlidavit of the death of a person out of Lower Cinuda, purporting to be sworn before a foreign notary, does not make pmof of its coiiteiil". Qiiiini vs. Diiiinis, ^l- li. 1.S74, 23 L. C. .1. 1-2. 3. An allidavit of a deceased person is not admitted as evidence tn a couteslation of account. (hignoH vs. I'n'uce, Supreme Ct. 18si2, 7 Can. S. C. R. ;?SG. I. 11. 1-3. AFFIDAVIT. AkI-IDAVITS as EVIDLXCE. JlllAT. Failure to notice Erasures, etc. daril. 1-2. Mast s/iow where Allidavit was sworn. 3-4. Must show before whom the Allidavit was sworn. 5. in Alii- 11. JURAT. 1. Failure to Notice Erasures in Affi- davit. — An aitidavit will not be declared in- valid by reason of tlie failure to mention in the jurat tbe erasure of certain immuteriiil words. Cili/ Hank vs. Huiit.r, Q. B. 1847, 2 R. de L. I7l'. 2. . — Nor will an affidavit be vitiated by the omission to approve a cer- tain number of words forming part of an atli- davit, provided that it be good without the words approved of. Launilre vs. Label, S. C. 1883, 9 Q. L. 1!. 337. 3. Must show where Affidavit was Sworn.— Jfoherlson v^^. Fontaine, .S. C. 1876, 20 L. C. J. 19,j. 4. .—Held, that the w;rds "at Quebec'' were a sullicient indication of the ])lace where the deponent had been sworn, and that the day of tbe montli and year being written in tignres was iullicient. Bern/ vs. Man, S- C. l8.-,9, 13 L. C. R. 1. 5. Must show before whom the Affi- davit was Sworn.— Thus "a-scrmemo dans la Cito de Montreal cedoiizi.-njejour .', "<78, signo Hubert, Honey k Geiid ron, ' is iii-ulK- (1) In this case the Court pointed out tliat Jknjefiii vs. I'n-millou. I'l'iMirtcd in siiiiie voliinie at p. 134, is wrongly reiirrseiitecl in the lieiul note, tlic iu.lgiiiUMt being bascit upon tlie writing sons -n intj i/rii.' uroilUKuii in tluit causi AFFRKIGHTMKNT. 61 ciciit. (1) Tale V8. Smith, 8. C. 187H, 12 K. L. 4:i>< ; Pobcrtson v.«. Altnil, C. Ct. 1H72, 7 1,. C.J. 48; Ilatgh vh. h'oas, Q. II. Ihtil.S I,. C.J. in;. fl. Regularity of.— WIuti- tlic oilici' of )ivollionuliiiv wan (ic'cii pied \>\ two pcrrtiiri^', Hiiil till' jural to nil afliiiiivit wa-* stati'il to liavo Ifcii taken " before ine "—llilil, ttiat llie writ woiiKi not be (|iiaHlie(l on tliat jiroiind. Ciiij Hank vs. Ilmitcr, Q. H.1847, 2 H. .le L. 171. 7. — ■ — III an adilavit for capias — IkU, tliat the words " malvelli oalli and saith" were a sullicient averment that the depuncnt liad been sworn, and llial it was coiiseciuently niiiiecep.sary tosay tliat lie lini been duly sworn. Ikrry vs. Maij, S. C. ]8,-)9, 1:5 L. C. II. 1. 8. Signature of.— The letters O. C. C. fol- iiiwin;; the sl;;iiiitiire of the clerk of the Court are a sutlieieiil indication of the quality of the (illioer sjgniii;; the jurat of the atlidavit which jirecedes the institution of the action. Para- (tis vs. Poiner, C. R. 188,5, 11 Q. L. R. 8'.'. 9. .— The initials " C . C. .S.," nppfuded to the si^^nature of an olliccr receiving an iilliilavit to be used in a ilistrict other than thi'.l in which it is swoni, are iii'^ulFi"ienl. L'-clcrc vs. niaiicJiiird, C. C. 18(18, 12 L. C. J. 2-M). 10. •— Contra. The words " Coniniis>ioner S, C." are a snHu'.ient indica- tion of the quality of the conunissioner. It i-: iidl necessary to add thereto the name of the di-trict where such commissioner exercises his calling'. JIV""/ vs. SI,'. Marie, C. Ct. li^"7, 21 L. C.J. 'Mii; Vcziiiav^. Gihcaii: C. Ct. 18S4, 8 L. N. 2 ; Lminicrc vs. Lehcl, S. C. 188:!, i) Q. L. R. ;i;!T. 11. . — III the jurat ofaii allidavil the cinalily of the persuii receiving it is siilli- cicntly indicated by terms which eimhle the court to recognize its oilicers. Montgomenj vs. Lystcr, C.R, 1882, 8 t^. L. R. :i7r,. III. rROTIlONUTAKIK.S— POWERS OF, TO MAKi:. The joint prothonotarios have a right to receive an atlidavit to make proof in another district, in the same way that a judge of the S. C. might receive such atlidavit. Traham vs. Gagnon, C. R. 187:^, 17 L. C. J. XVi. (1) Ifi Id— To same effect in Supreme Ct. in a case lom Nova Scotia. Archibald VB. Jlubtey, 18 Can. S. lie. AFFREIGHTMENT. I. liii.i.s OK Lauiko (see also Fbkkmit, /ii- fhl 2\0.I\'.) A.1 P.rithure. 1. how goririiinij. 2. NeiinliiiliHihi. :!. lliilht to. 4. Second Carrier, o. Transfer. 0. II. ClIARTKIl PaIITY. Dead Freiijlit. I. Dead Freii/lit or Dcniurrai/e. 2. Deriiiliun — Kxlra In.iurance. :!. Liitliility of Master of Vensel, 4. Liahilili/ under. C>. Ji'ejeclion of Contrart. (i 10. Jiii/lils ij C/iarlerer again.it awdlier Vessel doing Damage. 11. Sub-Lessor— Jjiahilily of. 12. III. Di:mi'riia(;k. liij whom Pai/ahle. 1-2. (See also title " AoKXi'v," Liability of Agent. Dehiij caused lij Diaense among Ilorse.i, :i. Dehtij caused, hi/ Lark of Coal to Load — Taking turn 4 .'J. Di'lag cansnl In/ Loading " Bunker Coal." C. Delag caused bg Second Carrier. 7. Comjtnlafion of. 8. Liidiililg of Purchaser of Cargo. 9. Lien for. lit. Power of Master of Vessel to sue for in his own name. 11-12. (See Freight Charge-', infra Xo. V. — 2.) Pale of Discharge. V.i. When J>ue. 14. ' IV. Fiiiniiiir. Ciinlril/iilionfor General Average. I. Diimagc'i — Cattle — Delai/ in Sailing. 2. Damages — Cattle — Force Majeure. :5, Ditnuigcs — Conditions of Bill of Lad' ing. 4. Damages — Condition of Goods when Shipped. 5. Damagr.i — Delay — Customs, G. Damages — Delay in Transhipment. 7. Damages — Deriation from Voyage. 8. Deck Load. 9. Delivery. 1011. (See also Freight Charges, infra No. V. — 5-8.) Dispute as to Quantity Shipped. 12. Dispute as to Terms oj Bill of Lading —Refusal to Ddiver Bill of Lad- ing. 13. "• ? '1^ u V »;S«*>J*-;«.-»i -' ,i v ii; IS 5J ■'■■:,^3jX AFFRKIGHTMENT. Pi'nof of Condition of Goods wh'ii Shipped. 14. Riilht to h'fjnsf Freight cmnini/ uJomj- side loo tatc—L'xiii/e of Trade, i.'). Sloriii/e. 10, Fkk:i:iit CiiAiiiiKS. J'l, I'lin;/ nonperi'orwance oj Charter- I'orti/ in Aitiou for. 1. J'oii-n- >:f Ma.-ter of ]'(.--.sfI to sue for. \ soiiiible diligence as rojiards the cargo It pnr- jioris to repri'seiit, .S7. Lairrenec [ontreal, I and there delivered without the order of the 1 shippers and without the siirrenderor presont- ! ation of the bill of ladiii'.' The question was i whether the apjieliant;', the l-'orwarding Cum- \ panv, were held to the same obligations as if I tliev had been signers of the original bill of be exiilaiueil | lading, which the respondents contended liail vs. Stirlin'/, ! force and ellect until the cai'go reached its des- tination in Montreal, and whether the appel- t hints as forwarders were bound to have de- manded and secured the surrender of the original Irill of lading on delivery by them of the cargo to the consignees.— //t7(/, reversing the decision of the Superior Court ("> \j. S. (5 and 25 L. C. J. 824), that the bill of lading was fuUilled an I became etlele by the ilelivery of ihe wheal at Kingston, prior to tlie assign- ment of the bill of lading to the respondent?. .^7. hiirreni'i; it' Chicago Forwarding Co. vs_ .Vohon'.i Hank, 7 L. N. 'MM, and I M. 1.. H.," Q. B. 7.", 1SS4. 4 Dorion. Q. B. 10, 2S L. ••. J. 127. And the alleged usage of trade imposing the lie vi'Steil with.-ill siii'h riulHs lit iiiMii.n anil lie sul)icot ' ,,. . , " , , . , .,, ., , to all sucli lialiiliti.'sin ivs| t ot siirli gno.is as if ] obligations incurreil under the lirst bill ot lad- ' ''"''"t! I""' j iiig upon the carrier who accepts a cargo car- ried to an intennediate jiort, to forward to its final destination bv an additional transit so as r. BILLS OF LADING. (1) 1. As Evidence. —A bill of lading, a tween the jiarlies thereto, may by ))arolt tesiimoiiy. Foirler S. C. iH58, :', L. r. J. lOli, 7 H. J. U. Q. ;!70. 2. Law Governing.— A bill of lading made in England by the master of an English ship is a contract to be governed and deter- mined by I'higlish law. Moore vs. Uarns, P. (]. Is7r., 2 Q'. L. H. 117 = 3. Negotiability. — The negotiability of a bill of hiding cannot be put upor, precisely the same fooling as a bill of exchange. An ad vaiicer on a bill of lading should exercise rea- (l; By X \\'\, c. Sn, it i.s fiiactcil tliat : 1st. Every connipnV'C nf jr"'iils iiioiu'il in a liill nt' lading', ami I'vcry iiiilors.'i (if :\ hill of lailin;; to wliiini tlic |UM|»Tty in llic yiioils ilirrca iiif atiniii'il passr-; npini or In n-nson of siicti ('(iiisi;:iini.'iit (tr iiiilort^i'iiniit. >liaU liavt* ami the fom.-a,'l rontaiiied in tlir liill lieon mail.' witli liiiiis.-if. 'Jial. Nothing in I liis ai'l ooiitaiiicil sli.ill iivejiuiice or alVei't any lijilit of slo|iii:ipt' in tr'Oisilii, or any riirlit if ail unpaid viinlor i.^nler tlu' Civil I'oile of Lower i^...iia, or any rij:lit to i-laim fnMnlit ■■ipiiiist tlio ori^linal sliipiu'r or owiirr, oi- .any liatiility of tho r^>u- siynee or iiulorse.'. liy nasoii or in consoc|ui'iii'i' of liis hi'iiiu surli I'oiiy ^lUH' or inilorsi'i', or ot liis ri'i'ript of til. Ills liy rt-ason or In I'Onsi-quiMii'e of siiidi I'oii- gijjiiiMtn t or iiiilorsi_MiuMit. 3ril. l-lviry liili of lailiiiy in tie' liaiiils of acoiisiKiiic or iiiiloisri' for valuaMi' cousiileration, ri'prt'Si'HtiiiK gooiN to hivi- Ih'oii sliipp'-il on l.njinl a vi-s-id i.r train, sll.'lU I'l' oin-lllsi\i' tviili'ln'r of sUi'll slliiaili'lit as a;.'aiiist llu' iiiasior or otlicr prrsoii sijiniii^ the .-ame. notwitliiitamlin^ that .^le'h fruniisor soiiii' pan thi'Voof ni.ay not liavi! lieen so siiip|ii'il, unless sui-li holilrr of i t\f] llie'liill ol ladintT li.i< ai'tiial notii-i- of tin- tine- of to require such ultiiiiale carrier tO|)rocure the surrender of the original bill of lading, to free himself from responsibility, could not alter the ents establish' sioiiificance of the docmi] sed, or the lejal relatic if the parties ici;ording to the facts fif ihe case, or make lia- iiility depend upon obtaining surreinier of a lent afler it had e.\hausied its elliciency cia-iviiiB the same th;it llio yooilsliail not in lai't lu'ou and ceased to have any ojieratiou. lb. laden on hoard, or unit' such hill of lailieu has a Ktipul.ilioii to Ihci'ontr.-iry. Provided that the uiaster or other porson .so sinniiip may exouorale hiius.'lf in rosiH'Ot of such misruprcscntation, hy showiiiu that it WHS caused without any default oil lii« jiart, and wholly hy the fauU of the shipper, or of the iHilder, or ol some person under whom the holder claims. e. Transfer.— A bill of hiding may be transferred by delivery witliout endorsement. Fowler VB. Stirling, S. C. 1858, 3 L. C. J, 103, 7 R, J. 11. Q, .17(1. AFFREIGHTMENT. 63 11. CHARTER PARIV. | 1. Dead Freight.— Art. 2i:W O.C. The In'igliic'i' who dot's not loail tlie ve. CU., and will also be lialile I'ordiMiiajres, slioiild any oecnrin conse- rjiience. Lmiici- vs. Uox, S. C. 18Sl, 11 R. L. 2. Demurrage. — By charter party tlie appellants ujireeil to load the res])oiuleiil's ship at .Montreal with a car;xoot' wheat, maize, peas or rye, " as I'asi as can he received in line weatlier,'" ami ten days' denniiraj.'e were njrreed on over and ahove lyini: days, at Jt.'40 per (lav . Penally for non-perforinance of the agreement was estimated on amount of freight, Should ice set in diiritii: loading, so as to en- danger the ship, master to he at liberty to sail with part cargo, and tu have leave to till up nt any open port on the way homeward for ship's liFiietit. The sliip was re.ady to receive cartro on the lolh of November, 18s0, at 11 a.m., and the iippellants began hiading at 2 )i.in. on the llitn November. Al'ler loaiiing a certain (Hiaiilily olrye in the forward hold, as it would not be safe to load the ship ddwn by the he.id any Inrther, the captain refused to take any more in the torward hold. No olhercargii was ready, as the respondent uuuld not pul the rye anywhere e.Ncejit in the torward liolil, and ihey stopped li>ading. At 8 a.m. on the I'.tth tiie hiading recommenced, ai'd contiuned nighl and day until (1 a.m. on Sun- day, the 21st, at which time the vessel sailed, in conscfpience of ice beginning to .-(I in. When she sailed, she was 214.' tons .-hort of a full cargo. The respondent siu'd appellants because the ship had not receiveil a full cargn. and claimed 2.1 days (l')tli. Kith and ITih November), and freijihl on 214^. tons of cargo not shippeil. 'The appellants conlended that the delay was not due to them, but \v the ship in not su])plying baggers and sewers lo bag tiie grain ; that the time lost on the liist week was made up by iiigiit work, and that mere delay in Iciading cnidd not sustain claim tor dead fi'eighl. The Superior Court, Montreal, gave judgment Inr the respondent for the dead freight, but refuseil lo allow demuniig(>. Thi.s judgnv lit was aOirmed by the Court ot'Queen's Bench (J7./e M, L. R., 1 Q. li. 445;.— Held, atliriiiing the judgment of ihe Court be- low, that as there w.is evidence that the vessel could have been loaded with a full and com- plete cargo without uiglitwork before »he left, had the freighters supplied the cargo as agreed by llie charter portv, the appellant.* \Terc lia- ble for damages. Lnnl \f>. l). Mojlntt. S. C. 1^81, 11 R. L. 41. 5. Liability under Charter Party.— In a charier party lis (tcan'cs dc In mcr it -Ic la .s'liisnu were excejjted from a general covenant of responsibility for the chartered vessel, and the charterer was held not to lie answe;able for her loss by ice. Fougf-re v.s. Jlvuc/icr, K. B. l821,2Rev. deLcg. 78. w^ 64 AFFKFJGHTMENT. -ICi 6. Rejection of Contract— A nbarter jiarly provi.lcd tlmt the vessel was to receive cavj;'o at Quebec "on or before tlie lOlli Aii^MisI next, or this charter is caneelieil." The vessel arrived in jiort, in balla-t, only on the morning of the lUtb, ami no ballast was discliargcd on that day. On the same after- noon tlic ship's ajrent notified tlie charterer, by protest, that tlie ship was ready for loading, and demanded a cargo, which the latter re- fused to give, alleging that the said ship was not ready to receive cargo according to agreement— Jhl'il, that tlie charter jiarly had become cancelled according to its terms, the ship not being really to receive cargo or fnllil its obliga- tions either literally, .-iibstantially or accord- ing to the usage of trade at Quebec. J'tillcrfott vs" KnIgJil, S. C. b^T.S I Q. J.. H. 187. 7. .—The appellant, in .lannary, ^frS}un>c vs. JJaU, 1885, M. L. R.,2 Q. B. 42, reversing S. C, 27 J;. C. J. 187, G L. N. 195. 0. — . Wlicre a cliaitcr-party provided that a steamer fhould arrive in the Port of Montreal " bein-ecn the o|iening of navigation of 1S79," arrival on tlie I8tli of Mav was not a substantial compliance with llie stipulation, it being proved that navigation opened about the 1st of May ; 2. That rcs])onilents, liaving failed substan- tially to iierforiii their obligation under the charter-party, as aforesaid, appellant was at libert v to rejiudiate the contract. McShuiie vs. Milhurn, Q. Ji. 1885, 2'J L. C. J. 27J. 10. .—A cattle shipper on the •20ili A)iril engaged the cattle sjiace of a steamship then on her way out from Great liritain to Montreal, lor the transportation of cattle from Montreal to England, one of the 1879, agreed to charter a steamship for the ! stipulations of the contract being, "vessel to carriage of live cattle to England, and the j ^r^\\ nbnut I'ltli of May ne.xt." The ship conditions of the cliarter-jiarty were that the arrived at Montreal on the lOtli May, and on steamship should jiroceeil to Montreal with all dip icdj the shiji's agent formally notitied the convenient speed, loarrive there "lietwcen" ihe cattle shipjier that the vessel wonhl be ready opening of navigation in 1.^79, and therealter j to load the cattle on the 21st May. to run regularly between Montreal and London, 1 A contract between the same parties in the anil to be dispalclied from Montreal in regular i previousyear contained tlieseclauses : "Ship- I |icr guarantees to deliver animals without j delay any time after six days" notici', jirovided vessel is ready for them, or jiay for detention of I steamer. Steamer guarantees to jiay expense.s anil cost of keep of animals, not exceeding X40 rotation with other steamers to be charlerei up to l>t October, 1879. Navigation opened at Montreal about 1st May, but the steamship did not arrive there iiniil 5th June, when the apiiellanl refused to load.— //cW, that there was not a substantial compliance with the con tract on the jiait ol tiie ship, and that the a|ipellant was entitled to throw up the charter- l)arty. MrS/iaiir vs. IJciidcrsdii, 1884, M. L. R., 1 Q. 1!. 2iM, reversing S. C, 5 L. N. HID. 8. . — The appellant, in .January. 1879, agreed to charier a steamship, foi' the carriage of live cattle to England, and tliecun- ditions of the charter-paitv were that the ship should proceed to Montreal with all roiive- niciit speed, to arrive there "belween'" the opening of navigation of 1>"9, and thereafter to run regularly between Jbrnlreal and London, and to be dispatched Irom .Montreal in regular rotation with other stiamers under charter ol the same charterer, to be ehallered U|i to 1st sterling per day, in case of delay beytnid six j days" notice of readiness to nci'ive."' The j terms of the previous year's contract, witii 1 certain exceptions, were made part of the con- , tract now in questioi. ; i/t'/i/ (reversing the jiidgmenl of Davidson J., ' 1 Que. S.C. 5li5), thai to entitle a ch.'irierer to ))Ut an end to the contract, ilie delay of the shipowner must be such as would frustrate the object of the voyage. In the )nesent case time was of the essence of the conlracl only I alter the ixpiry <:( the notice when the : ship Would be leady to rii'i'ive calll'. The arrival of the ship on the lOlh .May, and the ' notilicalioii on the Itith .May of realiness to load ilie cattle on the 21st May, was iv sulli- cienl conipliance with the contract on the))iU't October, 1879. Navigation opened at Moni real [ of the steamship owners tooxclude theshipper about 1st May, hut the steamship did not ; from the right iif terminating it, the tlelay not arrive there until 18th .May, wlien the appel- lant refused to load.— y/c/(/((ollowing McS/iaiie d- Henderson, M. L. H., 1 Q. J5. 2(i4), that there was not a substantial compliance with the con- tract on the part of the ship, and the appellant was entitled to throw up the cliarter-party. being such as to frustrate the object of the voyage, and the redress of the siiipper (if any) for such delay being in the form ol damages. Mdckill vs. Morrjuu, Q. B. 1894, li v,>ue. 305. 11. Rights of Chai'terer against an- other Vessel doing Damage.- Where a ves- AFFREIGHTMENT. G5 sel under charter was injured by collision caused by another vessel, the charter-party providing that in cai-e of damage the hiring sliould cease until she could Le repaired, — Held, that an action liy the charterers against the offending ship for the ddention would lie. The Netllesworth, C V. A. 188:^ !) Q. L. it. ,S59. 12. Sub-Lessor— Liability Of.— By 2408 C. C, the sub-lessor of a ship is liable as if he were owner. Stnildard vs. Gossct, Q. 13. 19 March, 1877. The appellants chartered the steamer " Livorno " IVoni the Italian Lloyds Naviga tioii Coinpiiny for the voyage from Liverirool, where she was lying, to .Moiitreal, and back to some port in the United Kingdom, or on the continent between Havre and Hamburg. The ship was consigned to S., appellants' agent ill Montreal. S. rechartereil the steamer ■•. Montreal to K., G. & Co., at an advance of threepence sterling per quarter. R., G. & Co., for the consideration of §550.87 paid down, transferred by indorsement their riglits in said charter parly to respondent, and he was ac- cepted by appellants in place of li., G. »t Co., anil respondent promised to pay appellants the freight at the rate of 9s. ;M. sterling per quar- ter to S. on the arrival of tlie shi|' at her port of destination. On certain misrepresentations of the oiiptaiii, who was in char e of the vessel when first chartered to appellants, and owing to .soini' wrong-doing on his part, respomtenl sutiered considerable diiin i:;e. Respondent, it seems, paid the owners the original iVeight — that is, ;{d. less than R., G. A: 'o. promised to pay appellants, but he refused pay the other ;-!d., saving that it was comperj teii by these i damages. Appellants sued for le e.xtra 3d. per quarter, and respondent set up ;,is damages in ciiinpensiition. The liamages were proved to tiiive been sultcreii, but it was contended ■. that .ippeilaiils were not lial)le, but the owners WHO placed the captain on board and who hail i control of the ship, and that the res]ioiident kiii'w that appellants were charterers luid not ! owni'r-i. Question whetlier the charterers were owners ot'tlie ship;>ro leiiipcn-. Hy the Court : . " 1 (;;innot see tliai there is the variance in the | juri-prudence wliich Abbott insists on. It ' n]ip"ar- to me imhi Sergeant Slice's note to the Stii ■ il on 111' Ali'"ill, p. )."), clears up IhiB siippo-cd iiircri -i-iiMi.'v. HiK It is UN iieitessary bei , 1 I'lili'V ii.io iiie iiilnr.ii'ii- nf ibi'-e ra-fs, further than to ol>-( r\r Hint if tin r." js aiiv p;ir- ticiilur ililliciilty, lln' deci-inn must lurii on thr iniiM-preliition ol lli' cliiirtir piirtv. Tin- ruli' is precisely what Pothier has laid down (Cli. Partie, Part 1, Sect. 5, No. 10.3). It is the lease of the ship or it is the lease of work— the obligation to carry goods ; but Pothier savw that this distinction is of no coasequence iii French practice as regards the master or tlie merchant, and he does not attempt to establish that this distinction has any practical elfect as regards other pirties. We need not therefore consider this distinction. Rut the , 2'J L. C, J. 154. 3. Delay caused by Disease among Horses.— (-457 d setj. C. C.) The prevalence of a disease among liorses, sucii as that of October, 1872, which rendered a large number foratime unserviceable, is nodet'ence to a claim liya vessel against llie consignee fir demurriigc . Ldcroix vs. Jaclisoii, S. (J. 1873, 17 I.. V. .1. :!2'.t 4. Lack of Coal to load- Taking turn.— .V cliuner-purty wa- entered inlii. liv whh:h 11 sttMiiier wis to tnki' on board aciug'/ of i'o:il ai till' p iri of Svdnev, Cape liretiin. In [\v charier-pariy u i- liiis stipiiln- tioii ; '■ r;ikiiiu her turn with other ste.iiaers, iiiid t:ik ill.' preredeiK!!' nf sailiny; vnssel-. and vt ^fTirfi L:Mi^'sr:<^i 'Ml- ':! 66 AFFREIGHTMENT. i: i i receiving prompt dcspatcli in loading and un loading."' Sydney U a coaling port, and the coal is bi jiigiit ftruiglil from ilic pit to the vpsnels loading. There were iinnnilier of vessels wait- ing to load, and the steiiirier did not get her cargo until seventeen days after the ca[)tain protested the Ireighters— /7cA/, reversing the judgment of the -hall have pre- cedence to take " bunker coal,"' — that is, coal for their own use in navigating, — any loss of [ time in giving such iirecedeiice will not give rise to demurrage. .\Uan\f. Carhray, Q. 15., 14th June, 1879. '', 7. Second Carrier.— Action | was brought by the owners of a vessel against the owners and consignees of aipiantity of gram, for damage occasioned by delay in receiving the cargo. The grain was brought by the jilainlirts' vessel from (,'hicago to Kingston, where the defendants employed a furwardin" house to receive it and carry it to Jlontreai. Defendants' pretension was that these secjnd ■wrierM were ready to receive it, and that the delay was occasioned by the captain of the plaintirt's" vessel, which was not proved— .fft7 as (or freight. .Va>r„i/ vs. G. T. I!'i. Co., (.". Ct. 1874, 5 K. L. 7 111. 11. Power of Master of Vessel to sue for, in his own name.— The master of a vessel has no ri:.'hl as master to sue for (ieniiir- ra^e, unless there be an e.xpress or implied contract to pay him the same. Cliandler vs. The. Si/diici/ ct' Louiiibc/iiri/ Con/, cf' lii/. Co.' S. C. 188G,'.M. L. I!.,2,S. 6. :)II». 12. The master of a vfsscd has no right to sue on a contract, of affreiilhtment unless it is inade in his name; but he ha- a riv;lit to sue for all matters arising outoi the bill oflaling-'igned by him. Kaudson vs. Lujhthound, S, C. 188,-|, II Q. L. K. at p. 89. 13. Rateof Discharge.— .Vccording to the provisions ofC. S. L C. cafi. ItiO, the con- signee is not bound to discharge the cargo ofa sailJni; v(-;sel, if -iich cargo consists (.f grain, at a greater rate than two tliou-and minots per diem. (1) Mnrrlinnd \-<. lieimud, S. C. isi;2, <; L. c. J. ir.>. 14. When duc.-(.\it< 2I.J7 and 2IG0 C C.) Demurrage is due without astipulation to tliat ellect wlieii actual damage is proved to have been suH'erod iiy the owners of the vessel in con-Kpiencc ol theilelay Sei/iiioitr vs. Sin- amnes, Q. I). IS .0, 1 K. L.'ur, i, Mardiand v,s. lif:iioHd,^.Q. 1802,1; L C. J. 111). (I) liy luni'ndment to the Civil Codii (Arl. 24:;7), by Art.,-|7liS It. S. y. ' A caiud (if 11 vessel ('oii»is(iripr<.f r>nal sliiill be dis- oharmMl ill the into of forty c'lmlilrons /). c iliim ; A fiiijio of mctiil the frciHlitoi whi.h isestimatcd hy the ton, iit the rate of nt Iimis' slxtv loiisiliii y ; A earnoof salt or grain, at the rate of ten thou.saud minots daily ; .\ cartio of salt in sacks, at the rate of at lenst one thousand sacks daily ; A I'lirco of sawed lumber, at the riito of at least llily tliousaiiil f. ol (hiily ; And « cargo of hrloks, nt the rat.' of at least twenty thousand daily. AFFREIGHTMENT. 67 IV. FREIGHT. 1. Contribution for General Aver- age. — It is for tlie master at liis diligence to e.-tiiblisli the contribution for a general aver- iii»e ; and where he has not done so, he cannot demaiiii the (deposit of a snni of money arbi- trarily lixcd by liini as the probable amount of the contribution before deli verin;; thegouds. but must be satislied with fi -ullicieMi security bond. ]'(:m-son vs. Wintclc, uih .Tune, 187G, (J. B. 2. Damage to Cattle— Delay in Sail- ing. — (Art. '242G C. C.) T. and others were cattle exporter-, who shipped U)0 head of cattle on board a steamer belon;;ii);; to A. and others, thedfft'niliiMts. to be conveyed from Montreal to Glasgow in Scutliind. The cattle were ordered on boaril by the vessel's authorities about day- break on the I'lh July, 188.'), it being under- stooil that the vessel should sail before eijrlit o'clock in the inorninj;. Owing to the liiding of the vessel mil, having been completed, she did not sail until the afternoon of the said Uth July, and on account of the intense heat 21 hend of the cattle died, and the remainder were deteriorated in ipialiiy, and sold at a lower price than they would otherwise have brought. T. brought an action against A. In recover the price (jf the cattle which had dieil and the amount of loss >ustained through the deterioration o( tlje others. — Hcli!, that A., cf III. were responsible for the acts of the iiuister and other authorities of llie vessel, in ordering the said cattle on boarij as they did, before the vessel was ready to sail, and that the said mas- ter and other authorities of the vessel were guilty of gross negligence, which caused the death of the cattle whieli were sutlocaled. Thompson vs. Allan, :!2 L. U. J. C,\} ; S. C. 1887. The defendants were liable for the price of the cattle whicli were sullbcated, but the loss from the (ieterioration ol'tlie remainder of saiil cattle had not been jiroved to liave been caused by the delay of said vessel in sailing. (III.) 3. Cattle — Force Majeure. —(2427 C. (.:.-) The plaintilf shipped cat- tle on a steamship of defendants, the latter agreeing to supply them with water. On the 'Jth day of the voyage from Portland to Liverpool, the ship's rudder broke, and the vpssi'i only reached Ijiverpool after 4',) days' \oyage. The captain, to economize coal, stop- ped condensing water for use of cattle, and a large part of plaintill's cattle died in con- sefjueiice, the remainder being also rendered of little va]\ie.— Held, that the accident to the rudder was caused by perils of the seas, and under the circumstances, the stopping of water and plaintifi's consequent loss were the result of inevitable accident, /brce majeure, a.m\ that defendants were not liable therefor. Kelh/ vs. The .Vl.'i.iis.iippl & Dominion Steamship Co., S.C. 1881), 81 L. C.J. 42. 4. Conditions of Bill of Lading. — Wliere, under a bill of ladiuL', g'^iods were " to be delivered from the ship's deck where tiie sliip's responsibility shall cense, at Montreal, unto the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and by them to beforA'anlei thence by railway to Toronto, and there delivered '' to plaintitf; the provision " no damage that can be insured against will be paid for, unr will any claim whatever be admitted, unless made before the goods are removed," — Held, to apply to the removal from the ship at Montreal, and to be strictly binding on the consignees, and such a condition is not an unreasonable one, and covers all damage latent as well as a;. parent. And if any limitation ol'tlie condi- tion could be implied, it could not reas.innbly go further than to e.Nclude such damiig-^ only as could not have been discovered on an e.vaminatioii of the goods, conducted with pro- per care and skill, at the place of removal. But a delay of several weeks in making a claim for damage done to goods on the ship would not of itself (and apart from the aliove stated condition) be a sufficient an-wer to the action. Jfoare v.-. Ilarri-f, P. C. 1876. 2 Q L. R. 147. 5. Condition of Goods when shipped.— In an action of damages done to a cargo of tea in the voyage from Lon- don to Montreal — Held, that as to proof of the condition of the goods when shipped there was no general rule of law or evidence, and it must dejiend on the circumstances of each case how far such proof is necessary, and when the case is to be regarded as ipsiitlicienlly [iroved without it. Moove vs. Harris, P , C. 187G, 2 Q. L. R. 147. 6. Damage to — Delay — Customs. — The respondent, as master of a vessel, had brought from Liverpool a qiiantitv of galvan- ized metal, to be ilelivered at the poit of Quebec " to order or assignees," aini iio as- signee being found, the rcspondeni sent> among others, to the appellant to ascertain if he were the importer. Tlie latter ansivered that h' expected a (pi;intity of metal, but not having: received any advice of its arrival he would not take it. The statute ; .'gulaiing the 68 AFFREIGHTMENT. ' v: onutoniH rpqiiires that importers slmll, with- in five (lays afler the arrival of tlie vessel, laml tiie goods, and pay the diitieH thereon, and (hat, in deraull tliereof, it shall he lawful fur the officer of cnntoi.iH to convey such goods to the cuptoins warehoui-e. The metal was kept on board for twelve days after arrival, and was then landed hy authorily of the collector of customs, conveyed in an order to the uHicer of that department on boanl, instructing him to lancl the metal and convey it to the customs warehouse. The metal was landed on ihe wharf, where ii lay for some days e.xposed to the rain and weather, by the action of which it wasdamaj^ed. On action by the appellant I'or the value ol'such damage, — lli/il, conhrniing judgment of court lielow, that the respondent had fully complied with the terms of the bill of lading, and that there was no neglect or carelessness on his part, anil that he was not responsible for tlie damasres. Scott vs. Hexcroff, 2 1.. C. K. 477, S. C, and 5 h. C. R. 274, Q. B. 18f)'i, 4 K. J. U. Q. 350, 3 R. J. R. Q. 32(i. 7. Delay in Transhipment.— Wliercabill of lading for goods placeilon board a lighter in Montreal for transhipment at Quebec, on board the ocean steamer there, con- tains a clause, that if from any cause thegouds shall not go forward on the ship the same shall be forwardeii by the next steamer of the same line, the carrier is not liable for loss aris. ing from a delay in transhipment, owing to tiie >teiimer being already full. Torrance vs. Allan, Q. B. 1863, 8 L. C. -J. 57, S. C, 6 L. C. J. IDd. 8 Deviation from Voyage.— (.Art, 24'2i; C. C.) The law im|)lies a duty on the owner ul'a vessel, which carries freight, to )jro- cecd uilliDul unnecessary deviation in the usual coiirsi'. It IS the iluly of ship-masters to aid andas.-ist ships ill distress ai sea, and, for that purpose, a vessel in.iy go out of her regular ejiu'se, and it is nut cim-^idered a devialic;, ; but having succored ihuse on board, the ship-master lias no right III risk lii< uwn freight to render sal- vage SI r\ ices. No V roiig-doer can be allowed ti, apportion or i|iia'.tv \\\< invii wrong, and wlieii less has happee '\ ilncli is attrilmtulile to his uioiigfiii act of di'i .Unrii, liie ^llip•lllaster cannot set up as ail ,iii.-\ver to tlie aelion the po.ssiliijiiv of a loss, il :,,, uiMiigfMl act had nnei- l,eei, done. T'lrr y~. /'r.v/V(, •,//,(,,■, s. (' HO;; Til C. H. 3114. ! 9. Deck Load8.-( Art. 2425 C. C.-36 V., c. 5G.) Where the defendant in an action for a I balance of freight, set up, by way of incidental < ilemand, a claim for loss on the merchnndisc conveyed, which had occurred during the voy- age by reason of the plaintiff carrying a por- ' tion of the cargo on deck, and the plaintiff pleaded a custom to that etfiect — Held, con- ' firming decision of the court below, that there , was no custom of trade jus ifying the pUintift j in carrying a p«rt of the cargo on the deck of 1 the ve.ssel, and exempting him from loss aris- i Ing thereby. Gahertij vs. Tnrranrc, 4 L. C. J. 371, S. C.and (i L. ('. J. 313, and 13 L. C. R- 401, Q.B. 1SG2. 10. Delivery. — (Art, 2430.) (See also Freight (Jharges — Payment.) If goods are put on shore by the master of a ship, and are lost, he is not answerable for their loss or damage, unless it appears that the loss was occasioned by some neglect on his part of the regular and common duties of ship- master. Jiirem vs. Duncan, 2 R. de L. 75 ; JusoH vs. Atilwunl, Q B. 1862, 14 L. C. R. 164 ; Scott vs. Ilcscrof, S. C 1852, 2 L. C. R. 477. 11. The sliip owner is bound to deliver the whole cargo received, unless it has diniinished froin causes for which h" is not liable, such as the shrinkage of oats from heating, to the e.Ktent of three per cent. Sei/moiir vs. Sincnmes, Q. B. ISO!), I R. L. 710. 12. Dispute as to Quantity shipped— Bill of Lading.— (Art. 2124 C. C.) An af- freighter cannot proceed by way of revendica tion, as in the case of an unlawful detainer, against the master of a ship, wlien such af- reighter and master cannot agree as to tliL' ijuantity of the goods shipped, and as to the bill of hiding to be signed. Gordon vs. Polloik, y. B. 181U, 1 L. C. R. :\VA-\\ R. .1. R. Q 17. 1,3. Terms of Bill of Lading- Refusal to deliver Bill of Lading — (Art. 2424 C. C.) Where i)laintitts shipped a iinantily of Hour on board a vessel of which defendant was master, and Ihe defendant refus- ed to sign or deliver bills of lading therefor— Held, that, according to the usage of trade, iv shipper was entitled to bills of lading of tiie goods shipped, an I an attachment ill revendica- lion in tlii- ca-^e would lie. McCnllock clnl. vs. Hatfidd. Q. B. ISO:!, 7 L. C. J. 221). 14. Proof of Condition of Goods when shipped.— iliere il no general rule of law or evuleiice on the siibj 'Cl ; It mii>t depend on the ciicuiiiiiaiiee- of each case limv far snub proof AFFREIGHTMENT. 69 is necessary, and the case is to Le regarded .'\e inautficiently proved without it. Moort vs. Harris, P. C. 1876, 2 Q. L. R. 147. 16. Right to refuse Freight coining alongside too late— Usage of Trade.— Where no lime is fixed for the briiijzing of freiglit alongsiiie the sliip, the carrier, accord- ing to the usage of trade in tiie jwrt of Mon- treal, hart a riglit to call for the freight when he needw it, in order to complete loading of cargo in time for the reisuhir sailing of the ship. So, where a steamsliip was to take a barge load of deals, and fair warning was given that 7 a.m., on a day named, wuuld be the latest time per- mitted for tli« barge to come alongside, and the barge did not come alongside till half past one in the afternoon, at which time the ship was preparing lo take cattle on board to com- plete her cargo preparatory to sailnig, it was held that the carrier was justified in refusing to take the deals. Taylor vs. Can, tihipping Co., 18S8, M. L. R., 4S. C. 371. 16. Storag^e. — A shipmaster is only bound as to sto.age, to follow the rules and cut-torn of the port where he takes liis'cargo, unless there be an arrangement to the contrary. Winn vs. Pelinsier, S. C. 1871, 1 K. C. 246. V. FREIGHT CHARGES. 1. Pleading non-performance of Char- ter-Party in Action for.— The non-per- formance of a. stipulation contained in a charter- party, whicli does not amount to a condition precedent, cannot be pleaded as an answer or bar to an action of indc.bit itii^ . Brewster vs. Hooker,^. C. 18r,7, 1 L. C. J. 90. 7. Goods or freight when landed on a wharf are delivered, but they cannot be removed without the master's con- sent, until the freight be paid, up to which time be has a lien for such freight upon the whole of the cargo. Patterson vs. Davidson, 1 K. B. 1810,2 Rev. deL(''g. 77. 8. Where the plaitititls claimed for damages .suffered by goods which bad been delivered on the wharf at Quebec, after they had notified the defendants that ibey wished to have them delivered into a lighter provided by themselves, but which the defendants refused to do before payment of the freight — Held, reversing judgment of court below, thill the master or owner of a vessel could not be compelled to deliver goods into a ligliter before payment of freight, and that the delivery on the wharf was a good delivery. Jnson vs. Aijlward, Q. B. 1862, 14 L. C. R. 164. 9. Where part Cargo delivered, dam- aged or lost. — If a part of a cargo have been delivered and accepted, an action for freight;»'o tanto will lie. Uldjield vs. Hutton, K. B. 1812, 3 Rev. de Leg. 200. iwr ■f .8 I 't 4 .■«*M-4^'v tw I mm m^^^ ffW 70 AtlENCV. 10. — ^ If under a charter piirly, in which a gross sum iis stipu- lated for the frcicfjit, part of the car!;o is delivered and acccpteiJ, an action will lie jiro tanto for the freight; and dauiafjes (or the non- delivery.of the residue of tiie cargo cannot lie set up against such action : tlie.v must he claimed hv an incidental cro-^s demand or a new ami distinct action. Guaij vs. Hunter, K. B. 1810, 2 Kev. de Leg. 77. 1]. The alian- donment hy the shipper to the insurei>, of a cargo in greater part damaged, mi coiiscinciK'e of the vest^c-l sinliing in .^lialluu water, liy reason of an accident, and the acceptance nl' such aliandonnu'iit by the insurers, will nut | entitle the shipper to recover hack freight i iulvanced liy him to tlie ma-ter. Ufiiler the circumstances al)o\e related, the ( shipper iiiiist )iuy freight on the damaged jior- ; tion (if the cargo y//'o ;•((/'( ilim ii.< pcjdcli.nuil i full freight on the nndainaged portion, if the i master offers to carry it to the end of the voyage, alter raising his vessel, Toiirrlllc vs. Jitic/ilc, C. R, 1870, 1.') L. C. .r. 20. 12. The freight for cattle is payable, even where they are all lost (without the fault of the carrier), when ' the contract specifies that the freight shall be ; paid in such a case. /SickcrdlLr vs. Murrny, Q. B. 1882, 27 L. C J. ;i20, 5 L. N. M!t. 13. — —The captain of a vessel has the right to recover freight on '■ a cargo delivered, although such cargo be par- tially damaged. Ilidrruw vs. Leiiiesiirier, Q. B. 1884, lOQ. I.. R.2.'il). : 14. Who liable for.— (Art. 24,".4 C. C.) • A consignee who has received goods shipped to be delivereii on payment of freight may be sued for the amount of such freight, andean support an incidental cross demand for ' damages occasioned to siieh goods bvthe mas- ter's neglect. Ohlfchl vs. Hutloii, K. B. ; 1812, (1) 2 Kev. de Ug. 77 ; Giuty vs. Ihniter, ' 2 Rev.de Leg. 77, i of a duplicate bill of ladinf; winch had not l^en endorsed to him. (.'!) Fowler vs. Meikleham, Q. B. 1857, 7 L. C. R. ,SG7, 5 R. J. R. Q. 303. 17. The vendor of merchan- dise who is named the consignor in the bill of lading is nevertheless not liable for the freiglit of such merchandise which he had delivered to vendee's agent before shipnicnf, according to contract and to the knowledge of the ship's agent. Fou-hr vs, SlirUiKj, S. C. 18")8, 3 L. C.J, lO:!; 7 K, ,T. R. (l ;!7ti. 18. — - The consignee of goods under a bill of lailing declaring the freight payalile by the consignee cannot, j^lter receipt of the goods, refuse t(j pay the freight thereon under the |)retciice that the consignor was his debtor and should pay the freight, (1) Giisxclin vs. I'rrfanidine, S. (j. 1«'J2, 2 Que. ;!0S. 15. The party wlio receives the goods from a ship under a bill of lading becomes the party to ilsstipiilationsrespecting freight, and the ship must look to him, and not to the original consignee who hnf assigned the original bill of hiding to him. (2) liirkfhrd vs. Kerr, Q. B. 1873, 18 L. C, .1. 109 ; Fklrhcr vs. Rickford, Q, B, 187,"), Ram. Dig, ;!08, ^^- And so held where the party receiving the freight was in possession I: AGENCY. I. Aoi;.\cv, WHAT roNsriTi'TKs. See— AotlNT— WHO AKE AoKXTS. IF. Al^EXT. Eridciire ii/, uj/ci- Tenniiuiiion of Mdiidiife. ] . Lien of. 2-5. CSee also under title " Prlrilencr ) Liahi/ili/ mid I)i(l/. Hir/lil III' .\i/i'iit tt> Inddiinili/- 71. 'J'o accept Hills and Xfitps. — (See tille" i^ills and Xolcs " ) To accept Pavnieiit. 7."i 71). 'J'o advert is( — Ins. Ai;int. 80. To alter Contract. 81 S2. ']'u (iele;:aie his Power?'. SUHI. Tojjive lleceipt and Discharge- To Pledge. .S7-8'i. To.sellR-al Ksiute. SO. I'roiiii.sr. to. 00. lleiinuicralioii nj . 01-lOlt. Del credere ('ornniission. 110 112. Mho are Aiienta and wliat constHnte.i Aycncy. 11;!-122. Bruker.s.' 12;M2;-p. Factnr.s. r2i;-127. Holding out as Assents. 129-180. Brokers, Commission Merchants (See Agents). III. PlUNCIl'AI,. Action by nndiscloitcd Principal in his own Name. 1-2. Action by nndi.sclosed Principal in Name of Anient. 8. Action by Principal tvhere he con- tracted apparently as Aijent. 4. Action by Principal ayainst Agent. 5-(;. Knowledge of .lets of Agent, iia. Liability of (See al.so Agent — icho are Agents, etc ) For .Vets of Agent. Acting in his own Name. 7. Acting within scope of his apparent Authority, 8. Cashier of Banli. 9. Corporation. 1011. Effecting Insurance, 12. Fraud, "lit- 1 4. Li another I'rovince. U). Notary, 1(M7. Receipt f/icen in Agent's Name. IS. Signing Deed of Oumposition, 18o. Sub-agent. 19. (-See supra, Nos. 83. 84.) Sub-agent— Default of. 20. For acts of Party not lionCi fide Agent. 21. For Money paid to Agent by Mistake.' 22. Ratification of Acts of Agent. 23-28. Rights ef— Consignor— Profits of Consignee. 29. IV. TniRi) I'AiniKs. (See also supra " Agent," etc., — " Principal," etc.) Liidjility of — to rrlncijidl. 1. Rights of : Action against Agent — Title to Pro[)erty. 2. Contracting with Agent person- ally. 3. Fraudulent .Sale by Asient. 4. (loods ordered in Name of Agent. '). Transferee ofSh:ires '• In trust." (1. LJndiscloscl Principal. 7, See also ; .\cconnt, Accounting. Actions — Interest in. Aiimissions. Advocate and Attorney. Allreightment. liank.s. Hills and Nt)tes. Carriers. Company and Corpjiation Law, Elections. Evidence. Gambling Transactiuns. Insolvency. Insurance. Married Women. Negligence. Sale. WarL'hoiise Receipt. I. AGEXCY. What Constitutas.— See irn'ra Nos. 113- 130. II. AGENT. 1. Evidenco of, after Termination of Mandate. — The evidence of an agent after Ills mandate ia at an end will not be considered as an adtnission by the defendant, and ho where I limitation was pleaded, and the plaintiff pre- ■* yl j-iU WITT 72 AGENCY. m^i w I i tended that there was a recognition of the debt uiid a promise to pay it, tlu- evidciice of the aneiit of the formiT dtfeiKlmil will not Le admitted to prove hucIi recogniiioii. I'iiisnii- neault vs. Desjaritiii.f, Q. U., Hlli Deceniliei, 1879. 2. Lien of.— A mercmitile house iil Newry directs a hou-e at tiueliec to contract for the buildingof a ship for whicli tliey, the Newry house, would send out tlie rigging. Tiie Quebec agent who has only a limited authority, and who by goinir beyond his authority, even while acting in good faith, causes his prin- cipal to sutler a loss, is obliged to pay the i(ins. And so, where a person instructed a bank clerk to give u cheque for the amount of a tertain account, and the clerk, late at night, gave the jjarty the money instead, thereby preventing his principal from rectifyinj? an vnor which e.xisled in the iic<:ount, it was held that (lie ch-rk couM not recover from liis house CM er into a contract with some ship . . , , . .,• „,.„^^ „f ,„i,<.t , .,, ,. , -,., V 1 ., ..1,.,., I principa t he amount naid in exces-s of what builders accordingly, lii" Newry hoii.-^e then I r i . . direct their correspondent ;it Liverpool to ."end out the rigging. He did so, mid it having been aclually delivered to the Quebec house— Belli, that the properly in it vested in the Newry house, but tliiil the Quebec hou^e had a right to retain it aguini-t the Liverpool cor respondent on account of their lien on it for advances made to the builders and for [my- ment of custom house expenses, although previous to the delivery tliey had obtained a transfer of the ship to themselviH from the builders, and had registered it in the name of one of the partners of their house. Jioi/erson Vf. lieid, Privy Council 18;i0, Stuart's Uep. 412, 1 R. J. li.Q. 330, 1 Knapp 3G2. 3 An agent for a stranger has the right to refuse to deliver efiects in his charge until he lias been indemnilied for any trouble and expense be may have incurred in regard to them i and an agent resident in this country who acts and makes disbursements for an- other resident bus the same right, Dowme vs. Hemic, S. C. 187'J, 9 R. L. r)17. 4. A person \v!io has boarded and cared for and trained a horse at the reijuest of the owner bus n lien on the animal for the iiiiiount of his claim. lirnzier \». LHanaiil. iM. L. R., 1 S. C 419. 5. — — An agent lias a lien upon each portion of goods in Ins possession for his general balance, as well as for charges arising i cannot be transferred until such calls are was really due. .S7( ca vs. /Venrfe/v/a.f/, 1887, M. L R,"3Q. H.4;i!t, 8. An agent who ves money from his principal to be emp.oyed for a certain pur- pose, but who eii;|)loy.s ii for anotlier object, is liable to repay the same to his principal. Mnodie vs. Jones, Q. B. 1890, 19 R. L. 516, M. L. R., G Q. B. lilJt ; confirmed in Supreme Ct. 1891, 19 Can. S. U. R. 2GG. 9. For Contract made in his OWnName— Assignee.— Action tiy oneassi. gnee in insolvency against another, to recover tlie amount of an undertaking in the following terms : " Dear Sir,— Please place to the credit "of the estate N., V. & Co., the enclosed " denian.l note for $700, with the note of V. " for amount as collateriil. In consideration "of this discount I .ereby promise to place " you in funds for the amount from the first " salis of the stock of castings now on hand. " Yours, A. B. Stewart, Trustee."- //eW, following /^lY-wv- vs. Arckibdld (Q. B. 1879, 24 L. C. J. K)), that the ibfendant was per- sonally bound, not having disclosed that he signed for a principal or for an estate bound by his signature. Court vs. Stewart, S. C. 1880,3 L. N.414. 10. Brokers — Transfer of Shares.— Where shares are purchase I on which calls are pending, they on the.se piiriiciiliir gooils. G. W. J'. Co. vs. Crawford, S. C. 1880, G Q. L. R. IGO. 6. Concert Tickets.— A person who undertakes to sell concert tickets for another, and receives a certain number to dispose of, must account for them either by remitting their value in money or returning those un- sold, unless the latter have been lost tlirougli force nuijeiue. Granger vs. David, Mag. Ct. 1889, 13 L. N. 307. 7. Liability of, etc.— Exceeding Limits of Mandate— Bank Clerk giving Money instead of Cheque as ordered.— An paid, and the brokers purchasing are not liable tor failure to transfer. FarrcU vs. Ritchie, S. C. 1877, 1 L. N. 7(1. 11. Com mittee — Printing. — Four per.sons, assum- ing to act as representatives of the Seigniors of Lower Canada, ordered certain work to be executed for them. The names of their principals indiviilually were unknown, and the agents did not act under a power of attor- ney. Held, that the agents were personally liable, inasinuch as they did not disclose th* AdK.N'CY. 73 riaineH of thoir principals ; tlit'ir lialiiliiy ))6ing joint hnt not Heveriil. Loeell vs. Camp- hfll, S, C. 18(;7, 11 L. C. J. ;tI7, 2 L. C. I>. J. l,t). 12. — — In Trust.— Where an ailjudicataire at iiii uh- fli<»nee'w fale of ri'nl entate adiU-il after bin xi^nalure in the sale hook tlie wordu " in tru t " — Held, on petition (or Jnllr eMcJiire, that a^ lie iiail not wiihin three days dis- closed the nmne of his principal, if he had any, that he wa-i (K'rHonally lialde. lU'iiutd VH. Dupuy, C. R. 1880, ;5 L. N. iCt. 13. — Part Cisclosure of Agency.— An ajient bnyini: Roods in his own name, without { his agency, is persoinilly liable ; and the fact that he f»ave in payment notes signed by a firm name, composed of his own name ' et Cie,," was not such a disclosure of his agency as to relieve him from personal responsi- bility. I'mtievH. Maiirire, i^. C. 1885, M. L. R., 1 S. C. .3(;4. 14. Public Officer — Action for work and labor done for a public oHicer about the building in which the oHice was situated. Plea, that the (Jovernment should pay, and to it they should apply— Held, that as the plainlitt had contracted solely with the defetidant, that the defendant was liable. Vic7i vs. Sicolfe, S. C. 1879, 2 N. L. 270, 9 R. L. 5H9, 16. 15ut one wh.) con- tracts as agent for the public is nut personally responsible. Perrault vs. liaHhinir, K. R. 1816, 2 R. de L. 207. 16. President of Com pany.— Utiiler the terms of the lollowing letter, the signer intended to make liimseil and is perFonaily liable: " Messrs. Ritchie A' Rorlase, ncntlemen :— We, the undersiirii 1 acting as director and secretary of tin .NKutreal Omnibus Co., hereby agree to see ihe account that Rrown & St. Charles have against the Cdiiipany duly settled, provided the «ai(l account shall be made out an I agreed upon as either the Court or arbitrator.-* apfjointed shall ilecide. Signed, R. Kerr, as President of the Mont. Omnibus Company." Although Ihe atove letter was evidently in- complete, having been intended to be signed by more than one indiv idual, yet the signer waived the right he might ha^* had to treat it as an incomplete document, by signing and delivering it to the plainlitl's agents. Kerr y». Drown, Q. B. 1878, 23 L. C. .1. 227. 17. TruBteeB— Where several persons, trustees of an insolvtiit estate nn hlMhop, iiml lie iipprovcd of it iiriihTn condition tliat it shoiilil It*' ■'iibniitlC'i for thpupproviil ofthu pitriHhioii. trs. It was fiihinittiMl lo them, and a rertohi- tioii wiiH iidoptt'd, hut tlie rcMoliilioTi wum null, -o that it waH not in reiilily fanulioni'd, und the dppd was set iinidc heuuiise tlic ri'solntii'ii wiiM null. Cmlei' tli(> cifciiniHtiinccs I Ihid llw Fahriipii' Imd no ri^'ht to hi-II. If the sale Im not li':.'al it isun prror of law tor which the .It'fcniliiiil I- not rcspiin-iihle. 'I'liP other ponil is whellier the defiMidiiiit, th" enri', ii not reHponsihIe for the ant of tlie Fuliricinc. On tliii jioint there is (■onsidonilile proof, hnt it is evident that this pioof is not [iositi\«'. and under the eireiiiiisianees I consider that the plaintiti' has not made out his case airain-l the dereiiddiil and thcreliirc the action is dis- ini.s,.d. f;ui/cth' y. Hnliinl,A. C. ISS-t. 28. For Interest.— An a.'i-nt who fi'rpiv ps n^oncy fidiii his piiiu^ipal for re- indtani'e to a third party in cNiin^inishnienf of udclitdiic ljy the pi'incipal, will, win re tlic didit (•arrie- inter* si, he liiihlc for an amount lA' the interc-l proportionate to tlie delay, where he has hcen dilatory in remillin^ the money. y)»/.'. v.. ;;„/-/-/,■, q. is. hh;-), it u. l. :;.-,ii. 27. (An. 1714 C.C.) An a^jeiit i- Ijoiiiid to pay interest upon the money of the principal which lie employs foi his own use. r.w:li/ v<. /;/.«.,,(, S. C, 12 R. I,. II; J„srj,/,.f vs, l'/>itliiis, 22nd March, IHTf). Noted in I»e Hellefeiiille'.s C. Co^.S1, 1 Dorioii, Q. H. Rep. 2(11, 1 \.- X. 7ti (reversiii;: S. C, 2 \,. X. :!70). (Art. 17:!S (.'. C.) The alxjve case is ilisliiiiriiished from Ihe present in that in the present case the name of the principal was de(dared in the contract, and the ajients sii;ned as " commission afieiit.'i," to show that they dill not intend to hind themselves jiprson- ally, iind the a;;enls, not having; the j^oods in their po'.^sessioii or under their control, couM not he considered "factors" under Art. 17.'?8 ('. C, hut merely tirokers, ami were thus not personally liahle. ('rune vs. Nolan, 'i. B. \.-*-:i, 19 "l>. (.;. .1. ;509 (reversing' S. C. 1S72, 4 R. L. (157). The term "commission agent" is not synonymous with factor. (//*.) The delinition of " hroker " and "factor" in Arts. 17M,j and 17.'i() C. C. are not to be interpreted literally as estahli.shinj: a strict rule, hut as general comprehensive delhiitions, suliject lo interprelation and extension accord- ing lo the ordinary distinctions applied to these two classes of aj^ents. The possession or control of the j;oods of I the pi incipal hy the factor di-tinj'iiishe.s him ! from a hroker. Tlii.s ilistinction is the real ' foundation of the ciceptiimal liability which \m\\ 4rl 76 A(JKNCV ( I Ci li ■ attaclieH to a factor wlien contracting for a foreign principal. The broker, like oilier mercantile agentH, incurs no personal liability, if he does not exceed his instructions; the factor, on tlie cortrary, acting for a foreign principal, is personally responsible as if he were principal. Although the personal lia- bility of H factor or cniiDiiixninuiiaire is by law presumed when he acts for u foreign j)rincipiil, yet he may always free himself from such liability by the contract it-elf, or destrov the legal presumption by the circuiiisiances attending the transaction, (lb.) 33. Factor— (Art. IT.W C. C.) A party who signs an agreement for services to a ves-^el slnincied in the Gulf, as " av'Piit by Captain H.'s telt- grams," is not liable under Art. 173ft C. C. as a factor of a foreign principil. Kainc ; ■■. Gum, C. R. 1889, 1« Q. L. R. 237. 34' A merchant in Quebec actir.g as the agent of a principal in Ontario, and as such receiving goods subject to freiglitand demurrage, held personally liable for pucli chiu-fies, although the master of the vessel knew that the merchant so receiving the gooils wa-i acting as an asjent. But the contrary would be held if the mer- chant were actinsr for a home principal. Tkwaitcn vs. CouUliiirs/, C. R. 1874, 3 Q. L. R lot tor— Sub-Agents. (See Agent— I'.nver of Delegation).— The agent employed by a factor acting for a fureign principal is not personally liuble on a tian.-action ma{). Trenhobne vs. MrLcn- nun. Q. Ii. isT'J, '21 L. C. J. lit)."). 44. Insurance Brokei'.— ('";.") ('. C, The defendant, an insurance broker, was the agent of two insurance companies, one of wliicli in-trncted liiiii ti) cancel a certain risk in .Montreal. After a--king for a reconsidera- lion, nil 1 the order being re petted, he complied, aii'l I hen transferred the insur.iiice to the wilier c.impany for which he was iiL'eiit. Ur dill till- wil'.iout the knowledge nf the insured. The .-ame day a lire occurred, and Oie loss was paiij by the ciMiipaiiy to which the in.-uraiue \v:is tran-^fi-rred. In an action hy the latli'i- a:;aiii-t the a'.'ent, for fraudiileiuly making them responsible for the loss — ll'rld, that the tninsfcr ol the insurance was made bv the defendant in good faith, and in accordance with tlie custom of insurance brokers in Mon- treal, and although not authori;ced by the insured, it was conipi'teiil for the agent to act us the nmaiatary of the company and of the insured. Conncdicut Fire Ins. Co. vs. Kitvaiiai/li, S. C. 1889, M. L. R.,.'. S. C. 262, allirmed by Q, B. 18;H,M. L. II., 7 Q. B. Af.i, and I'rivy Council 118021 App. Cas. -17;^. 45. Power of Attorney- General l^rinoiples.— A power of attorney, whether bestowed by a written instrument, or inferrej from a train of circumstances and acts, must be construed strictly. liii/iint, l'(i}ri.i ((• liryrint vs. Bainpii' dii Pl>': ih. vs. QiicbCf: Ihnil; S.C. l.sOl, 17 ii I,. H. lO.'l; con- lirnied in I'rivy Council 1H1I2 [ISilH] App. Cas, 170. See page 177. 46. An agent who is authorized by hi- powiT to make co tracts of sail and pi'.ridiase, charter vessels, and employ servants, and as incidental thereto to do certain specified acts, including endorsement of bills and oilier actstur the purpose therein ment'oned, but not including the borrowing of money, cannot borrow on behalf of his principal or liind hin by contract of loan, such acts not being neces- sary for 1 he declared purposes of the power. (//<.) 47. Where an agent accepts or indorses •• per pro, *" the taker of a liill or note so accepted or indor-ed is luiuiid t > impure as to the extent of the agent's authority ; (1 > where an agent has such aiithoiity, his abuse of it does nut allect a linii'i fiiii' holder for value. 48 Hut ii power of attorney " todraw, accept and indorse bill- of exchange, promissory notes, bills of lading, delivery orders, dock warrants, lioii::lit and sidd notes, contract notes, charter parlies, etc.," includes the |)oWi'r to III II l,c (till/ .lii/ii promissory notes, more particularly where the whole tenor of the docnmeiil shows tlu' intention to confer powers ol general iiirency. Qin'lirc Ihiiil: vs. Jiri/mil, /'./»'/.s- .t' lln;,i,if, S. C. IS'JI, 17 l^ L. \l. !>". 49. \ctioii wu- lir(uight on a promissory note signed by F. I!., agent of M. S. V. I!, was the brother of .\I.. 8., the .lefemiant, to whom the hitter, being abuul ;o leave for I'iiirope, gave a power of ai "iney lo manage and administer her propeiiy diriiiL' her absence, particularly the .Se,._'iiiMry of Lasalle; also to sell, conceile and e.x-.'liu i^ ■ all her pro- perty, including the Seigniory, and all her land f M (I) See. Si Hill- Oi I'Ai'lllUliJe .\i'l IsH'l ■i ■ \ 1 ■ , .'■■ f m fii.?* -it 78 AGENCY. ■11 ((' I i, 1 ■; i i h i, ■* V S I I I , i> ■„.« ■i I \ I I r ! !:Y' "1 'Hi in Lower Canada, except certain houses in Moiiireal ; wilii power lo pay all ilelits submit claims to nrliitriilioii or tooompoiiinl tlie same, to in>litule an.i defeiiil all at;i ii-, -nd nl-o with u j;eneriil power lo do all niiitlers luul tlini;:H relative to lier e^tllte as if slie were per- Honully pri'.MMit — y/'7^:h power tlica"eiit wa~ an (tilniiti'iKlrattir (uuiiiiini bmiii- rum IpmI wiih no power to liorrow .■.\c;fpt lor |,nrpo-'^ within tin- limit- lrii- li„n, which iIm' iml exii-i.d to -i-niiiL'iind di>- con:'tin^ the piomi-->iy note hi (lue-lii.n. 6W/e V-. /;-'/"/, ^- <'• l-'''. ■■' ■'• *'• '- '"• ' 11. ,1. H. 1,1. I.i!h 50. (Arts 1711 1, 17J7 ('. C) In an action on a pmmi-^oi'y note, w here want of con'-idi-raiion and want ol knowledge of the CM-tenr.' of the note litlofe the in-titiition of the iiclion weiv pleiidid.it .■ippcaivd that the note had hern -ii'iied hy the ajent of the de- fendant ill selllement of an account Intween defendant and |ilaintill, hut the defendant actually htirw nothing of it- existence— /A/i/, that the aiieiil hem;' under ii special power, which did not ::ive him authority to make and sign a note in .--ettlemenl between the pailie,-, and a- dilendant had never in any way acknowledL'cl it, that the ai;tion ^-lioufl have been di-nii>-ed. Mi:.<>:inr \<. Jhifi:/n, and to eiidoise note- s.i a- to hind the principal, in matters |oreit;n to the admini-lrat ion with which the aL'eiit lia- Ijeen enlrii-ied. I'oirier vs. Johlii, S. C. I<-^1, 12 K. I,, til; .l.„l„i,i vs. LanUin-, <.i r.. tf's7,:;i l. c. .i. in. 52. A ireneial authority to con. tract for the cultivation ol the Vic., cli. 21, must be awritten power ol iittuiiiey, and (1 j r.lU .hlii(;e liillii-;i\ l-i iii.irk- ill his I liue.il , p. .">!,;: " I'lii- linl.liii;; M.ics i;iiliei- lir\,,iition bi'in;^ made ninier iviLrlaml, is lo lie eonsii'ued aeeordinj; to the power of iittorncy. executed before wilnes-^c's in law of liie ecinntry where it was i.'ucii. or England, and allirnied before the Loi'd Mayoi' uee'irdipi; to tlie la\\ id" the eonnliy where it of London, was nut prii\en. I'lirimi/'in vs. w.'i~ put in I'nice '.' JliHI/ii's, C) S. C. IS.-iC, i\ I,. (', i;. |s|. 5 l;. //,,/,/ |„ ,in. K|,j,i;sh Court uf Appeal ((J. ■'. I't. Q. UT. !!. |).)[1-'.I|J,1 IM!. 7;),allirnini^',jiid^'ineiilof ... , „ , Divi-^iouiii Court (>!'!.' I.". L'''iiil S'irs, p. HI!)), 63. And in anotuei case of Ine , , , . , ' , . , , , , .,..., , that Ihe Imv •^■iveriiiiisr the powei- ul allnrnev sainekind, when' llie plaintill s til le purporteil , , , ■ , , , ,• • . . depeiiils upon the iiilenlion d the diHiiinenl ; to iiiive tieen exrcuted in vir'ue ol a power ol ,•,.,■ • i i ■ , . . . ' and if the inlenuon appeared lo he tinil the .attornev annexed to I he oni.'inal niiiiule ol the , . , ,, , , n i , , ■ ■ . aulhonlv ^himld lie acled .lii in r.n^l.ind, he deed in 11 nice of tlie noiarv hetore wtiom ii . i , ■ e\;eiil III the aiithoni V, -o l.ii as (iiin-actioii.- was passe, I. iiiid wliere tiie power ol altornev ,. , , , , , .' . ',1" r.niiiaiid were coneerie'il. niu-l li" deter- had heen I'.xecuted under private sii-nature and , , , . ' , ■ mined liy Imilmi-o law. seal lielore two wiiiiesse>, one ol' whom wa- a notary jiublic of Cpper Canada, and was 07. In Action must b3 Pro- accompanied by an alte-talion of the nolary dliced.— A credilor who .-lu- on an obi ,iation under .seal, mid likewise by a rerlilicale in tlie si-ned by p.nver of attorney mu-l produce the usual form by the adininislralor of the izovern- |iower of attorney, or the action will be di.s- inent of tliat province with regard lo the otlicial nii-sed, even w'k re lln^ difendanl makes •diaracterofthe nolary, ull of which werediily default, l-'nnt.r.l \~. I,,ir. ,!/,:,■, (,). B. j-Ti;. 7 ))roiliiced and liled at the {r\-i\~ ffr/il. eoiidrm- "• '-i- *'' ' ■ in;.' Judgment of court below, thai lliere was gg Validit.V of.— .\ pou,r ol' no -iilHcicnt proof ol ihe e.xeculion of ll,.. .,,,,„.„,.,. |,v ii pn-; lent, . a-liier or niamuer of jiower of attorney, und ibe aclion u a- di- ,^ I,,,,!,." ,,," a, „,,,,,„ „ol ai, emilovee ot the inis-ed. A>vs, M.lh„„ihl,(:\) P. C. ls:o,T |,,,,,|.^ i.nivalid in tlie absence of uii vlhin- to Moore (N'.,s.) i:!i; .v c. |sr,:, J !.. c. ,r. in;). ,|,,,^^ ,|,,, |„,^^.,.,. ,,,. ^„^,|, „„i,,,,,., ,./^.,,i,„',i„, Q4, ,pj;„, c, , , \ -am.'. h,rr n;:,„;i,,/.<: C . \<", 1 i\). I.. K. 'Jli. power of iiltoriiey pa-sed before a imlary m (jy ProtitS-AcCOUnting for. New York, authenticated by Ihe (derk ofihe _(XvL 171:', C. C, The p!amti!l, .Minister Superior Conn of llie same place, and de ,,; .lustice and Mtormy Ceneral of Canade, poHited with a nolary in Lower Canada, is valid , ,^i|,.j,,,,| ^..^ ,|„, ,|, lenda'nt, .an employee of the underArl. rj,'.!) (.-,) ; and siudi nolary can pro- 1 (;,,,.,,,,„, „^,i„ Mationery department, had, m duce cofiies thereof in Court with the same | .^i^,,,,,, ,j,- i,j, position, received per,|uisites eltecl as an authentic act. Mar.-Zoii vs. I'rI/r. .^^ .^ ^^.,,,,,,^ con-ideration for orders received /■■')•, C. 1!. KSS."), II It. !>. -I'll, confirmed in appeal It. iC iss;-,, it II, I,. 'J.-.i;, 2!) [>. C. .1 . il!15. 65. \ power ol allorney execut- ed abroad, lo be \alid a> e\ ideinu' in llii- Pro- vince, must iiiivo bei'ii authenticated liy the mayor or other pulilic ollicer of the place 11) See iiiiu An.s :io:i-;!lii riiiii. Cmi,.. ■>) 1.)) lint see now .\i'l. IJ'JiM'.C, cj ."i, ami liiiutuui \s. Il>nniii<' J'tci/in^ i'nrtirr. in/'ra \o. ti.1, 'i>H(Cr' ns to wlii'tlior ilepepil Willi imnu y sliinilil In- I'ermul or wlii'llior it may lie ineiiliuital tn tlic iiassinj; ol a (lei'il of sale liefiiresiii'li ni>tar\ '.' throii^li him and to purchase his imluenco with the (lovernment. It was not alle;i;ed that the i)e|)artnient liad paid more than the value of the jroods piirchaseii throiu'li Ihe ,|... fendanl. llihl, that the (Jovernment could compel ilit'enilaiit to render .ui account of such per- ipiisites. TliDinpsnii V-. Sr.hiltiiil, Q. B. Is;)}, .'! Que. -b').'), reversiu;: S. C, .'1 et .ip Ills own clishonesty by way of relief from rendering: an ttccount of the unlawful prolit-^ received by him. (//>.) ! t '4 i 'J .«. .. : 1 . . j: Vl 8(1 AGEN'CV. '1 ■ii i i3 cannot bn {'xlfii'lcil so as lo include lont' o( prolits wliicli lie wonlil lime inaik' if the ii>!enc_v hiiil l.ccii lontinneil, hut merely Hiich ex|iPiise.H as lie inciirreil in unler lo carry on Ihe liiisjnep.i, ami wliicii. ui the particular cir ciiinslanics of the case, may he tieeri to liave tieen roiileniplatcil at the lime the a|ipoinlment was rnaile. CinilUc \'>. Cuiitirncik Cn/toii Co., Sale.-(Arl.l7.-MC.C.) Inarli,.n lo-.taM.leM ]^^-_ .yf |, |. ., ,^. |j. .|,,.,^ ].-,]{. j,. .-,24. ;>| 71. Anil in ileniaii'lin;; snch acconnlMig from the aj^ent, tiie prnii'ipal was ikjI honnil to repuiliate the <;(nilract on account of wlmli the perquisites wiTf receive I, nor In allei^e tlnil he suslaineil a loss or was picjniliceil hy rea-on of the iJonalion uf perquisites to iiis aj.'ent. (//'.) 72. Bevooation of Prior to ilecd of sale ill the name of (jlainlitl. made hv another under a power of aitorney ulii(h hail heen revoked p'liirloliie sale — Ifi'lil, lliatas to third persons, ii;nor.irit of the revoealion, the acts of tl'e a;;ent would hin J l'(]tli lnm-elf und his jiMncipal ; hnl, in this ci-c, thiTc hrin^ L. ('. J. l.'l; Dillon vs. liorthwirk, Q. I!., IStli June, I^isO; liill Telcplioixr ('o. \i' S/nnner, g. 13. iss;t, 17 1{. L.:!,-)!!. 75. Power to Accept Payment.— A canvassrr eni|ilnyed liy a i. .vspaper to solicit clear evidence of Imd failh im llii' piiH "f tin fiT advertiscnienls iias ikji power lo collect partie- to the dcdl, the ai'tioh umiM le u !■ ■ {.,]■ >anie, Ruiiilliiril vs. Miirr.ollr, Maj^. Ct. lained, .■ind the deed set ;i-'i|e. .U/lirii » -. j l.s.s'J, I :' I , X ■J.'i'l . Miihn- it (li. ^. ('. \~>. 1 r. .N'. :;:•!:; ; con ' firn,edinappeal, II,. X. IM. | 76. to Accept Terms of Pay ment. — .\n a_'enl cannot a;;ree lo take pay- 73. — • When part executed.- „„.„, ,,,■ 1,,, ,,,,nc. pal's money in supply or Authority L'iven loan airenllosellcaniiol lie re- j,,„„j, ,,, |„.,.,,,„s in the emjiloyment of tlie voked when in part e.xeculed, and llieiefore, ,,|.j,„,j|„^|_ So where an a^'ent of an advertising ■.vhere t:,,ods havehcen i-enl to ac niission , j,^,,,,^,,^,,^ ,,^,,.^.^,, ,,, ,,j|.,, p,iv,„ent fof ad- merchant f'T '"''p "as given iei|u;ied to siinscrihe $10,00(1 of the ,:it,,|ial ,''"'""' I"''"'"'"'" "''■''''''' I'O'"'-.^'. i")'' H''' '"lild- slotk olliie eiimpaiiy. respondents. No term '"^^ "■'- destroyed hy lire after the note had was li.ved, ami after the lapse of a year .ui,i '"''"H"' '!"'■ ii"'' dishonored, the judicial com- s,,,,,e monlhs ihe agency was withdrawn from """'''' '"'''' ''''" ''"' '"^""■'''' ^'>»^'^ H"! recover, the appellants. In an aetioii for indeniiiilv hy ' ■'"' ''"' l'""''''-^ "'''I"' a^ent, heing pnhlic, must the agent //- A/ (alhrMiiii; ihe deci-em ,if I"' I''-'" '" ila^elpen known lo the insured, .I(dinson,,l.,M.I,. I!.,:; S.t;. !t.:-illl.. ('..I, 1:1.-,), ■""! 'i"' ■^'■i. of the aizent in (he Iransaclion that a mandate fur which no term ha-^ heen sii '■'■'''' "//"' r,V,,v and void, 1101 heing .m;;,;- pulaled is revoeahle al will, even where ihe Ine seope ol hi- general amhority a- ageni, ,1 1, ageiii has given a con-idei-ation for the ''i''"'' "'■. nol hinding upon the as- ■Maiice eoc ,j„,.ii,.y. paiiy. Mniili'ol .\.^sm-,ii\i-e (/u, \ Mtllill:- '^The reM.ealiou. hnuiner, i- -iihie,: lo ihe '""/- I'- <'■ I-''-', 1:1 -Moore ST, I) ],. (.'. R. ohligation on the pari of the prinei|i;il to m '"'■'W ilei:;iiil'v llie agent lor any actual I0-- -nlle,-i d hy him hy nason of ihe revocalioii of ihe n, i|,,.„| ,,,,1,, i,,,,,., |-,.,.i i„ 1;, |.,.,t , ti l„ c. I!, iss, mamlale. d'lie ,i^em'- claim lo iiilemiiilv Si'' I : Mom. s;. Uri( prmcl of (111 ■'( \\\ eoiiill adv, ■ igenll niiiiii -ilniej proriil I'looff o;-|hi[ I'uiti^ 's7l', 81. 1 ■Cllll; ':i ns iniiiliil ^ s- ,v J AfiKXCY 78. To accept Terms of Payment.— A niivrlliij;,' .'ipiMil laic in;; uy Iit.h f(ir Ins cm pic iv if ("iiniot iiiiikf tcriiis as tu |iii_viiji'nl fur frdcul.- -mM liy him. For in.^lnnce, lie cannot agref lu lake onl |iiivmcnl in lioiiril fnv liiinJ.olf. Mdiratlc V-. (.nillnnill. .'.lii'T. <'l. IS-:), I'.' L. N. iiu. 16ii. So wlicro .1 Inivcllci' soil! ciuuis on sue! ciyuis on siii'li ('iiMclilions,!inil o !■' L'civp overv- agreed to semi a man to superintend tlie petting (inlof llir l'ult(i(;l(s, aj,'i-cc'ii)g t lliinf; marked nHfor her by the man she would select; hut, on the plaintilf tendering a quan- tity which were ot" inferior size and ')\iality to thu.-c set out in the contract, she refused to accept, anil the plainlill' lirmight action^ //t/(/, reversing the juilgmeiit of the court helow, that the man sent to mark ofl the fnttock-^ had ihi' cigars were delivered to the purcha^er :n , 'i" P"«er in hind the defendant liy nnirking oil I'littoidvs that were of an inferior si/.e and qua- le name of tin prnicijml, the traveller callei I'iick to -late he could nol lake pavmenl in | lily t.. those slipulaled in the oonlrac lay hi>ard. and ihe cigars wiic rtturnedto him. | .A'/.v In an arlion hv the (ii'incipal, for liie price of ! - ^•'^• tin r, Mn (I. H. isi;,-), Ki L. v.. II. against the purciia-er— //'7'/, ihai 83. To delegate his Powers.— Where iip wa> liaiile fi.r them, a- lie could not ret\irn \ the power i.'iveii hy one parly to another liy • 1 pay Uir ihe cigar< to the agent who lia>l [ an in^lrnnient in writing is of such a nature iiii anllmrily to reci'ive payment. (///.) ' as In require its e.xecnlion hy a deputy, hy the 79. 'I'lie iiL'eut \ lit"' in force in Lower Canada, the party "I an iii-iiiance company has no authority to | originally aulln.ri/.e.l a-^ the iiL'ent may ap accept an insuiance and give a receipt for the j I'^ml adepuly , j \-. V'"'"". I'rivy Council, Is^.')-, I- Moore iiiilividual debt to Ihe pcrsuii injuring, and \ '*■ <-'• "''^ ; and see J.iiiiin vs. /)/>(./(, C. ('• >uchaclion his partwill not hind the company. ! l^^-- H I'. '-. at page .'iiiO. 84. So cnntracior- I'nr con-lructing a raihvay in Camiil.i, wiio re-ii|i'd in I'jngland, had (lower to appoint hy The agent at (>nehec of an insurance companv, P-^ver of altorney an agent wnh full power to ilie company itself havmg Ms principal olHce ^""-•■'.ct on their hehalf the said radroad and I'ilizcii" Jus. Cii. vs. Ih>itri/iiiifii"ii, tj. I!. I'^.-^ii, M. L. K.'J (,). 15. ■!■>. 80. To advertise— Insurance Agent.— at Montreal, caused an adverti-emenl to be ^''•'''' ^'"""^ ''' ''""'' ''^"■''' ""' ''"""■"^^ published in the respondent'- paper for a Con- '"''^^'■'•" ""' ''"'"■'>■ >-'""l'^">.^- •""' ""' ^■"" -.ilcrable period, incurring a lull „l' #1 IC, III. "■"^""■'■^ provided that the latter -hould pro I he agent, on being a>k('d fur payment, re leried the respnndent to the ciunpany as his principal, and the latter denied all knnwledge iif llie advertising, and all power on the part ''( till' ag( I In nnU'r it — Jfi /'I, cuclirming coni'l bcluw, that the special power to publish advrvli-cment'- wa- inherent intheoilice of an agent appuinled to lake risk,- and receive pre- miuni.-; ihal .-.indi authority was lo b;- pre. -uined ; that the advertising wa- intended to vide the fiiniN for construction and pay all claims which might be nuide again-t tin com pany. and the powers vested in the company were lobe exercised by the contractor. .\nd— fluid, that ihe contractors under their contract with the rompany had power to delegpie to an ageni powers similar to those \estc m tin 111 by the company, and that nndei the power of attorney executed by the cw,i- tractors, tjie agent po-^sessed the same jHnvers promole ihc .,p|clia,i|-s buMnes-. and that '"' '*cti"g -l"-' rendenng the company liable i> the (!(nilractors them-elvrs had un.br the proof of cn>loin. ii-age en- .--ancliiiii on the part "i'the com|iany was umiece-r>, .', i;. ('. 10. 81. To alter Contract. -An mchitcci cling a- anag(ht for a per.-ou having' alteia- liens and ri'pair- made on a building has no implied authority to alter the cnnlracl. .Vil/i r Ns- S/(„i,-, Q, li., .March, b^To, Kam. l)ig. bl.'i. 82. I'l.rchascd from the p'laintiH' a quantity of fut- tncks to be of a certain size or -i/es set forth in contract. <>niliir ,(■ L'ii/niioicl l,'i/. !'•>. vs. Ifiiiini, I'.C. lS;-,s, VI M.iore, \\ (', 2X1. 85. Special Powers— To ^ive Receipt and Discharge -Clcvk.— 'Ihe plaintiH-, hearing that one of their country debtor- wa- frauilulently making away with his pviip"rty, seni a clerk to the |ilace to make inquiries, but without special iii^lriiction> lU' power. Tin' clerk took the debtor's note I'o;- live shillings Where the defendant i iu the pound, which >as refused by the plain- lill's, and sent back— //< /'^ in an action for the original debt in which su(di setllement was .;i:'i ill' f If, ■'% written contract between Ihem, and further j ]deailed, that the receipt and di'^charge 'vers 'I i'i '1.: ■■.,Vo//, lf-.s(i, I miles- he ellecl-^ a sale. Sliil,l,:< \>. Courdji, M. L. R., 2 Q. li. .''lO. j "^^ <-■ IMVI. •-' (I. !,, It. .■.:',; (Uiniihcll vs. ' (7„ih„/, ,S. r. ISTl), 2 !.. N. 21.^. ;' It. L. .m(I. 87. Power to pledge Goods— Factor— j 94. The plaintill was employed as a (ITISC.C.) ■riieai;eiil, a laeloi, plcd^'ed goods I hroh-cr liy l lie o;/. »;■ of ih, defi udanl to S(dl .a to defendanl fo|- his own privale jmipo-^es. ijuanlily ol pine tiinhii' lic|oni;iiig to liim The Defendant hi'ing in good Imth. pliiinliir the ' plainliir did all he could lo ellerl ii -ale, and principal eouhl not n'vi ndieule Ihein. <7iii!,- sii 'ei'iiled in olitaining an oIUm' of ninepence vs. /,«-;//'/■, S.C. 18i;!, -1 L. ('., I. :;il ; eonlirmi'd p, i foot, a lueh the principul de(diiied. The in appeal ,'■■«/> ;(o/», ,/')/o( './ v-. f.'.iinr,*}. I{. reiir in^ plainlill, al llie ,-ame lime, tha: lie -lionld mil have his ii-.aihle tor n..!'!!!!;.', Iiui iha: liie -pi ci(iealioii< Would he reiiiriied lo liiiii ii: l:ie -I'viiig I'o)- ihe purpo-i of leiiewiiiLr ihe Inui-- aelioii. In il,e sprJM- ihe principal died. ■.\^, \ hi- re|ire.-eii;:ii il e-, the r i,e,,|,,i.,,.| ,^ ,,,|| ,i,. 88. in Payment of Expenses. — .V cimmer.ial ii'a\eller whose ))rinci|ial Im- iie}.'leeled lo meet a draft drawn on him lor the iravcdliiiLt e.\pcn-i - of ihe form er accoidiiii.' ti aLrrc'ement, mav pled'^e the samples in hi- iiands lor neee^^-.ary e\peii-e<. Kniiui/i/ V-. C.nir/IJi 1',.. IT Dee., I-V!!. 89. to sell Real Estate — Ti ri..'li!ofan a.'elit to sell real e-late e.uiiiol l,e '''"'"■'■ ''"■'i'-^- "■.lie,,,! iMer,.,.. ,o|l,e plaiiilitr. who liieii ei;,j|||,.l 111- la-okeraje -!i <'atliereil an art- ■ 'I aiieiiev o| a .lilleri n character. S;, w.ni ^ -. 117,//,, i I. |i., (iH, .Sept.. ''"' -l'"c-'lh of i i,e I r he I;:, 1 lee-ived- -peea! MiiilertaKiii l^'TI. 90. ri'omise to— .\ to pav a Mule ot' hair 1. eiidor-e.l, to the a.'eiil of i he pa\ ce, in eon- deralioii ,if In-- tori" aiaeci' l',.r a line . i- snll //'/■/, liie plaiiili!! c. nld not ree, \ er, ,'e tie.' a.-eie to se, ppoi ' an a.'l ion m- out liie 1 1 .n, -nci ,o;, -,.,,:,.r,.| p,, )„.. i.r c'uil'-'h III \\i he o'.Mi iiai'iC f..r iheaiMoanl tweeiiliie partie-.lie i< , ;,■ ii !i ■! o ■ id- e-.,,,- ot (he le.i. I.'^-.'n, -1 i;. ' ■'/' ■■ -. (.'mil' ii'ii ,1, K, I!, In 91 Roiuuiioratioii of-Gcirral Prin- ciples. — - Allhoiigli Ml ,nimer,;al mal lers ai:ency i- pri-uiiiMl |.. I,.' oaeiou-. a jiarty mav immiiIk |e-- he in lo ! . he not en- ■illcd to a comnil,--!oii, if he iiiiderioo|< to jict hy a synallagnitilH' e.-nlraet w hich e-tahli-hed le not\> ,! i|-l,ilrlilp.' I iial llie ;|._rr( e:,,i 1,1 may iia'e laileii ii.i ,ii..|i |,y rea-ui, of had holli in one or ..■ie :■ .'■ ,!,,■ paii.e- i., ih,. e.oiiiraet. /.;./l,l/iiili' V . I .,//>■. 7,.^. C I---':. I. L. .\, LMJ. 90- loo -\ iiele the a-ree|||,lil :e|| liirough iieeiiu-,. ,„!,. ,,f ,1,,. |„iri;,., eon!, I not eonvi ya peit-e| i it je i,, il,,. |ivu|ierlv, ihehioker "a- held I, ■ entitled i,, comiiii-sion, (1; , ,1 , ,1 .l/.o/;„\--. /,.//„//..(». |{. iss;) :;| I (' ,1 -i.v. a |iie.-iiiiiplion that the ,oiiiiiiis- was part i. >..,.- , "f the consideration of the eoninicl. J,'i iiaid/ '') Si> -n.* - le .i.i 11..1, vs. WiiiLn; S ('. iHt;-, l:; L, ('. .]. 181). ■ 4 ... ■la^.'llieii 1,1. Ii. net r'iM.nc.l ; ..i.ly jn.l;;iii. m .,1' .vlimi ;,,i 1 ■ wlii'-li i.iiiiia. 1} tl AGENCY. s;! 97. For securing Contract— Con- tract defective.— Tlif plnintiir l.y lifeil a;:n'['il to obtiii'i spcuril.y for llie ileremliint, ill order lo eniible him lo obtiiiii iv ccrliiin (■■mtriict from ilie Queliec j;overiiiiK'iit, luid ilio (Ict't'iiiliiiit agreed lo ]iiiy him therefor a commissioii of seven per cent, on $11,781, the price of the cniiiriicl, ti\e said cuiiimission lo be payahlo seinianiiiially iiiitd th"dischar;;e of l!ie ohhgation. After some negotiations, il wan found that ileleinlant had faileii to comply witli ail tiie formalities prcscrilied iiy the Act fered uitli him in fjettin;; the loan, as he pretends, lie might luive hronglit an action of damages. Instiad of that, he sues on a con- Iruci for a i.'uiiimis>-iun. He hi's earned r.o comniisHion in liie jiropcr sense ; and tlieaction must, therefore, |je dismis.-eil. Jhln \>. Iiin,k,n; S. C. l.S82,ti L. N. .V.t. 100. For Advances on Ship— Sub Agent. — .\ party makinf^ advimcos fur liir building of a sjiip, over and above his com mission uf .') per cent., is enlitleij to charge the commission ot liis attornevs or age:il.s in Kng- aiithorizing tlie contract, and on this ground |„,,d wlio ellectrd tlic sale of the ship,at 4 per the action of pl;iiiitilf for his commission was ' ,,,,„,, „.hich is proveil to be the usual charge, dismissed in tlieconrt below (.■! I.. N. 'J.-rii; but ; n,,,] ^ hich is piiyabie o!i the ndiole price ill Iteview this jud-ineni was reversed, on the j „t'the sale made at credit, ailhoiigh part wa- ground that plaintitf hud carri<'d out his agree- | |,,,i,| wiiliiii a few d.iys :if(er th- transaction : ment una earned the monev. Drrliii vs. j ,i„,| ,^|,,, ,Uank i'oiniuissi,..i ..r' per cent. Iknmr, C. li. lss(l, 4 L. X. o'.l. charged by the s ib-agent, and wliich is u-nal in England ijii similar Maii~.'i!'tion-- .s'/////' < v-. 98. Payment of Claim against Governraont— Evidence ofSer | hniipsnn. Q. I!, l'^')!, c> L. C II. IT, I 11. .1. vices rendered.— I >eleiiduiit hud a claim II. Q. JTd. against ihrdoviinnient.andplainiiil.wliouasa joi. For procuring Subscription ti,-iary. represented todi'fendani thai he would g.- to Ottawa and negotiate a setllemenl foi' to Stock— Payment after first call.— Ki spoil. jcMiI liiid been i-niplnyed l.o procure siili *'.i(i(l commission. A writing was made, t.i the scriptions of Mock m the projected '• Ibunpi. elfecl that, if plaintilf suceee led in elfecting a tran-niis^ion I'f the iiionev lioni the (iovern- inenl, be wa- In l'cI the ^'IWl Action for llie $200 and plea ilenying that |dainlill' had gdt the iiioiiiy for dit'eidant. ,\ctiou di>iiiis>ed for want ul evidence. I>'rliii \>. WiLiaii, V. \{ !•<>:;, ,; I, X, ,-,;i. St. .lean Haptiste," of w Inch appellant was pn sidnit. lie was lo gel one per crui. on sioci; >ub-cribed l.y person- outside ol liie city, and \ per ceiil. on -li-ck sub-cribrd by per-on- 'iViibiii ibecily li'iiils. The coiiiiiii->ioii wa to \v piiyaliie alter the lir.-t call. I In re being i fliist sriijiliilil lolhe .■l.;l'ceiii'Mll as follow- 99 For procuring Loan— Loan j " V'/ov rn„n,ii.y.'//•,//'///.. 1^, ); ! . ', 2 I. X. Willi lie- plamlili, in wliicb iii,< . .n.|!li..ii- ' HI. were -pieiallv -ei forth, anl iii<' eaini../ of , iq-,, for Sale of Land Commission .•..niiiii<-ioi, . ■ ,1... |„.r ,■,111, was miel ■ deprn q,, j^and sold by Principal. -- Wmi ,■ .I'Mil ..11 Ihr l.iaii li.-iii- .ililann I by ll,.. plain pl.iint.i! ha.| ciitere.! inl.ia ronira. ; uiili M'.. 'I'll" p'aiiiliir. It appiar-, .-^poK-c |..lw.i ' ilcfcii.iant , bv u aich llie laller agreed i . _ v, ii..tar;c- alu.iii ibe inaHcr. witli..iit lln- ivjn- , jiim ti,.,. - ,i,. ,,f rertain liiil- i.el. .ii-n _• iialioii- ii'si,liin._' in aii\lli;r.g; and linalU, lo liim at l.oiigue-r..inl.', an. a....w liim wh,.., it w,i.- probably I. .. laie lor llie piirpo-e- j much a-^ eonini i--i.iii per i.,i, aiel bioiijln .le- . 1 ihe .bleihlaiil. he spoke lo .Mr. \V.. and Mr. [ tain l..r c --loii .iii iot< -,d.l \n .iefen.lanl. W. agKci 1,1 I urn I -b the m.Miey on geiimi S lit j he having -oj.l none biinself unde: ;lie con tract conin,i--^i.iii. Tiie (he,|iii. for lli;. ;?lll ba- — //,/./, that the respondciil 'plamlili) was never been prc-enle.|, ami it was payable at ihe |ilaiiilill '.- ollice. In the meantime, iiowever, the drfen.lant not the money in another ipiarter, and lie did not lake the loan from .Mr. W. The plaintill's aclioii is for a commission tor procnriie.' a loan. If the defeiidani had inter- something more than a maii.lalary . a-^ be lia.l an interest in the sale, an.l haviiiL' liee'i t-, some trouble and expense in having plan-- made, etc., was enlitled to his e.nnmission. Dillon v.s. Horlliwick, Q. li. l.S>iO. ;! I,. N. 202. ! r rj i r-. , r-:^^ 84 .\(ii;n'(jv. ^tfi llic rollowinj,' cil^c^rocN still rnillii'i' ; lln- :i|i|icl- liiiit cliiir;.'!'!! ilic rc,-|ii'iiili'iil uilli ilic -.'ili' iii liis licjiiill ofccrliiiii real |irii|iii i)( llic llircc iiioiiili^ llic iipiicllaiil ( ,\(lmii;j;('il ilic |]rii|iiTl,v (nr iiiiiiilicr, (.wncil li\ IiIh IivoIIk r iii-hiw, I'ccciviii;^ $l,2il(i ill: Milii)ii, ami llic lirolliiT-iiilau m.M iIh' >iiiiir |ir(p|i(Tly for ?: 10,7(1(1— //('A/, lliiil Ihc |iro|ii'Vly Iiumiil' lu'cii iilic'imlcil liy till' a|i|ii'll«iil licfmr llic ex- |iiiiili(iii (>(■ llic 1 lircc iic'iii h^. llic rc-|M iilcnl Wll-' Clllll Icil In llic UHlial CnlllMllS^illll (l| _.', pCV cell I. nil (lie \aliic ..liiaiiic I, nllli.iii^-li il ilnl iml a|i|>cai llial lie liicl 'Iniic aii\ i Inn;.' in I'ai'ililaic llic 'll.-|iiiMli nC llic |.vn|icrl\ , The I \cliaii'_'c liciic an alnnal inn (■i|iii\ ali'iil In ,-aic, llic rcsjinijili III Ha- cnlillcil In In- c.niiiriii- nil iipi'ii i|ii> w linic \ aliic. sl (l,7ii;i, ami linl li.cic'y ii|Hin llic |l:'IIO. |-cci>i\'n,| iiiMitiiiiialM . C.ir/f \~. I'.iiiiit, (,l. I!. I>v. I . 1 . Two iliiys nl'Icrwapl.M M. sdid tlip property to (!,, iipnii which T. Iimiivhl an iieliiiii to recover hi- cniiiiiiissiiiii of 2\ per cent, on the price — //i7'/, Ihal M. was lialile to T. for the said (■(iiiiiiii--inii nil the price of Hule. TIkhiiiis vh. .\hrhh,i.^. ('. ISS.O, .-12 !;.(;. J. 207. principal wlinaLirees lo pay a (^oiiiiiiiH.sjdii |o an a;.'enl Inv ilic sale of lii.s iiiiiimfiKtl nred ;.'ond-. -Iipiilaliiii; 111 the saiiii' time that the aL'ciil -hall ecasc In iiiaiiiifactiire the Hiiiiie article as he iiad |previoiisly dniio, and who -ci|-cll< iiiidcrsell- liisa;;eiit, caiiiiot complniii Ihal ihcaL'cnt has imi n^ed due diligence, and thcicinie I i.niint rcfiisc In pay liiiii the coiiiiiiis -ion on llic;.'nnds the aj;ent did .sell. Jiis,)i/i //ifll Mi(iiii/'iii-/iijiiii/ ('(I. \s. MrJ). — Quantum Meruit No Agreoniont. The plainlill' wa- a man who had a ci"'il ,lca' of cxpeiieiice n arlmc (ni- eoinpanie- i: nlitainin.r rails nllimlier and nihcr nlijcct- nf inwa'je. I''., Ihc niicnl of (he ill Iciiilanis, prnpn-cil in jivcl,. live pcrcenl. nil llic alllnlinl nl l'll-|l|e-- dnile. 'j'llC filaill liir dcclarid al iiice ihal lie wnilld iml wni'L Ini a cniniiiissinii a! a 1 1, lull he nil' red In unrli for .■^stlll |ni ;he -ea-iin. I . f-aid lie would rep 'It In the head nllicc al (,lii.'|icc. .\n a;:iccnicnl was cnmc in, lull the plaiiilill went nil and did the work, and imw lie hrnuyhl his aclinnlnlic paid (nv hi- I'lnne-. The plea wa- (hat llicrc wa- nn ■nn'rai 1. and that live |ici- rem. nn the wnrk d thai iv.i- prod lie live Wnlllil he ellnllL'll. Kill lie' pl.iiiiliir per fnrnied -crMccs where lie di I iml -iiccced ill ;.'cllin;'- any cniilra.M. Tiic niajoniy of the cniirt were of opinmn that he wa- ciilitled lo a 1/11,1 II I II III ,in I nil inr all the services pei fm nicii, and nnl merely for Ihc -el \ ice- wliicli were prndiiclive. The -i r\ n e- w i i e « nrlh if lllll , ol w Inch lisid ha I hcen paid. .1 ii hjiiienl would L'n Inr S.ljll. 1.1 iihiij \~ SI. I,,iiri; II, I sir, nil .\,ir. r,.., ,S. C. 1—1. I to. Del Credere Conmussion. The plaintiir had appointed the delciidaiil- lii- •V s for (he purpose nf cnllee( in.;; u delil of .i.'.'!."iO. due hy certain pei.-oii- residi nt in I'ppci Canada. The defendaii s, as such ai'eiils. :i , a(;encv. Sf) acciinliiigly took "tops to collect the ainomit insolvi'tit.i, witli uullioriiy lo carry on ihc iViini till' (IclilDi's of lilt! pliiinliir, or from one i tmsiiioH \iiilii it hIiihiIiI In' woiiiiil up, wliii:li of tlii'iji tlu'ii in Qiii'lit'C, iiiiij lo inrtlier llic - wu-i In In' coinpicli'.l witlnii tWDor llirce yciir-. iiiiillcr look piivnu'iil lor pirl of ihedolit anil 'I'Iip llll1in('s^ was uol wonrul up in ihiil lime, ilic Mull' of orif of till' (li'liloi'S lor llie luiliincc, Iml ^va^ carrii'il on by tlic phiinlill-i .m an p;iyulili' lollifirovvn orilcr, wliic.li nolo cvcnl- <'Xti'nsivt' scale, willi fnmls rawfil on llii'ir mvn iially provcil won li less— //(7(/, llial a cliar^^fof crcclil, ainl lar;;i' losses «■<■«• incnrrr.l — llitil. live per ccnl. commission for llic collection of liy llio nnijority of the ('onri, in an aciii.n hy I lie ileiil ili I nol tiece.-sarily imply a warranty ihc plainlills aijainsl creililors who lunl siijud ..f Ihe nole on llie part of the ai;enl. (Ihixn , the Irii-t lieeil lo ol)lii;e lliem to repay ihe vs. Jiisiji/i, (}. I!, is 17, ,'t l!ei'. lie !,.■;.'. 'JL'. , amonni ofsncli los'-es, ihal llie plainliirs were 1 1 1 . . nol. nii'ler llie eircnmslanees, a.'eiits i.f llie 111. .\ii a;;reemenl .1 , . . ■ . , r 1 11 1 ; ; cre.lilors, so .'i-^ lo make llii' l.iller liable I'm' ilial II oerlaiii rale ol commis-ion shall be i/c/ I 1 : I...... I .■ .1 .■ . .1 . 'bo re-iill of llieir upei ai ion-. Chiiilr \< fi.li'rc mav be inlerrcil Irom Ilio lael ihal, ' I- ; ,1 .■ , I ,1 , (>'llll.<:IU,i). 1). lS-^1,7 I,. \. JIO. iieeuniinL' In Ibe u-a^e ot Irii'l'', Ihe rule ' ^ ' hi,r-nl IS -neb lis js ihiiuIIv eliai-e.| a. a H5. Where it is provcl llial llieamoiinl of -iiaraiileeiH- ./'/ rir.Irn eommi-.-ion . h',iiil:iii ,1 l,,,,,, u,is placed iii the bands ,i| a lliir.lpailv " ^'''//,<^ I! ISC.I. i; I,. (' .1. I.'ii,, lopav oirhvpMlhecsaiel perle/i I lie I il 'o, i !,.■ IJ2. Where an pie-uinpi i. ii -llial such ihini |i irly u as a.i- all, liniii II, lib n|lleill h. Mie sale, ai.'ive,l (ov oei a- Ihe ,i-, ni ,,|' i ho leiil. i . :iti.| it i- Imv |I,c .III . \lra eomnii»ion lo ;:imiaiil.e ihe ah- - lall. r l" |'i'"Vo ihal I be homes ir j..i ihe n, i.. \ , //,/,/, Ihal a- be bail laken iii.le-; payable m or wa- beiiolileij iberebv. A',(..,', /,',,/,-,.,, hiiii-ell ill Hilhnielil, Ihe ino^-l reasuliiible ^- ''• I s;i '., 1 i,>ne :!11. mil I prolalioii of sneli aijreeiiieiii wasljiiil lie i ,1, I ,. , 1 ■ ,1, I 118 .\s 111 ivjiat eoii-hliiie- piMninfaLret!. \ -lloillil Oleloisc Ihc notes -o leeeiveil 111 sillll | .' .,,,,,,, . siillicieni lo aniliiiii. e lie' iii-liliilion nf ael ion nil 111 ol Ihe -all-, lhoii(;li III llie pK eiil rase / , , , . i> , , .1 . , .,' , , nil lebiill ol aiiollier. hee Piiii'siih v-. il was net pid\ei I nil siie.li was he i m bini n i /. n r , - , i, . > .> ,. > 1 ^,. , . , 1 h I ,. /'DIMM/ '"-a, 1 n-nnns (.^V. U. {, Hi;-,,, iliiile. Sniililir y, l.diiililil, ^ 11. I III n i ' " < ■ f ' ' •^ I- <'■•'. ^17. 117. When llll (iaiiMVreeofa de'.. aflei nil. Wlu) lirn. I'lllillllir llllllrlieij II Mf/liilyin^lollieilol ihe nan-V. of the ilebl, liiiuilih ni j:oo,|s in the t'lisioiii III! ill m'Hu.HCMim llll lr.msf..roraparlofllioiUbi, -ali-lacli ■ a jildnineiii apiin-l ,lef laiil '""I siilHeipicnlly .lomaruU tVom liim payment who carrieil mi business as " ,1. II. W. \ Co." "'""' ''"'^'"^ '•.H'f-*'" fai i - do not coiisiiiule such liilervenuiiN I hillMlil ||ie ||l|ii.|.s srizcij us llieir ' Inm bror his implud .a-eiil lo coUee- fn,,,, the liniperlv, allei;m_' Ihal dehndalil ails |i,Hih '''■'''*"'• '" >"'''>''' '" '-'*■'• '''-'' '" "" i"'l>li"l llum' a-enl in i.arrviii- on llie bii-iness. and in "P'ih'V. ■ !'•■ 1^'^\ '<'' •!• I- -t'^.V lisli a Htoro iiiidor Iho iiameof .1. II. W. .V HQ, .Vclioii ti> recover S:!l.-^.2l) for wi. i. Co., Il/ be mana;;ed by defendanl a.s llieir ,^,„) l.^j,,,,. ,|,„„,, ,i,„| ||„it;.rials fiiriiishcj l,y ai^eiil ; ihal they were lo -apply jimi Willi all plamtitrm tlio repair nfa lioii-e beloiij;iii- 1.. -oods reipured, and charge ibe store with all ,|,.rcndant which bad 1 n biiriil. The ;:iH)ds imported and witli acommis-ion of live ,h.|eii(U' wa-lliat ibo work was not for the dt fen- pircent. tor Imym;.:; ihal d 'fend ml was to ,|,iiii. noraiillion.'.ed liy him, bill was for one l(. carry mi ibe Imsnie-s uir the bcnelit of inlor l{.w;, 1 1 Ill M'^'M \enaiit-, and wiis n,,i lo make purchases. .Ml n,,. ,|,.|cndaiil to resioreibe pivmises lo prope, ihismtervoiiantsallo;;od was carr;;'d mill clli'ct; ,.ondilii.ii, when llie dclendant told him to j;il Ihal Ihe floods woi/.od wcro piiivliased li.r llie „ ,|,,|„,. ,i,„l ,.,.,, | |,||,i, ihe defendanl. ihe biisnie-s by them; that the plaeililfs' claim ,i,.,.oniii. He als. repealed ihw aiillmri/.al ion was nil irred loii.i; iirevioiis |o i|u- a.j;reemeiil ,„, a :.iib-eipicnt occasion, ll was als.. pioved and wa- iiiicoimected Willi llie business m ,pies- ,|j,^| ,1^, i,,,,,^,. ^as insured bv defenduiii. and Ih.ii. On proof mIerveiili.Mi was mamtainod l„. had r. coivod the insurance arising tVom llie and sei.'.iire discbaived. ^'/ec/fcvs. HV//,//rs (jp, — //,./,^_ tl„u ii,e aiil li..n /.al ion was.snili- S. C. i.sj.sl..! !,. N. ISd. cieiilly pruved, and thai the .lefend.anl wa- 114. The piaiiilills bablo. Sdllnlil \'itilrh,iwn:iir vs. Ilri/. 'J. I!. were Iriisue- niidor a deeil of as^igimicnl from l.'-i'S, S R, ii. .V'ij. M • w h (l i, i i I: I' 4- I i I 'A . 1 ■V; I i I ! i 8G AGENCY 119. 'I'lic ' hiititr, ii uurkinaii, um" •' II' ized by lioili parlic to sijrti .irai'ior-^ l"i- tin' i:i of 11 iiiiUvny. Tlic niilw,iy (:niii|iiiiiv ii< ii IIH bilhkcr-' Inr the rnlillMcldr-, mill piliillll ;li ||0|('>, flicy ii-iiii'iiiiii will iKil coiiJ^tilnlP u valid hum undiini iii ,| writiii); williin tlio Statillc of Fmnils, Si/ine ^, Ilnninl, S. (". I>-:.(1, I I-. C. .1. I'-'. wugcH of ilic wdrkiiicii, |ioii I" i25 Who urc— For Purposes tlif pliic wliiTi' ihi-y wi r(cii:;a.rcil, cio.— 7/'/'/, of Taxation —UimIit a bylaw iiii|iioii incri'liaiil^ Ililil, ii.il 1(1 iiicliidc -lii|i av'i'iil-- T/iiiini : vs. t'ih/ III Mnll/liil/ : S/ll(ir V-. ('ill/ III Unnt a:.'i'iit-, an I ihiii'l.iri' tlic I ..ii,|iaii liaMc l.'i a Iriacli c,f llic f(. nil act. Liijifiiili | [_ I ',1 r,,iiii'liiin I'liri/ii- l.'i/. ''".. ('. Cl. I.' (/. Si, 1 11/ V- N. ::■::. I'lh/ III' Miiiilriiil ('. C. '1, iTi'ililor- (I Hi liiO. IIm- I:i uiri !• 'I lip I cNh-n-ioii ill' Mlnr, iiLririil ti L'cllii'r I" L'laiil ii, Hiiil iiiakf liirliiiT iid\ .iiici 12C. FHClors— Who are.-.\ iirson ;i tin;.' a.- a;;eiii in I'an-, ami I Moiilrcal Ini' a liouKlicm-t' in (inli liim i- imt a f;i('i.'i ill Jliiiiln v.s. Iliiiisi ri.iui . I'. 1>'7',*, :: l„ ,\. -n. 127 Plcdsc-I! liallirr imli liaiit in l,iiid,.:i. I aiiuvv uii- a iiHaii- III I'. Ilm-. diirin;.' llic |icniiil cnvfird liy llir a-icciiiciil, did ii.'l con-lilui' liilii llic ik'. I'liiiin I'liiiik V-. Jiiilii'.v a laiiii' I' I Ii. I. liihiiill Ha- ll Canada. liaiTn" ii;:i( id . to pay mil fur cv irv Indr laniit'd (; piT pi a};riM III ill IliniL, t). I . iv-7, 1 1 Q, I,, i; i;ii. drcd 'if .sdc /,,,(. by Hm, I. ill in till' Hindi' iif lb" i'iiiinlr,\, and liiiniu'll was III pi'i.ciiro friij;lil, and -end back (lie I inlcs ; llicv wciv taniici lis lo real raliiiii 111!- whicli It was and tri i;.'lil was pi'nciircd (ur tliciii, bill, ill llic iiicaiitiiiii', I'xiii- ncll bad obtained fidiii tbc'l'driiiln liaiik, bank advances on bis nwn accniiiil mi bills, and 121. cslalc (l^lcn-ibly for valid cu liuM d by a iiiiilii'.-li lire, in adinillid tlial nn considcrali'.ii ua- paid, and , ],,|„„|„,,.,„,,,| ,|„. i,„|,..- i„ the 1, ariiiii;;liiL' Imiv llic prtu.'ccd- nf tin sale of llic piiipcilv, il aiiv wcic i'('cn\ (Ted, sliimld be li-i riliiiti'd, ani'iiiiils in a cniilrart of ajcncv inlvcrs, as .!iii'ilv li'V.-ncli iidvanccs, cii^ajin'' to baini ivcr III lliciii llir bills nf liidiiiL' if his '.vclian;;!' were not diilv bonnrt'd. 'j'bcv wci't and .1 may l.c icM'indcd by llic principal if ibe ,^,,^ ,|,,|^, |,„„„,,.|^ ,^„j ■,!„, ,,,,„|.,,,, („.,;,, |„^,| ai^ciil doi - iH'l iisi' due dili;;cn(:i', siibjccl li llic I vpciiscs lie inav liavc incurred- I'liiiiliiif , .. Ill Uolhiirl, (I. i;., Tl June, Hi, acted in enlire iu'iioraiice of the tiansaetioii.s lelweeii Jiarniw and lioniicih I'laimed to retain (be bills of ladiii;: and llie bide- until 122. A bolder nf sbari 111 tlilst IS tlieir ileiiiailds were s^ listied — 7/i7. /; .') A|ip. ('as. liiil. itrriiw. House n if Lord.-. l.siSO bis own cu-lomer lor alle;:cd hri acli nf con- 128- Holding out as AgontS- — 'I he ap- 1 rai't made I liVniiL'b biiii. hisauliiority 111 make pcllaiits -etupa linn of " J. II. W'ilkJns iV llie cniitiael may be prnved liy nral evidence, ("n.,'' wliieli wa- in reality their own business, bill the piirclia-e and re-sale ('aiiiiot be so w itli .1 . 11. Wilkins as iiiaiia;:er ; but to the ]irnved when the value exceeds sJ.IO. Tn piililic I lie liiisiiK'ss w holiiH' vs. M,:Lciiiiiiii, Q. ]!. b^TH- 'J I I;. ('. .1. ' A Cn." This I as that of ".I. II. Wilk 124. inn boii^iit ;:iiijds from r spoii- dent, the price of which was claimed by the f.Vii. 1T:1") C. C.) a liresent action— //(,'/(/, that the apiiellants were lirok er, a-siiin:ii^' in lie ilie tnal d sel H'.-enl of ' liable fnr the nlilii,'atioi'.s of the t.riii of. I. II yvv aail seller, ainl aecoriliii.:lv siirnui" Wdkins A- C Will- ll for the acts of.l. II. riislPii with the mniui^e- boiicrhl and snldnnli-s, will not be presumed W ilki'i-", wlin was ent in law In be such iiiiiliial a^reiit from the meie iin'iii- L'n-i.t vs. OshonH', (]. H. l.S.HG, M. \,. \\ fact of (lis bein;: a hrnker : and, in I senci'ofsiillicient evidence olliis beiiii; ,|,e nil- ^15- -^:b author- | (ij.See lemarks on tliis cnsii', ■> I,. N. at p. 17 .UJENCY. 87 129. All insurance I mnjorifv of tlip Coiiil did not pa<< itptm the ('iiirl|iail)', w liirli Millhon/f-' ll |l»'|■^'(p|| In miIic licit point, i:; (':ui. S. (". K. 401, .\t,.'ini'i- \s. Ltt and <'lli'L'l in-niniM'i' in Mr* iimm', \\ :U pel' XMl 11^ It- ll'^CIlt. Ills 1/ \- ilU n.itei It (',„i>. ,1, Qii,-I,n:. V. H. ]HM, 12 g 1. It. 1.1 1 mi. sail v». Ilniiaiinii TidlitM-,/ . -. (■ H- iiiini Int. t'li ., f ' II (j I.. It. 1.- I.. L 130. TlicM|.|i'llunl-, \V. F. 1, ai wliM \\(ic > 111 rviii'' (111 an nidinai-v lpll^ilu■^s in ■111 under llic (inn (.if W. V. \j. iV Co., iliiiiiHa!^ liieii-uaent Miinli ul'^d appiiiiUi'il line .1. L. W and iiiiiiiaiier, hi eiiiiv on a LiiMiiehs nn tluir (iwiriaeciMiiii iihd iinder llie name <.t' .1. II. M. L. U.,.-. S (". is. in ilii lii»t ease it was lirlii tluvt ll. plaimitl' ^illlu!d have nblained aliaiislci nf and jiidieiiii in the ri;;liiM uf his aireril. or smI iliio<:aiioii should iilive dlschafjliM llie defi'iiduiit from a liahilitv toward theajrciil. lint a- in thi»' eii' til evidence ol the aj^ent liad estahlished thai \Vill< ill" A Ci It \MI~ lilOV (d tlnit U'ilk wa- 111 Ilie lia hit ol' endni-,-in'' til leeeivalile property of the aueiit in pro- willi ihf name nf ihc lii m. anil that he .-ome- ■.iiiH^ilirw lulls on eii-liiiiii'is . 'J'he re.spon- deiil disi:oiinled oni' nl ' lie-e hills in flood lailli. in the MUiie iiiaiiini' is he had discounted "iinilar hills prcvioii-lv /7t///, that t he diet of Wil kins' nam I' heinij ;;i\en I'l 'lie Imsines- :ind its hi'in;: Conducted hy him. whetlur he lasu partner or not, was>iillicieiit to hoM him out to tlic world ;is a L'eiu'rni ajiciil, and appellants wirrliahle to the re.s|iondt'iit for the amount of liic draft so di-^.'iinteil, whatever mi,L'hl he the use to winch \\'ilkiiis, without lespondeni's liliowlcdge, ajiplii'il t he proceeds. /.mc/.v vs. }Viiltei's,ii. !!. ISss, M. I,. K.. .| (• I!. ii,-,(;, \<] H. I,. (WO Caiid -(>■ .■. I'aliis, i^.Cl., I.orani^er .1., l^T.'l, I R. !,. .Vll) (hut plaiiititl' held to pay c.sis ,,f |,otli sides); VaiKI'^il S/lilipilli/ I'll. V-. t'irliJ,- lliullill Cotlni, (',,., i). I!. Iss'J, I).. noil A Kamsay dissdiliiP.'. JV I,. (". .1. II. ."i I.. X. :;(l!', 2 I)(iricih's liep. .'I.'iti. In .Siipicnie Cl . maioritv of jiidiies held it was nut ncce^.-aiy to dcci.li' this point for the purposes of the p I'-cn' ca-e, hnl StroiifT .1. iiiainlaiiii'd the allii iiialivc, while Foil ruier and IIciir\- d. il. uiaiiitaincd the negative, 111 Can. S. ('. li. Mil . MirKill vs. Morifnii, S. C. Is'.i.', I tine. :,\\'). Xeifiilirr : CiliKnlil S/n'ii/iiiii/ Co. vs. Ilinloii, Mackav.L.S ('. ISSI). I! I.. X. 17(1, which hein;; revei'-ed in appeal (-ee .iiipni), Dorioii ,1. and liamsay d. maintained the nej:ative. .\iid ill Siiprem Court, Fouriiier .1 . and Ileiiry .1. maintained the iieMlive, although the tl)*" plods ill fpn -tion Were th piaintitr, and ilmt he aitteil ii' curiiii; their sale, the defendant was no lorif.'er in u p. c. is;:!, L. u . .) P. c. ■in:): j All- hill- Murine Inn. t'n. vs. Allmi, (). H. i siyi;^ VA'i.L. n. I- ;?. in Name of Agent. — Tlie jirincipal without the consent ot his av'ent cannot sue in the latlor's name, on acon- irael made hy iheafzeiit in his own name and without discdosiiiMT Ids principal. In such case I iie principal can only lake action I ly hecomini' siihrofjated in tlie ritjlits of the aiient. Memiiir vs. Cnrii. . I'll ill ill.--, (,>. r., 1ST,-,, |;i I,. G. J. I(i'2. conli'-min;; S. C 15 I. C. .1. .i.'l.'i. (l) .See -Jii I'liii. S. ('. I!, lit p. Il.-i. |i.T 'I'lisclioreiiii J. ¥■ if I i IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 Ui|2j8 |25 |50 ^" ^B ■^ Ui 12.2 IJi& |l.25 1 ,.4 1 ,6 < 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STMET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SM (716) •72-4503 4? 'i£o n fF • i 1 '• 1 ; ; ■ i f! 4 I M! II j i J ft *■ i 1 i '< X u 88 AGENCY. 6. But where the n;.'eiicy is for the <;eiiora! inaiiagcriierit of the ;)t'im;i|ial'8 Im-'inesri, the action by tiie |jriiici|>al must befni-an account- inj; of the whole adminislration. Don'oit vs. Di)riiiii, Taschereiui .1., 20 Su|ireiiie Ct. Kep. •Ho; Hiinl vs. 'Liplin, 'l\ Siipi'eiiie Cl. Rep. at p. 50 (I8:t;)). 6a. Knowledge of Acts of Agent.— \ piipioipal is Ikjiiik! to know llie transactions of his anient, ami wheie on the snhmissior] of' inierrojiatorie.s he allei^e.s ignorance of his own business, tlie interrogatory will be taken as oonfesseij. McGireri/ vs. Pdillc, -l Juni', ISSQ, Q. B. 7. Liability of For Acts of Agent acting in his own Name.— The nrnlisclos'd jirincipal is snbjecl, in rejiani to his airent acting in his own name, to a.! the e.xceptions which cui> be set up afiain^l the latter by the pariies with whom he deals : anil hence is boiinH by a set oil' pleaileil by (he jmrchaser. J)iiple.-s:.s vs. Du/'tiiil, Q. B. 1805, ;10 L. C. J. 75. 8. Acting within scope of his Apparent Authority.— Where wines were orilereil by the secretary- treasurer ofachib, who had apparent authority to purchase supplies for thec'ub, and the wines were invoiced and consigned to the club, tlui latter were held liable for the price. 'J'o estab- lish a defence in sucli case, it would be necessary to show not only that the act of the agent was unauthorized, but that the party dealing with the agent had notice thereof. Goiml vs.Fi.t/i .[■ Gamr Cluh, 1800, M. L. U., (1 S. C. -180. 9. Cashier of Bank — Wiiere money ha 1 bi'eri deposited with the cashier of a bank in his individual capacity as attorney of the lirm for who:ii the money was paid, and was immeiliately tran-ferred by draft to the (inn and dravvn out by one of the jiartner- — lhhl,on a contestation of the de- claration of the manager of the Ijank, under a writ of garnishment some si.\ months after- wards, that it hail no fiiinls in its hands be- longing 10 the said linn ; that money deposited with the cashier of the bank, acting indivi- dually and not on behalf of the bank, dnl not constitute the liaiik (lie attorney of the parlies to whom the money was due. Li/nc/i vs. MrLinnan, 3 L. C. .1. 81 .t 1) L. C. K. 257, 7 B. J. B. Q. T).i, K C. 185S. 10. Corporation.— (:i5fi ('. c.) Corporations are bound bv the acts of their agents in the siiinc way ns private individuals, and to the saiiie e.\tent. Ferrii' vs. The Wardens d/'t/tc House of fii'lnnlri/, 1 Rev. de Leg. 27, Q. B. 1815. 11. — Corporation. — A corporation is liable for the cost of goods si.ld in good failli to persons acting as its agents, i and whose aulhority was not repudiated by the Corporation. Cassidi/ vs. Mnniiial Finh a- Gum'' Chih, S. C. issi), M. L. R., C. S. C. 220. 12. EflFecting Insur- ance—Premium Notes.— The agent of a railway company gave his own indiviilual notes to an insurance company for premiums of marine insurance, and tool: the policy of insurance in ois own name, and afterwards gave the notes of the lirm for the same debt — 7/(7'/. that the railway company is nevertheless liable in a direct action for the amount of the premiums, and that, on an intervention by the lirm, thf renewal notes filed in the case le declared inoperative a^ against the iniervening parties, and be ordered to be delivered up to them. Montreal Fire /nuiiranci: Conipani/ vs. Sliinstcd'l, Slnfford if- C/iitnilili/ Rdiliviij/ Company, .S. ('. 18(;:!, !,■? L. C. R. 2:ii. 13. Frauc^.— The iraml of the agent is imputable to the principal (I; where the latter has received a benefit from the fraud of his agent, actimr within the scope of his authority. Lii/lit/iall vs C/iri'/icn, S. C. 1S82, 11 R.L. 102! 14. And where an agent in making a con- tract suppressed a material fact within his knowledge, his principal cannot profit by the fraud, although he was himself ignorant of the fact suppressed. f'/inUien vs. Croiilei/, Q. B. 1882, 5 L. N. 2(18, 2 Dorion's Rep. 1)85. 15. In another Pro- vince. — The ivurcliase of goods by a person acting pulilicly in Montreal as the general agent of an insurance company, whose chief place of business is elsewhere, will Ijirid the company for such supplies as may have been furnished the agent in good faith for the pur- poses of the in-urance business, Mlthoiigh bv the iirrangemeni between the agent and the company, it was umicrstood the agent was to take a commission on tlu biisine-s done by him tocoverall expenses. Morton \s. A'iiii)ar(i Dintrict Mulnat Firr In.iiirann- Gompuny, l.^th -March, 1S7S, (^ IJ. (1) Si'.' iilsi) .)/.i,7,vii, vs. r,i)»„„,v;ii/ ItanI: (,!' Snr lli;,ii.. C. ai»4. (li.'iiuclianiiis .luri.'iliniileiiieot till- I'rivv Coinicil [1. ct'.i.i AGENCY. S9 16. For Acts of Agent- Notary— Money deposited by Lender with— Responsibility for default of No- tary — Evidence. — Where tlie iiiiiouiit of a loan was cJepositeil by tlie lender with lier notary, witli iiistruciioiis to lioM it until the ohii^'atioii to he given for it was executed and rejristered, tiiat tiie re-iponsihility for the de- fault of tlie notary to nay over a portion of the nioiiey must full upon the lender; audit made no ilifl'erence whether die notary was to pay oviT the amount to the horrowcr, or (as in the present ease) was to apply it to the (hscliarge of certain debts in accordance with a li-^t f'lr- nislied to him I'V the borrower. WVL.slcr vs. Dii/rcne, 1887, M.L. H., .S Q. li. 41!. Tlie borrower's acknowledgment in tlie deed, that lie had received the whole amount, might b» contradicted by the leiuler's admission that she had paid the money to her notary, and the notary's admission thai lie liad not paid over a portion of the amount. 17. ■ Notary.— AV here a testamentary e.p|ieals from the jndL'ment of the court below, con- demning, on the one baud, the defendant lo account under an agreement by which the plainlill' advanceil money to build a ship to be reimbi;rscd out of the proceeds of the sale of the ship, which he, the plaintiH, was antliori/.ed I to .send to his friends in Liverpool or London, and for this purpose to a|)|ioinl ami ■■■nbstitute attorneys and agents— y/(7i/, that the defendant was not liable by rea-^on of the bankruptcy of the substitutes for money- due bv ihem, and that the principal should bear the loss, inas- much as, under the circiimslaiices, the substi- tutes were his own attorneys and agents, there being no evidence that the agent was not jiisti- lied in ajipointing the said suiiagent. Si/iiies vs. Laiiip.so,!, Q. n. 18.') 1, .■> L. C. 11.17, 4 R. J. It. Q. 270. 21. For Acts of Party not bona fide Agent.— Where a jilaintitf authorized one Beaudry -o to act as to lead the public rea-^onably lo conclude that he had power to bind his principal by contracts of alienation, and both he (Beaudry) and intend ing purchasers clealt in good liiitli on that ' footing— i/t'/'7, that the ease would fall within the (irinciple exjires-ed in Art. 17:!0ofthe Civil ; Code, which is a plain jjrinciple of justice and comiiion to all sysieiiis of law. Price vs. Xault, P. C, i:^ Q. L. R. 28(;, atiirmmg Q. B. 1884, 11 Q. L. K. :i09; Lechu'rc vs. Landry, S. C. IS&O, 19 R. L. ;i42. 22. For Money paid to Agent by Mistake. — A principal is not lialde for money oaid to his agent by mistake, in excess of an amount actually due, unless it be shewn that the principal has either received or otherwise b"nelited by such payment, ('iiij Hank vs. Harbour Coniniiasioner^ ol ^fon(rral, S. C. 1857, 1 L. C. J.28M. 23. Ratification of Agents Acts— All facts denoting approbation and even silence upon the part ol the mandator kiiowirig the acts of tlie maiida iry involve ratification, and are etpiivalent to express ralilicatioii, lUic.ha- nan vs. McMilhin, S. C. 1874, 20 L. C J. 105. i:>$ /•'111 'f' ;ipl I 17> 90 AGENCY. if-: fir, : .««] : :f I'l 24. Itatiliriitioiii- r.-tniiictivciin'l <:(i\crsn thai li:t.- liecrj d liy llic niiin.iiiliiry. (//'.) 25. Dnri.i;.' lli<' I'liii"- titlV al> i'iic'> li'oiii .Montnai. lii- l.iukki'i'pcr an. I [M-iiiciiial ('li'rl< ^ij^iicil in Ins ln'half an ai^iTCMinMit of coMi|io!-iti(iii witli a iim^ i'l pursuance thereof culloctcd from the a-sinnee the ilivulerjil irali/ed fruni llie (-talc The ])hiintill'wasiMfnrnie(i hy h\> i-krU I'V letler ot wlial he hail dune, and did not oljeiit at llie time; hilt n:i Idsietiirn to Montreal in the (bliowinj; monlli, he claimni llie wliole didit from Ihedehlor, cieditini: liie diviileiid a- a payment UN a'ji^oiinl— 7/'/'/, tiiat i.ndcr tlie circuriistanee- theiv wa-< a ratillcation ' f the clerk's act. A'/V/,/ \ -. Viinlici'i, S. C. l'->:', o L.N. lis. 23. \V'lic;'e ralilicati(ir:/iic pevty cannot accept in payment his own indphtulne-s, and a sale tVir ihe e.on>ideratioii .jf the release of his cn\ n liahilily will he set asi le us frandulenl. Mcln'r vs. AyJnici. (.) . i;. 1S8(1, 1 horion l{ep. Inil. 5. Goods ordered in Name of Agent. — A parly who lakes delivery of ^nods ordert- ' '-y another person in his name and shipped i.j hi-^ addres>,on the umlerstand- inir that the ■■ellers should di'awon such jiarty fi^r the amount o( 'nvnice, eannoi retain the •_''"«i.- ami I'el'use to accept the draft or pay tlie amount thereof. I'diilln \~. \l'il/iiuii'<, Q. 1'. 1>77,22 L. ('. .1. !>;. 6. Transfei'ee of Shares "in Trust."'— A holderof shares '• in trusi " is not a iiiaiuldf'iirr, as he holds suliject to a prior lilleon the part of some person undisclosed, Snidi holding' not heiii;: forbidden hy the law 111 Canada, a transferee IVoni such liolder is hound to eiKpiire whether the transler is anlhorizcii 'iv the nature of the triisl, or he laki's it at Ins own risk. Jhiiilx nf Monlictd \-. Sireaici/, Pi ivy Cuiinc'l l>sT, Ij App. Cas. 17, 1(1 L. X. ■J.'iO. 7. Undisclosed Principal.— I'lii' principal who proliis hy a purchase made fo" \\\> account hy his a,::ent,or clerk', is liable to the vendor. allhou;:li at the time of the -ale tlie vendor was i;j:noraut of the fact that till' a^ciit wa- not the principal. Cott: vs. J'>"linl.(in., 7lh Sept., IS7.-I. cieiit to give the society a le;;al e.xlstenee, and il is not necessary thot persons becoming meiii- lers subseipienily should sign the declaration. Martin vs. ('nrjKirdlidii d'AriiculKiiil, C- C. 1SS4, 7 L. N. 13'J. 2. Tlie choice of a place for e.vhihiiions of an atiricultural society, within the lucniiiK of .'{" Vict., c. '), s. 2. does not imply tlial the particular .-ite for the permanent liiiildinga must be determined at the meetiiif; of mem- he rs ; e. ;/., a resulutiun choosing " LachiUe, ill the parish of St. ■lerusalem d'Arjreuteiiil,"' is siitlicienl, (Iliid.) 3. It is not necessary that the res(diitions anil liy laws passed at a meetinji; of a municipal council >liould be wiltten out at length and signed by the (iresiding ollicer at the time of the meeting. {Ihid.) 4. A bydaw of 'I <;ounty council, fixin;' a permanenl place at which all exhihitions of an agricutural society shall be held, is not a by-la\.' within the meaning of articles loti and (;;i8 of the Municipal Code. (Ibi'l.) AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES. BYLAWS WITH UHGAIll) TO. 1. On a petition to set aside certain resoln- lions and hydaws of a County Council — Ilehl, that the declaration prescribed by 32 Vict., c. I.'), s. 41, with rclerencc to the organization of agricultural societies, is only requireil for the ibrination of the society. Tlie signature of forty persons at the date of formation is sufli- AGRICULTURAL ACT. On appeal from a conviction of two justices of the jieace under the .\griciiltural Act — Ildil, that the action should have been taken in the lorm of qui (t lie lalien to be indmled in the larijer term " leal e-late." (orxt- \<.<'orsf, C. il. is.VI, .1 [,. C. H .!10. 2. If an alien di;^-; willicnt is.sne, his lands belon;,' to the Crown : but if he leaves children, >oine born in Canada, and others not, the former e.xelude the Crown, and then all the children ir.herit as if they were natnral born subjects. (2) Doiuijani v.s. Dune- (jitni, P. C. 18.35, Stuart's Uep. i\Kt. .3 Knapp. 63, 1 R. .1. R. Q. -m. 3. Where an alien has a .son who 1^ also an alien, the chililren of the latter iidierit fnjni the i.'randfather lo the e.Nclusion of their (iither. (lb) (W) 4. Who is an Alien.— Who i.s an alien is a question to be decided liy the law of Eng- land ; but when alienage is establisheil. the consequences which result from it are to be determined by the law oi"Canada. (\) Done- (jaiti vs. Dinmjani, P. C. Is.35, Stuart's Rep. tiOo, .■! Knapp P. C. Rep. (i3, 1 R.J. B. Q. i:«. ALIMENTS. I. .\(T10N Foil. Jwisdiclioii. 1. Pclitinn, whiti it muni ulleyc. II. Ai.iEKATiox OF. II. (See also No. V.) III. <'o>ll>KXS.AT10X OF. IV. E.XKCITIOX OF JlDOMKXT Fol!. I V. lixK.M;'TION OF FROM StilZUKD. (See also supra N'o. II.) Aliuieutiuij deht. 7-l.'i. VI. Li.vitii.trv TO Fi'KVisii. Of Chihlren. \-\(i. Of Gritndcliihheit. ,j-(!. Of Mothn-iu-lau: 7. Of Son-in-law. 8 'J. 2;!. intra M. (1) See now Art MC. (J. (2) (.1) Sep now Art. -23 .mil (iW ('. C. 14) See reniHrl■ I. Iiirrensi: nj AlloWiiiice. 5. Married W'omc. . ilrt-8. Inlidelity of Wife. '.>-10. Amount ot. 11. Eflect of reciinciliaiion. 12. During pendency of Action. l^-KI. Minor. Itir'. Xalurid Child. W, Hi/. I'orsons arrested, on tjapias. 17-19. i'crsons romuiitted for Contempt of Court. 20-22. I. ACTION FOR. 1. Jurisdiction.— 'I'he obligation to furn- ish aliment is |)urcly personal, and the disposi- tions of Art. .'54 C. C. P. are not applicable lo demands of this nature. Hence a natural ^i-nx is not entitled to bring suit at Montreal against the ai'i,iinistrator of \\\< father's e.state, appointeil and domiciled in (Jntario, for the purpose of having his relationship judicially declared, and further praying for an aliineulary allowance, on the ground that his father be- fore hi.s death was domiciled in the dist'ict 01 Montreal, where the succession became open. Dion vs. Gervan, S. C. 1890, M. L. U., () S. C. ;i29. 2. Petition.— What it must allege — (Art. 1G9 C. C.) In a petition claiming an alimentiiry allowance from children and grand ■ chililren, where it is neither alleged in the peti- tion nor established by the atliilavits produced in support of it tb.;u fl:e defendants are in u posiiion to pay tlie alimentary allowance claimed, or any part thereof, such petition will be rejected, saving the petitioners reco.irse by further proceeding, hevesipie vs. Plounhi, S. C. 1892, 2 Que. 259. ALIMENTS. 93 3. Ill an ii^tion hy a nioth'^r a^iuinst lier cliililreii issue of her iiiarriiifre with her lius hiimi, she iiiuct allege that the husbaml, t'le tdtiicr of lier children, is iinahle to support liiinselfand his wife Jicnii.nl vs. licrnie.r, S. C. 1880, 9 L. N. 1S2. made by means of the loan, the proportion of rent line hy reason of such iniproveii.eiits being clearly seizable indepetulently of the condi- tions in the legacy. Fuiilxinll vs. Guay, C. Ct. JS9,!, I Que. U\\. I II. ALIENATION. 1. A clunse in a deed declaring' (■crtiiin objects or things unsoizable is liisiinct I'foni one of inalienability ; and an alinientarv allow- ance wliich is unsei/.able may be alienated. I'erKiJlicr wi'. Bruiifil, Q. 1!. 18!)0, i'J It. L. .■|2;!, conlirminj.' S. C, M. L. ll., I S. C. -luj ; Hc-liiKjiid vs. Frcrunt, S. C. 187t, 1(J li. C. J. .'i.'p, .1 K. L. ;-iSO ; Ann.ftroiii/ vs. Diii'resiiaii, !^. C. 1871, 3 H. L. .iCf) . FuiUhihU vs. Guhii, 8. C, 4 Que. 1 1:{. 2. Where tlie usufruct of a property is be- i|Uealhe(l as alimentary allowiitice, with a ^ub-titutiun in favor of a third person, the ]jruhibitioii to alienate or hypothecate such beipiesl does not prevent the institute from iiypothecating for the purpose of jirotecting himself afiaitist any efibrt to deprive him of II ; and the validity of such hypothec is not atl'ecled by the failure of the means employed for that purpose, nor can tlie curator to the -uiistitutii n contest such hypothec, on the -round tliiit the ])roperty was be(juealheii in usufruct, and wa" declared inalienable and un- altacbable, in order to insure the alimentary allowance. Wilsim vs. Lrhlaiir, C. U. 1872, U; L. (.'. ,1. 197. 3. And the ij) cDr ^8(j ; and Francis vs. Clement, S. C. 1889, '.7 R. L. 380. 3. The Court of Appeals will not jirant an order to execute a judgment for aliment diir iiii; the delay granted lo the tutor to obtain authorization to appeal, that requirement having been neglected. If, as argued, the judgment for ahments wa-< executory notwitli- standnig the appeal, it would be unnecessary for the Court to interfere, and if not, the Court would not feel ju«tilied in making a sjietnal order under the circumstances. C/c- limit vs. Fvawis, Q. H. 1883, L. N. .325. V. EXEMPIION OF FRO.M SEIZURE. 1. .\n alimentary allowance which is not made gratuitously, but for a certain consider- ation, is not exempt from seizure. Vii/nanlt vs. none, C. H. 1890, 19 R. L. Ho ; Gicnicr vs. Ken; C R. 1893, 3 Que. 409. ' t ,1 \ i f- i '■t » I ( * ! ^ k m ^ f ■ I 1 n i i 3 ALIMENTS. 2. An. 558 C. C. P.— AliiiuMits wlictlier iv (Ijfpijsitioii of tlje liiwor ol man, urc favoi'eii, utiil liy law arc uiiseizalilc for cli'lil ; lliercforo a clause in a uill declarinj; alinicnls iiM.-cizalile is legal. Miiir v.-. Mnir. Q. I!. IsTI , l.". !,. C. J. .'!0!), Privy Conncil 1871, 18 L. C. .1. Ol!. 3. And SI) of an alinientar}' allowiincc due ex qi/icio piilalis. Milhil vs. Millut, S, C. 18H4, HO h. C. J. ;r2S. 4. Ami so of rent of house iiei|ue:itheil \iy will as aliment. Irwin vs. Biii/i'r,S. ('. 1H77 ; Mohdii vs. Carter, Q. ]! 18SH, ;i |)i)rlun"s Itep. 27'.). 5. Where hy a will a tesliilni' has ilerlared the property li"ipiealheil unseizahle, the [iro- perly remains so even aguinsi a ]uorlf.'aL'ee, and even where the dehlor is in pcisscssioti under a deed of sale froni the executors of tin- testator, such a deed liein;^ consi.lered in ihi.s ca.«e as a partition and not a sale, (.'arlrr vs. Mohnn, P. C. 18sr., 10 App. Case (i(il, S ].. N. 2sl, conlinniiig (J. I,., .'! Dorion '1~'.\ (I I.. N. '.m. 6. Dividends cm s'laies of haid< stock, nut idcniilied as pari il respoiidi'ni's slmre of l;is father's estate, were sei/.ahle. (Ih.) 7. Alimentary Debt. — (Art. .m-^ C. C.i An alimentary ali(,iwam;is j;ranle.| l.y the Court |i.> a wife in an a'liun a^'ain't her hus- band for separalidii froni lied and hoard is an " alimentary dchl '' within the . eanin^' of Art. .")58 C. C P; and an alinieiiiaiT allowance payable to the hnsband under the will of his fillher may he.-.'i/.ed therefor, l|j..;i:;li deelareil unseizahle hy the will. /•'. vs. ('.. (>, ]J. IS:',-!, 1 R. de L. ."^l : Muijiiin vs. //,(-,/, .'>. C. Iss2, .'> L. N. ;!71 ; I'rrriiull vs. .lArsv,,/,, .^. (..". ISIH, M. L. U., 7S. C. 120; llrlnir v<. S,iirr,,l. S. C. lt'J2, 2 Que. 22<;. 8. .\nd Jli!.■< C. C. P.. and petition rejecled. Debuid vs. Dcsrivirrcs, ! L. X. -Id, S. V. l,--T, M. I,. I!, IIS. c. :;ti, VI. I.IAIill.lTV TO FI'KXISIJ. 1. Of Children.— (An. luc ('. c.> An "I'lig'iit per.-, Ill Clin miii'itain an action aga:ii-l his iir lier .■jiiidren inr alinienlary allowiince. J'.inn! vs. Diihiic, { i{ov. de lii'g. TjOI, K. I!. 1S12; C.HHor vs. Laforwe, lb. ISI;i 1 J,'o(,i„ V-. J),' \',i,;„,n,, lb. 1821; L'tii-'iH vs. ('oiiii'iis^iiii/ 1 1 rir., 5 Ij. C. J ')l> C. C. IStili. ' ' '■^- <-'ii-e where indigent father received $20 annual Cuverument pension. Sons were poor //»/,/7„«^v, but had not siiown ALIMENTS. 95 ilint ihi'v -.vcic Miiublo to piiy tlicir f'litlicr liiw wlio isiricupalileof eaniiiij; licr n.vii livi aliiiiciiiiirv [•v. Tliey were ordiM'pil to ami tliiit of liei' child. 'g coiitriliiitc Ji)iiilly $'■) per rnoiitl; to UU support. W lii're a IVclin;; exists which would ])revriit J)iimiiii/iit \:'. .'>((//»/((//«, S. C. 1S71I, 2 li. N. tlu'iii from liviim coinfortnlilv tofri'iher, the 178. 3, Action hy a liither against tw(j cif Ins children for an nlnncnlurv ullow- inothcrin-iiiw wdl he condenmi'd to pay an alinienlary pen-ion, inclndinj^ a provision fur the cdncalion of the child. MuIUjuh v^'. Tl .;iiildr aiice. and seveicd in their defence. en pleaded iit lonna pmipe) I 'alt,' S. C. ISDO, .M. L, i{.,t; S. C. -JD. Per 8. Of Son in law.— A person i^^ honnd to '11 e |)laiiiiill ha: estahlished « ri^;ht of action, niaintain his mothrr-in law wiio is in want, hilt the difliciilty is the extreme poverty of "''« '!"• ''fing remarried, and daiii,'|iter the defendants. The children oiler to hoard 'ln'i^n^ih whom the aihnity exists hcinn; still the father al their tahle J hilt the case is ali Til nil I II 1 1 vs. lir complicated hy the fact that the fatlicr now has his third wife, and what is to he done i; <}. iJ. i:!,-). 9. Th ^1)0, M. L. U. In vith the slepmotlier or Tl d stepmotiiPr? lie siipd .ilonc lor the alinienlary dehl, without le case is somewlia t of a piiz/.le. 1 doiihl his wife heinj; in the cause. 01..) ■vliethir tlie Cmrt has power to order the. 10. Of Daughter in-low.- An alimentary <•.,.! „...i i:..„ ...:•!. .1 i.:i 1 i ..i . . •' fall ler lo t;o and itii tl le cliildren il the Court does possess tli 1" hilt I dehl caiiiiol he claimed I'rum aduii'iliterin law. after the dealh of her hm^haiid wit lout Clllll ren, oven wliere tliede 111 U'o-e iiii'l WH- U'jireeil am nol disposed to think il should he e.xer- cised under the circnm-tances of this caiieil to Mipply it. I.imznn \s. Ciiii,ioissiiiil,V. C. isiHI, '. Ji. C. .).;•!). 2. Tlic ilelitor of an Hiinienlary pension, coinleiiineil alone l(] pay it, lias a ri;;lit to sue any i tliei' pai'ty ecpially liali!e\vitli liilii- self, anil to cause liim (o he comieiiineii to pay his share oi' the pension ami of the costs alreaily incuireil. Lnhelle vs. LiibiUr, S. C. ISTd, i.-. L. C. ,1. Si. 3. Where four ilefemlauts, con- clenineil to pay an alimentary allowance to plaiiilill, are not alilo to pay a f;i'ealer sum than two dollars and lifty cents each per month, the court will not condemn them jointly and sever- ally for the ai/frre^'ate amount. Cfci-icr vs. CVcr/w, S. C. 1.S7T, !» !{. L. ;;l:; ; l.ihliiiii- vs. Li'lihiiii: S. (', is-s, 2:; L. c. .1. ID, 1 L. N'. tils. ,' 4. riie ol)lij.'alion l.i turnish alimeuls is indivisible, and therefore joint and ' several, savinmlie rij,'ht of action of tlie person ' from wlium alimenl is soui;hl ajxainst all who i inav in law he resiwiisihle with him for the ' * ■ • ■ I providing; of such alimenl. liiii the solidarilv i ceases where tlio-e who are olilijred, n,i loii^'cr ! have the means, 'j'liis i- a ■|iie.-tioii of fact, and cannot heraisedon deniiirrei'. ViiUiiaitte vs. y„/iij,(€/ti,^. C. ISS'I, M. L. K., I S. C. 120. 5. Alilion;:!i the oli',i;.'aiioii to furnish alimcnls is not indivisihle or joint and several, in the ordinary meaiiiii;^ ol the terms, yet the [lerson from wiiom aliment is sought has a right to call into tiie cause all who may he in law i-csponsihie with him for the providing of such alimenl. Maiitvilli vs. Corheil, 18811, M. L. K., .1 C^ H. 'JO, 18 R. L. :!0, ;i;) L. C. j! IT'J. 6. Howfulfllled.-(Ari.l7l C.C.) Where Ihe .'aljier deniaiiils in hin own name, and for himself, an alimentary pension, the Court cannot refuse to the child the option of receiv- in;.' his father in his house because llie latter has married a second wife, liiiiltiinit vs. Jiiii/iiiiiil, Q. H. 18S1, 28 L. ('. .1. 15.5, 12 |{. L. lis. 7. Where a feeliii;: e.xisti which would prevent a moiher-inlaw and iier daiij^htei'indaw from living harmonioiisly to- ;;ether, the mother-in -: v, who is bound to support her indi;;enl dau^hter-in law, will he held to pay her an aliiiKiilury pension, includ" i;i;; a provision for the education of her child. Miilliijuii vs. /'iillnsiiii, a. C. ISIKI, M. L. U , t; S. (". '2!t. 8. Tronsmissibility to Heirs.— A wiic, universal legatee of her Imsbniid, is not hound to pay an alimentary debt \\lii(di lier husband acknowledged to owe to a relative in his hfc. lime. )litllitti- vs. Liihi/i/ipi'. C. Ct. 1881), 12 L. N. 'JT. 0. But ill the case of a natural child claiming alitnentary allowainH', il was //('/(/ that al thought he dotendantsi II heii led their respective .shares before the Imlh of the child, the obligation ol the father for mainte. nance (Art. 210 C. C.) devolved upon iheni ns his heirs, and as having accepteil his suc- cession. The obligation in this re.spect wa.s not joint and several. Mathien.I. tlioiighl ihal the obligalionlo furnish aliment does not e.xlend beyond what Ihe heirs respectively have received from the succession. .I//7/r/- vs. Upiire, V. li. 1889. .M L. U., .-, .S. C. .ilti, li.i I,. ('. .1. 2sO. J-0. Jlci'il (reversing the judg- ment of Davidson ,1., -l Que. |S. C.l 117),— Theoliligation lo furnish aliment being (luiiid- ed on relationship, and the nature of the obligalion i:ot beuiL' chanirfd by the fact thai a judgment has heei, rendeied against i..,. debtor lo enforce its Inllilmeiil, ijie obli^iation is not transmitted to the heirs or legal repre- sentatives of the pcrfjii subject to it; nor does snch obligation, even when established by judgment agair.si him belore liis death, consiitule a charge on |,is estate. 7'iinier vs. Miilliiliin, (J. li. I,s;i4, ;; (^no. ,",2:i. VIII. i'AY.MKN'T (IF. 1. How Payable.-The payment of ali- mentary allowance to one imprisoned cannot be made l,y the cre.litor in American money. Sum-dte vs. Hciitl, S. C. Is.-.j, 4 R. .1. !t O 367, 5 L. C. R. ;i!7. ALIMENTS. 97 2. — — • — Alimentary nllowance awards! to a ilefeiulaiit arreHled under cnpidn ail respoHilenthim c«iinot be paid in Ainericuii gold doll-irn. BtMmenu vs. MilUr, 8. C. 1808, 2 I.. C. J. 189. 3. . — Nor in English coin defaced or Htftni|)e(l (liy lieiiditij; orsluiiipiiii:). Wartier vs. Fysmi, S.'c, 2 L. C. J. 105. 4. When Payable.— An alimentary allow- ance, ."tipiilatvd as the consient and future needs, and where a per.=on bus a ri;;hi to demand an alimentary allowance, but 'Xintinues a certain time with- out claiming it, he can only claim it for the future and nut for the period prior to making the demand. W/ielan vs. Whelan, S. C.lSlt;), ;i Que. 412. 4. But while .«uch is the rule, the Court may, in its discretion, ante-date the pension — for instancc,where the motlier of an illegitimate child is suing for an allowance for its support, and the Court may grant arrears for a sliort l)eriod during which it is proLable the mother has contracted ilebts for tliis purpose. I'ois- sunt vs. JUiriet/c, Q. B. 187'J, .3 L. N. 12. 5. Increase of Allowance.— Where a person to whi lu iiliniiiit-- iredue compromises with his (.^hior aiU'r liaving taken action againntliim to recover an alimentary allowance, and accepts a fixed annual sum, he cannot subsequently sue his detitor for an increased allowance unless he claims and estaldishest that his position bits since change.l and that his needs have increased since the dale of the compromise. Coiilomhi; vs. Xadmn, Q. H. 1S88, I'J R. L. :)74. 6. Married Woman.— A wife who has obtaineil separation from her husband iK'canse hetailtd to maintain her properly, and because hisconduct rendered it unsafe for her to remain with him, cau sue him, or (in the case of his in- terdiction) his curator, for an alimentary allow- ance, and that independentiy ol' her f'cciurse in an action for separation from bed ami boani. Sumnoii vs. Lcmeliii, S. C 1890, 2 Que. 190; lieawlri/ v^. Sfarne.% 2 Que. (S. C.) :t9(; ; Collloll\■>^. Chtrke, Q. H. 1872, 2'. L. C. .1. 9(i ; reversing C. R., ;f R. L. 418, l.l L. C.J. 2C,\\ ; Liicliiipelle v«. lifiiwliiin, S. C. 1878, 1 |j. N. 581; llnghcs vs. /.Vev, S. C. 1880, W L. N. 220. 6a. . — (AuTs. 175 and 202 C. C.) If a husband turn his wife out of duors, she can maintain im aclnni I'ui' alimentary allow- iince. Chamlaiidxi'- J there with him, .; .1 a tit and proper residence, and with support and mainlenance according to his means, the wife may sue the husband for mainlenance sinijily. Conlon \i^. Clarke, Q. B. 1872, 25 1.. C. J. 91). 9. .—Infidelity of wife— Sepa- ration. — Where the judgment maintains a demand for separation from bed and bjard, based on the desertion of the husband and liis refusal to support his wife, the inlidelity of the wife does not deprive her of the right to an alimentary allowance. Desmnrais vs. Gacjnon, 1887, M. L. R., 3 S. C. 377. ^0. — ^ . — A wife sued in an action en separation de corps, who has no means of her own, has a right to a provisional alimentary allowance, although she is guilty of adultery. Sabourin vs. Fortln, S. C 1887, 16 R. L. 5G ; Nunensynski vs. Pilnik, S, C. 1893, 3 Que. 63. It li i '' -t r t\ 't i' ':M !!' i Hi I * ^1- 98 ALTMKNTS. ■I ri 11, . — Amount of. — Tlie amount of will he rogiiluted on ihe fortiini' of • he liushiinii ami of ilie couditioii of life of (he pnrlios; nud v/herv ilic aiijoiint iiwnnled liy the Court of (Ii'mI iii-liuice in cxcpHsive, it will he rediuied in iippciil. Garcaii vh, Vincent, g. n., June, 1875, 1 2 . — £Soct of Beoonci- liation.— Where a husband xeparoted judici- ally from hix wife grantH her by deed an ali- mentary allowance, their Hubsequeut reconcilia- tion renders the deed ofnoeilect. Smil/i vf. Davis, q. li. 1893, 2 Que. lO'J. 13. .—During Pendency of Action. — Where a ]ietinon was jtresented for an alimentary allowance duriiij; the pendency of an action against an executor lo account, the court granted the allowance, notwith- Btanding the declaration of llie executor that he had no funds in his iiamls. Ilarl vs. .)fol- ton, S. C. 1851, 4 L. C. H. 127, 4 R. J. R. Q. 106. 14. . — A wife has a right to an alimentary allowance during the pendency of action ag'iinst her for separation from iied and l)oard, even where she has sued her husband in the Criminal Court for refusing to main- tain her. XiiueusynslJ Yf. Piliiik, S, C. 1893, 3 Que. (;3. 15. . — Where in an action for reparation as to bed and board, an order for an alimentary allowance in favor of tiie wife having been given during the pendency of the suit, the parties come together again, and again separate, an action by the wife for tlie allowance is bad without |)roof of cause for the second separation, llced vs. livbiiisoii, S. C. 181)4, 9 L. C. J. 103. 16. — — — . — An alimentary allow- ance will not be granted to a wife during the ficndency of an appeal from a judgment re- jecting a petition for separation as to Led and toard, Villencuvc vs. licdurd, Q. ]}. 1870, 2 R. L. tJ2(!. 16a. Minor.— A minor cannot compel his father t(j pay liis board when lie ia earning enough him.scif to pay for it. Vdllette vs. LcbKui; C. C. 1874, 6 R. L. 25. \Qh. Natui'al Child.— AitT. 240 C. C — Ikld (reversing the decision of the Superior Cou't, G 1j. N. l.'i,3), where a claim was made by a natural son aged 25, against Ihe curator of liis mother, an unmarried woman, and an interdict, for an ahnientary allowance, and it appeared tiial the mother was possessed : of ineann more than sufficient for lier main- tenance, that the son was entitled to a reason- able allowance, especially in view of the fact tliat such allowance might be paid without trenching on the principal of his moliier's fortune, or interfering with Ihe rights of the plaintill's minor children. Francis \a, Cle- ment, C. It. 1883, 6 L. N. 194. lec. . — A natural child has no recourse against the relations of his mother or father for alimentary allowance, but he has a recourse against his father and mother, and his claim against them forms a debt of their succession which he can claim in preference to all heirs or legatees. Miller vs. Lepiire, C. R. 1889, M. L. R., 5 8. C. 34G, 33 L. C. .1. 280. 10(1. .—The right of a natural child to recover aliment from his father be- longs exclusively to the child, and cannot be exercised by Ihe mother in her own name (I) .Vulliii vs. Jioi/ic, C. R. 1893, 3 Que. 34. 16e. . — A natural child cannot sue his putative father without having him legally declared tu be his father. (2) (/fc.) 16/. .— The U.^fendant, father of an illegitimate chilil, bad beei condemned to pay an alimentary pension for the support of thecliild until it attained 14 years of age. At Ihe age of 17, tiie child, a girl, being of weak intellect and unable t<> support herself, the mother sued as tutrix for an alimentary pen- sion often dollars, to begin 5 months prior to the institution of the action. Judgment went for the plaintiff and in appeal the following reasons were urged: 1st, that the tutorship of the mother was not registered ; 2nd, that appellant ought to be tutor, and was willing to take charge of the chihl and to place her in an asylum ; and 3rd, that in any case he could only be conde?nned to pay aliment from tlie insiilutiou of the action— //cW, dismissing the appeal on all these points. I'oissantVi', Bar- rct(e,Q. B. 1879, 3 L. X.12. 17. Person arrested on Capias.— Art. 790 C. p. C— A defendant imprisoned unde.' a, capias ad respondendum has a right, if he be a pauper, to obtain an alimentary allow- ance from the plaintili'; or each plaiiitilF if there be more than one. Killonin vs. Waters, S. C.1885, 11 Q. L. II. 18; Warner vs. Tyson, S. C. 1858, 2L. C. J. 105. (1) KhHi.ilinrouqli \n. Poiiiiil.-i Q. L. K.ll ; liiloiliau xs.'lri'mhlay, :) U. 1,. 41.) ; I'atnine vs. A.swmrain, I J.. C. li. .1. rm Vimtm, criticized. CJ) Girou.c vs. Ili'lnrt, 5 li. I.. 439, Cnnlr^i, criticizol. APPEAL 99 18. . — Ami the some wii^ lield in tlie case of ii ptrson who has mode an nbaticlnntnent of liis property to liis ciwiitorH, nlilioii^^h il in estubliHlicil thai lie had secreted from his cre, will be mtil piiyment of tlic! nmount dc- luaiidod has a right to an alinuntary allow- ance. Cote v.-. Vermctfe, S. C. 1883, 9 Q. L. R. ;uo. ANIMALS. I. CoSTAGlOl'.S DiSKASES AcT. II. Cruei.tv TO— Sec Tni.i-; "Cruei.tt TO AXI.MAI.S." III. Damaoks by— .See Titles "Damages" — "Neglioence." IV. FEiiociors Ani.mai.s. V. PuEsciMPTiox OF Claim for Care of. VI. Retention' of, for Damages. VII. Straying — (And see Title " Rail- roads.") VIII. Wii.n— Proi-erty in. I. CONTAGIOUS DISKASES ACT. R. S.Can., ch. 69. IV. FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. See Art. from Lim Journal in 13 L. N. 313. V. PRESCRIPTION OF CLAIM FOR CARE OF. The claim of a former for the care and food of onimals left in his charge is prescribed in five years. Jjcfebvre vs. Pronlx, C. R. 1880, G Q. L. R. 2G9.' VI. RETENTION OF, FOR DAMAGES The owner of a farm, who, under the author- ity of Art. 4 17 of the Municipal Code, has im- pounded animals found straying or trespassing on his premises, has no right to retain them for the payment of damages which he pretends to hove been done by such animals on previous occosions, Smilk vs. Brownlec, C. C. 1687, 10 L. N. 405. VII. STRAYING. When pn animal straying lias been put in the pound, the owner of the animal cannot claim it without first ofFering to pay the fine and damages incurred. And if he wishes to re- vendicate the animal, he must renew his oiler and pay the money into court, lirosseau vs. Brosseau, S. C. 1885, M. L. R., 1 S. C. 307. Vin. WILD-PROPERTY IN. Any one hunting a wild animal is held to hove the fir.st claim to it, so long as the hunt continues, and any other person interfering with the pursuit and apjiropriating the animal is bound to pay the value of it to the party who commenced the hunt. Chnrlebois vs. Raymond, S. C. 18G7, 12 L. C. J. 55. (1) Intliiscane a guardian. APPEAL. (rt) From Recorder'^ Court in Matters of Assessment. (b) To Privi/ Council. (c) To Quean's Bench. (d) 'To Supreme Court. See also. — Arhitration. " Elections. " Criminal Law. •' Review. " MiNicu'AL Corporation. it tfl "'fi- r I '■-^"■Jij'^ji^m'" i »if i ^"rn?- iOO APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. (a) APPEAL. Prom Recorder's Court in Matters of Assessment. Aft. 67 Vic. (Que), ch. 49, provides fur aj)|)eiils to till' Cdiirt of Review in such iimlterf, "In ill! cii-^es iirjiroceediiifrs, wiieii tiieiiinoiiiit in diHpute relates to one or more iiiMniciiiiii or Kcliool •axes, or assessments, exceeding: in all the sum of ^500. tliere sliall l;e an iippeal from iho final decision (if an . Recorder or Hecorder'ei Court to the Superior Court silting in review." (b) APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. I. Dki.ay to ArrK.M.. 1-5.— (See also infra. No. XI. 2 4.) II. GuoixD.s or— CiiANGi: of. III. IlUtK(;il..llt AlM'K.VI.. IV. NOTKS (IK JCDOKS. V. OU.II-.CTIOXS liAlSI-:!) IN Ari'KAI. FOKFIKST Tl.MK. VI. PiiiNTiMi l{i:i-oiU) Koi; P.C. VII. PitOVISIONAI. Ev!:( ITIO.V OF JlIKiMKNT Fol! Al.I.MKXT. VIII. PliOCKKniXCS llKFOliK Q. B. AFTKIt Arl'KAI. TAKKN. l-;{. IX. QiKSTioxs OF Fact. 1-,3. X. Ql ESTHIXS OF FoliM AM) PliACTICE. XI. Skciiutv. Di.siirowHl hi/ one of several Parties lo anil. 1. Dehdj for giving. 2 4. For ('tisln onlji, etc. 5. Increanc of. (i. 1, r(i/ii!iirit!/ in Appeal Hand. 7-8. Liatiilitij of IJeiiosit fur Costs in ('i)url liihiH\ II. A'td' ■'^iciirit;/. 10. Seiznre of. 11, XII. M'llKX IT I.IFS. -l/'/'Ci 'altle Value. Inleresl on Judgment. 1-3. Inlere,-t added lu Amount demand- ed. 4o. Where determined hy AmonnI of Judgment ajipealerl from. 6-10. Capiin. 11. Coercive Imprisonment, 12-13. From Siijiivmi; Court. 14-10. Fufire Uiijhts. IG-IS. In Election Ca.ies, 1!).21. In Insolvcniij M.'Hirs. 22-23. hijunr'i'iiii. 2 I li.i. Into ("I icori/ .lii'ijinent. 2G. Interlocutory Judgment dismissing Demurrer. 27. Iniprohation. 28-29. Judgment setting aside Verdict of special Jury. 30. Judgment ofQ.B. rejecting Appeal to Q.n. 31. Leave to Appeal rescinded. 32. Mandamus. 3.3. Opposition. 34. Prohibition, 35. Quo Warranto, 30. Special Leave. 37-43. Sum payable to Her Majesty. 44. W/icrs Leare has already been granted to Appeal to Supreme Ct. 45. Writ of Error. 4G. I. DFT,A3f TO APPEAL. (Am. 1181 C. C. P.). 1. The 'lie I'mitiiig llie period of a|>peul to the Privy Council, though usually adhered to, is not imperative. The parly complaining of delay sjuiuld not himself lie hy and lie ii'udty of delay ; if lie iloes so, he has no claim to he heard. The iipjical may he allowed to proceed on snllicieni cau-( -hown. St. Liini.'< vs. ^7. Loui.<. P. C. lt?;i<;, 1 Moore 143. 2. Where leave had licen gr;int'.'il to ap|ieal (o the Privy Council, ami a ,'.ip\- di' ijn ncord had h.'en Iransniitled \iv ] ..-i uiihin ihc ichiv reipiired, hi; t the i-rriiliiati iii|uireO 1 '. (.', S. L. C. cap. 77, -i( 53, thai a; peal la.l Ijeeii loiiged i,i]d proccriliui: ha I li.nvon heli.c iji," Privy CoiiiH-il had not Ixiniilcd wHIiiilhat delay— //(■/en lodged in the Privy (.Vaineil, the Coif.t cannot order the Protlionotary of ihc Cipurl helow to return the record. Breio- ::ter vs. Chapman, Q. B. 1870, 20 L. C. J. 295 ; Burton vs. Young. Q. B. 1871, 1 R. C. 248, 4. The oidy pcntilly which the failure to jiroceed on an appeal to Her Majesty it. Ilc'r Privy Council for more than six months after seeuri'y lias heeii given can entail, ir the exe- cution of the judgment ajijiealed from. Mer- AtPEAL TO PEIVY COUNCIL. 101 e/iimts Bank of Canada vs. Whitfield, Q. B. 188.% 27 L. C. J. 183. 5. \Vlioro]H'riiiissi(in tolii'iiijianiipiK'al to tlie Privy Council \!> ^rmnti'il, tlu' iip|H'llant must pnicccj witli liis iipiiciil williiii six months, oiiicrwisc cxc-'utiiin ijiay issue. But tlie Court refiis il to declare tlie appellautdepriveil of his riiilit to proceed witli the appeal to the Privy Council; in 'iew of the circumstances of this case. Allan vs. Pratt, Q. B. 1887, 32 L, C. J. 57, M.L. R.,3Q. B. .■?22. II. GROUNDS OF— CHANGE OF. When a ]iiirty olitains leave to appeal fm a ccitain important (pu'stidn of law, lie will not lie permitted, at the hearinjr on the merits of the appeal, to arjiue that the a)ipeal turns on acpiesiion of fact. Corporation of St. John vs. Cmtral Vermont, P. C. 1889, 14 App. Cas. r,!)n. III. IRREGULAR APPEAL. Where an appeal to the Privy Council has lieen irrefrularly allowed hy the Queen's Beneh, liiil liolhsides havi'a|i]ieared and Jileaded their case, the Privy Counei! may frrant leave to suspend the v'ase in onter to allow the ajijiel- hint, lime to present a special ap|ilieation for leave to appeal. Sancageau vs. Gaiit/iier, P. C. 1874, 5 R. L. 602. IV. NOTES OF JUDGES IN. The Lords of thi' Privy Conneil will refuse to lake cognizance of the iio(e> of a JiidL'e of the Court of Appeal, n here they have heeii finiiished III a jiarly afU-r judgment wilhonl having lieen Iransiiiilled to the regi,-lrar, <'on- foniialily In llie rule of 1815. liic/ier vs. Vci/rr, P. C. 1«T4, 5 R. L. 5'Jl. V. OBJECTIONS RAISED IN APPEAL AND NO r ARGUKI) IN COl'RT OF ORIGINAL J DICTION. Ill an insurance case carried from the ("ourt t Ap)ieal to the Privy Council, it wa- de- cidcl that eal has heeii rendered, declaring that certain rents, which had heen attached, were really "aliments," and " unseizahle," the party in whose favor siudi judgment lias lieen renihri'd cannotolilain a\ order toexecute the judgment jirovisionally, if permission to apjieal to the Privy Council has heen granted MoUoi) vs. Carter, Q. B. 10S3, 7 L. N. 292. Vin. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AFTER APPEAL 1. No proceeding can he had liefore the Court of Queen's Bench, after the certiticate of the Privy Council has lieeii lulged with the (derl: of the Coii'-t that the niipeal to the Privj' Council stands referred to the Judicial Com- mittee. Brown ^ s. The Manor, etc, of Mont- real, Q. B. 1875, 19 L. C i. 140. 2. When a case is hefore the Privy Council the Court of Queen's Bencii will not interfere, and so a motion to have a hail hoiid set aside for irregularity will be dismissed. Miiir vs. Milir, Q. B. 1871, 1«L. C J. 112. 3. The Ce a jiidL;- [ meni on (pu-ilions of fact, only when liicre are ' very >trong r<'asons which e-lalilisli clearly thai the Court helow was wrong. Griicel vs. Martin, P. C, May 5, !,s76. Beauchamp'd P. C. p. 108. 2. An appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada will it he allowed where the onlv issue raised is one of fad. faiiaila Central Ihj. Co. vs. Miirrai/, P. C. l8s;!, 27 L. C. J. Iij3, 8 A|ip. Ca-^. 575. 3. Where there have heen concurrent lindings of fact hy the judges hidow, the (piestion in appeal is not what conclusiuns their Lordships would have arrived at if the matter had for the first time come hefore them, hut whether it has been estuhlished that the judgments of the n i s*. v^. '•fW- ■ \ I i ClliJ f 5 aj !:: !:^i; 102 APPEAL TO PEIVY COUNCIL. judges k'idw we.'c clearly vroii;^. Allen vs Qutbec Warehouse Co.,'?. C 1886, 12 A\^[>. Cue. 101. X. QUESTIONS OF FOR.M AND PRACTICE. •'Their Lorii.-liips would lie.-itate very iiiiieli to interfere wiili tlie uimniinoiis jiul^Mnent of llie Cdurt lieiiiw upon a matte:- uf tl.is kind, whicli is to lie rejrarded as u matter of jircice- dureonly, vinless they were clearly sati^^lieii that the Court had made u ;.'reat mistake in the con-lruetion j)iit upon tiieir statutes." Boston vs. Lclih-re, P. C. 1870, 2 Moore N. S. 427. XI. SECURITY FOR. 1 . Disavowal by one of several Parties to suit.— Where several jiarties acting jointly us executors have licen allowed to appeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council, and one of them disavows the act of the attorneys of record, api)lyinj.; to p. it in security for them jointly, and refuses to partiei])ate in the i)ro- ceinlings inapi)eal, the ajiplication so to put in Fecurity will lie rejected. Muir vs. Muir, Q. E, is70, 15 L- C. J. 79. 2. Delay for giving.— A jiidge of the Court of Queen's Bench has power in Cham- bers to extend the delay for giving security on an ai)peal to Privy Council lieyoud the delay ordered hy the Court, as that within which security must he given, whenever he is seized of the matter prior to the exjiiration of such delay ; and, on security heiiig put in within such extended e staved until after the hearing and determin- ation of the rule." Ordered that the petition he allowed as to the offer of .security, remain- der njectcd, with reserve of sill rights to res- pondent. Brewster vs. Lamb, Q. P. 1880, 3 L. N. 75. 4. Where ajipellaiit iiegleeted (o apply for leave to apjical to the Privy Council during the same leriii, his lawyer lieing ahsent when judgment was rendered, hut was allowed to put in security for su(di appeal during the fitteen days afterjiidgment—//e/(/,disinissing a motion to that ertect, that the record would not be remitted to the ('ourt below for execution. Brewster vs. Lumb, Q. B. 1880, 25 L. C. J. 210, 3 L.N. 109. 5. Security for Costs only— Execution for Condemnation Money.— Where a p;ut;, ai)i)ealing to the Privy Council has given security for costs only, and has filed a declara- tion that he has no objection to execution issuing for the coiidt innation money, the Court will not allow the ri-cord lo be remitted to the Court helou, in order to enforce such execu- tion. I'ainchaud vs. Jliulon, Q. B. 1870, 15 L. C.J. 112. 8. Increase of.— Upon [lelilion of the res- pondent, the sum ordered to be deposited for respondent's costs w;is increased, on aecipuiit of the length of the Iransei'ipt of I he proceedings I in the court lielow. BoswcIIm'. Kilborn,V. {]. I 18G0, IS Moore 4TG, 7 L. C. J. 150. • 7. Iri-egularity in Appeal Bond.— 'i'lio respondents serveda iKptice upon the ap|iellant8, that the.\ would put in security lor appeal to the Privy Council on the 18th of August in the jiidgis' chambers in the court house. Security was not jiut in on that day, but notice was gi\en later on the Saturday that sec irity would be entei'ed in chaiubers on Monda\ . Security was jiiit in that day, not in chambers, but at the judge's house, one of the sureties signing the homl ii. the forenoon and the other in the afternoon — IhhJ, on motion to set aside the bond for irregiilai'ily and want ot suflicient notice, that the l"Cid must remain, but allow- ing the |iarlies moving to make such objection to the snllieieiiey of the security as they might legally have made when such secui'ity was put in. Gihb vs. The Beacon Fire & Life Assur- ance Co., Q. B. 18G0, 10 L. C. R. '102. APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. 103 8. Irregularities of Bail Bond.— Aft ir nil appi'al 1ms been allowod to Her Majesty, in Her Privy Council, this Court onnuot net asiJu the liail liond f. Mc- ^auDlituii, (.11. 187(J, 21 l". C. .J. 192. XII. WHEN IT LIES. I. Appealable Value— Interest on Judgment. — In an aclion I'^r nonpcrform aiuH' of contract, wlierc the xcrdict driven was fir a sum less that X;)()0 slcrliiiLS the Court (if Appeal refused leave to appeal to Enj;lan ajijical, ami made up the i.'5O0 by adding in- terest and costs Id the iirinci|ial amount de- manded by the action. Sec remarks of Dorion J. in Stanton vs. Home Insurance Co., Q. B. 1871), 2 L. N. ;!14. 5. In thisca-^e, however (Stanton vs. Ins. Co., 2 L. X. ;U4), the Court tVdlowed Voyv vs. lUrlter as d'cided by the Q. B. in 2 R. L. 241. 6. When determined by Amount of Judgment appealed from.— In deter- mining the quesiicin of the value (jf the matter in dispute, upon whicdi the right of a p]ieal de- pends, the correct coursi; is to look at the judirnu'iit as it allccts the interests of the jiarty who is 'ir(judiced by it, and who seeks lo re- lieve himself from it by an appeal. MucFur- lane vs. Lcclair, P C. 1802, L. C. J. 170, 15 Moore 1'. C. 181. 7. In determining whether an ap- peal lies to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council Irom a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, thejudgnient is to be lookdl at as it allccts Uie interest^ of the party who is jircjiidiced by it, and who seeks to relieve himstdf from it by aji- peal ; and so, wliei'e the appeal was by the defen- dants from a judgment condemning them lo |iay !{!l,100 damages, it was Jhlil that the appeal was iiicompeli'iit, though the amount demand- ed by the action exceeded .i.'500 sterling. (1) Allan vs. Pratt, P. C. 1888, 15 Q. L,. R. 18, 32 L. C. J. 278, 18 App. Cas. 780, 11 L. N. 27.'!. tl) See Appeal toSiipreineUt.ainl toQiiefiii'BlSi'iioli, '- i.t 4.. •;' I:' J i. 'ti li ^l S!' 'l« * , s" 104 APPEAL TO PPJVY COUNCIL. 8. Tlicrc iiiiiy lie (■ii>c.- in wliicli lie ifii|in^]uit i\ final jiid.L'iiient within Art. 1178 C. C. P. Gr,hlfi))i) vs. liiiiKjiic il' Horlielaija, P.C. ISSO, L. K., 5 App. Cas. .'171. (KcversiiiL' Q. 15., 2 L N. 2:!2.) Muhon vs. C.irta; P.C iSso, Novh. 27. IJeachanip's P. C. p. 10."). 12. Coercive Iiiprisonment. Ar.r. 1178 C. 0. P.— There is no appeal to tiie Prixy Council from a judL'menl for a -iim of $40, allhou'ih in default o| paviceni of such jud,Lrmeiit the respomienl was Mihjected lo coercive imprisonim ni uiiiil such time a.'' such jud^rmenl would hes.atislied. Parainl \>. Ufn/, Q. W. isiic, k; I;, c. ii. :!;»<. 13. — Cnler Art. 1178 C. C. P., i p- )ieiil li<'s .(.V iif' liijht from a jiid^ineiil of the Court of Queen's Hench foi- l.ourr Canada n the mailer . fa penally of impri-onnieiil . But :-peiial lea\e wa;' in this case ticantcd (in til.' ,L;r ■iind of the iuiportance ot llie(pies- tion lit issue, dirli'r \~. Mnlsmi, P. C. \h^?,, 27 I;. C. ,1. ].'i7, .-^ App. Cas. ,•,;!(). 14. From Supremo Court.— There is no appeal ilr iilmm fiMiii llie Siipi'eiiie Coiirl !o the Pli\y Col III il. And in the p:'e-i'ii I cas|. in\ .il\ iiiL' the pax - itieni ot' taxes hy a reliLnoii^ in-liliition, s|i(.rial leaxc to appeal was not a I low id. Citijof Maut- rcal yri. Scminari/ ol' SI. Siilpice, P. C. 18.^'.), 12 L. N. 28i,;{.'f'L.'c. J. 21;!. 15. Appeal from Supreme Ccnrt will not he alloxved on ()uestioiis of fact. Canada Cmlral h'l/. Co. vs. Murray, P. C. 1883, 8 App. Cas. 675, 27 L. C.J. KiH. 16. Future Rights. — An anniml rent (jf $11.28 xvas sold for $-l5('), iiayahle in ten ei|ual yearly instalments, and the liiinl xvas hypo- thecated to secure payiiieiit of the aimmiit. HcUl not tu he "titles to lands or teiienieiits, annual rents, or other matters in xvliich the riidits in t'uture of |iarlies miiy ho iiHcctcd." Sauvar/rauv!'. Gaul/iii'r, P. C. 1874,5 R. L. 002, J.. R., ■>?.c. m. 17. All appeal will not he L'ranted to the Prixy Council from a jiidt-'mciit of the Qiieeii"s Bench, maiiitaiiiiiij: an action to re- coV(.r an amount of assessnicnls illeiiiilly ex- acted, xvliere the matter in dispute does not exceed .tTiOO sti;., and the fact that the ndl under xvhicli the assessnieiits were collected iiiifrht exist for three years ilocs not hriuj^ the case under Art. 1178C.C. P., especially xvhere the total aiiioiinl for the three years would he under fodO stj;. Lus.'inr vs. Corprir'itioil of Ifor/ield'ja, Q. \i. 18S0, ;{ L. N. IIOI). 18. Where the action involved tlie point as to xvliether a railway company is (ihli;:eil under 11 and 15 Vic , c. 51, to construct crdSsiiiL's for eaidi siihdivision of a farm — //'-/(/, thai altliou;ili the amount of the action was t'or §1 10, future riL'hts were involxcd, and iipp(.al to Prixy Council alloxvid. CVc. du Grand Tnair \<. Jtuard, Q. B. 18i»2, 1 Que. 501. 19. In Election Cases.— The apiiellaut a-lvid leaxr to appeal t'rom a iuiliiiiienl ot the Superior Conn, xvhicli declared his election as memlier ot Parliament of the Proxiiice of (^leliec null and xnid. and their Lordships, for the rea-r.iis niciitioiieil in tli(. cas(., ret'iised the a|iplicali.iii. y7/«'/;cy(/exs. Laiidri/, P.C. ISIW, 2 App. Ca<. 102. 20. In a contested eleiiio,i ease the cnn-litutiiiiinlily ot' the L)iiiiiinioii Contested I'.lciiiiiii- Act. I.''i7l, was called in ipiestioii. The ciiiins of the Province of Qiiehec, as also the Silpl'eme ('oiirl of Cana la, after aide and e\liaii-tixc ari:iimeiits, (Iccided in t'avorof the con>titiiliiinality, ami there heiiij;' iiothiuji- to shoxv that the juiIl'cs of the Diiiiiiniini xvoiild rcfi'-e to act in accordance xvitli tlieJiiilLriiienls of till • coiii'ts, leax'c to appeal to llu' Privy Council xvas refused. ( '«//« vs. LauijloLi, P. c. i>7;),:! L. N. ;t8. APPEAL TO PPJVY COUNCIL. 105 21. Till' Jiiilii'ial Cinimiillcc will not ftnuit leave tii iijuieal, a.-i an act of frnico, on Hpeeiiil apjilication, in the matter of ecintested election.-'. The Canadian >'tatiite li.ivini; a])- jK^iinteil for those <'ontestation.i ti s])eeiul tri- linnal with a npeeinl jmieediire, and declared Iliiit the jndi:nient of the Supreme Ccnrt of Caiiiiila shall he final, it is clearly the inten- tion cl'lhe Parliament to contine the decisions locally within the Colony itself. Kennedy vs. Pwrell \\ C. 1888, 32 L. C. J. 250, u9 Law Times (N. S.) 279. 9,2. In Insolvency Matters.— No appeal lie- to (he Privy Council, from a final .jud^- )rirnt of the C( lu't of Queen's Heneh in a ]irnccedinv' under the Iiisol\-enl A<'t of 1875, since the passing: <>f the Dominion Statute 40 Vic, ch.ll. 7iV«Hyvs. Mi^ai, Q. B., 23 L. C. J. 2()2. 23. The iludicial Committee held that the Dominion Governnient had power to take away the ri^rht of appeal Je phino to the Privy Council in matters of Insolvency. CuHhinij vs. Duiniij, P. C. 1880, 24 L. C J. l.-|l, .') App. Ca<. 40b. 24. Injunction.— On an injunction to res- tiain the Government of Quel ice from interfer- injr with respondent in his possessi(ai of a rai'- road — Held, that ajtpeal would lie from tnc Qutcn's lieiich to the Pi'ivy Council. July vs. Mard'jnM, Q. 15. 1879, 2'l. N. 104. 25. An appeal lies to the Pi-ivy Coun- cil iVoni a judjiuieiil of the Queen's Bench dis- soUiiui an inlunctioii where tiie matter in dis- pute exceeds X.OOO si'.'. 7>//<(V vs. Board of Trnijionililii:.; etc, Q. IS. 1880, 3 L. N. 308. ' 26. Interlocutory Judgment.— There i- 1 ppeal lo the Privy Council IVom an inter- loculory judL;nienI which has .jom. ihron'j:h !ip| (111. LiK i-()i.r \ -. Moicau, Q. U. 1S()5, 15 L. C- K. I.s"), and It; L. C W. 180. 27. Interlocutory Judgment dismiss- ing Demurrer. — A ppcii I held not to lie. Si,iard\>. Tnirns(nd,ii. B. 185(1, (i L. C. 1{. 147.5 U. .1. R. Q. 4S. 28. Improbation.— An appeal I(j Her Majesty in Her Privy Council will not he ullowed from a juilLiinent of the Court of Q. B. conlirniinv' that rendered hy the Court liclow, which di^nii-'scd a proceediii}^ hy way of im lirolialion, such jud.Lnuenl not lieiu'i a linal one. J> s<'illedhy the naliircand '[Ualily of ihedcmand, and iiol hy the nialU i - set forth I in ihcoppii^iliori. Giii/y\>. Giii/y, Q. B. 1851, 1 L. C. li. 273,3 11 J.'ii. Q 9. " I 35. Prohibition. — .\ nioiias nut less than X500 sterling:, a petitiim for leave to appeal, in a cause wlieiv the sum was of less amount, could not lie received hy the Kin^' in Cnuncil, althoujili there was a sjK'cial clause in the Col- onial Act saviuL'tlie rijrhts and preniL'atives of the Crown. (\)CiiviUier vs. Aylwin, Privy ("uun- cil 1832, Stuart's Rep. p. 527, 2 Knajip 72. 38. An a|ipeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Ciinneil will healluwed hy Her Majesty in Herdiscretiim, on pelitiim tothal eH'ect, in cases wlieu' the Colonial Court of Appeidscnuld nut in ordinary course allow such appeal. Marois vs. Allaire, P. C. 1862, t; L. C. J. 85, 15 Moore 189. 39. On ap|ilicatiiiii to the Privy Coun- cil for special leave tn appeal frnm a jud^rineiU in Canada, from which an apjieal dues nut lie as of rit'lil, it will not he granted, in the alisence of .some misc;irria;re in piiiiit of law, or ^rross niiscarriajie Ml the Courts helow on the mailers of fact, and tliat in thcjiresent instance nu such misearria;:e wa- apparent. Muhnii \!'. Carter, ^ P. C. 1880, 3 L. X. 407, 25 L. CI. 99. 40. Xolwithstandinir that the rijriit to api)eal to the I'rivy Council is taken away hy the Diiminion Statute, the Queen, as an acl of irrace, can nevertheless allow such an appeal. Diipw/ vs. Cnshhuj,?. C. 1880,24 L. C. J. 151, 5 App. Cas. 409. 41. The.imouni at issue was under the a|ipealahlc \alue, the ohject of the appeal was tlie construction and effect of a private contrr.ct for the occupation of a pew in church. Leave to ajipeal refused. .Johnatmi vs. Minis- ter ami Trii.'iti'e.fiifSt. Andrew's C/inrcli, P. C. 1877, :? App. Cas. 159. (1) Crilicizi'dln .l/irroi.i vs. Allnirr. I'. V isii2 (.«w/,m No. .'iS) tlieii- Lordships iluclarinn tliat it diil -lot iei'ci?u tliat lull and deliberate coMsideratioii wlilcli Us great itnpurtaiicc demanded. 42. Speciid leave to appeal will not he ;:rantediiu theirround that the questions raised are of jrreat importance to the parties, or have attracted jiuhlic attention, when there i^ no jiciu'ral principle of law involved, and espe- cially when the apjiellant lias appealed to the SupremeCl. of Canada. Dumoulin y^. Lang- try, P. C. 1887, 57 L. T. (N. S.) 317. 43. Ijcave to appeal refused, the pov- erty of llu' respondent lieini: taken into cmisi. deration. Allan vs. I'ratt, P. C. 1888. 13 App. Cas. 782. 44. Sum payable ^o Her Majesty.— Miiliiin for leave loappeal to Privy Council, on the^'roimd that there wa- a ]iart of the sum payuhle to Her Majesty. Motion rejected, on the L'round that there was no issue us to the exigiliiliiy of the aucdonecr's tax. McLi'od v^.Masliam, Q. B. 1881, 4 L. X. 99. 45. Where Leave has already 1/een granted to Appeal to Supreme Ct.— Leave to appeal lO the Privy Council from a judj;- nient of the Court of Queen's Bench will be i.'1'anted, altlmu^rh the ojiposile party has al- ready ohtaincd leave to appeal tu the Supreme Court of Canada. Cifi/ of'X.)ntreal vs. Devlin, Q. B. 1S78, 1 L. N. 151,' 22 L. C J. 136. 46. Writ of Error.— There is no appeal de jdanii from a judgment u\' the Court of Queen's Bench, in appeal, in J.,iiwer Canada, i|uashijci a writ of error, on the gruuuil that tliei'e was no appeal from the judgment of the Court of first instance con lemning u practising attorney to pay a fine for contempt of Court. Where a fine is imposed, the remedy is to petition the Crown for a reference to the Judi- cial Commiltce, under the Statute 3rd and 4tli Will. IV, c. 41, S.4. 111 re Kanisay, P. C. 18'70, 7 Moore N. S. 263. (e) APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH.* I. Accil'IKSCKXCK 1\ JllXiMKNT . (SeO also Title " AcgiiioscKxci;,'') II. AlTllOlilZ.VTION TO. 1-3. III. ('OXSKNT OK P.VUTIKS TO RkVIMISAI, OK .IrilCMKNT. IV. Dkatii ok Paiitt. 1-4. '■■ .\its. llH-114tC. CI". Appoal to (). H. Imm Supurior Cniil iibro^'ated and repliu'cd liv ."it Vic, eh. 4S, sec. '.'. Of tlii-se articles No. Mill was HRiiiii luiuiidoil hy .".i; Vic, eh. 42, and No. 1I3-' bv 58 Vic, I'll, 47. .Arts. 114.) to lir,:i wciv iihrouiUcil hy ri4 Vic, ch. 4S, spc 4, siiiil sci'ti.iii di'i'liiriiinthiit pnn'cdiiri' on npiicnls frnia Circuit Court .should he the same as from .Superior Court. .. i APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 107 V. Delays in. VI. Effect of— ox Proi'kkty ix Dis- ITTE. 1-7. VII. EXQIETK IN. VIII. EllHOK IS' JlDGMKXT OF CoLHT Bki.ow. 1-8. IX. ExilIltlTS IX. X. Factum Ix. 1-3. XI. Ix Forma PArrKiiis. 1-4. XII. IXTKltVKXTlOX IX. 1-2. XIII. Judge ix Aiu'eai,. XIV. JiDiciAi, Oath. XV. Motion fok Lkave to Ati-eai.. 1-2 XVI. Motion to Reject Atfeai.. XVII. Paktiesto. 1-2. XVIll. Pi.EADixci— Waiveu— Recoud. XIX. PoSTI'OXEMEXT OF HeaIUNO. XX. Pitivii.EGEi) Cases. XXI. Puoceduke. XXII. Question of Costs. 1 9. XXIII. " " Evidence. 1-2. XXIV. '• " PRACTICE . 2. XXV. " " Damages. XXVI. Retuoactive Effect of Statute'*. 1-2. XXVII. RiiiHTs OF Party as to Legisla- tion Passed Subsequently to Al'l'EAL. XXVIII. Service oi' Apfeal. XXIX. Security in Aim'eal. Absence of Opposite Part}/. 1-2 Before Date Staled in Notice, ',i. Bond Kxeentcd by Error and S)ir]>rise. o-6. /}// Indian. 7. Bi/ Opposant. S-ll. Delny to put in. 12-lG. Execution of Judgment durinij Delai/ to Appeal. IT-l'J. ]n Action to set aside Deed of Donation. 20. In Action to Aeconnt. 21. In Action to Condemn Corpora- tion. 22. /" Conie.itation of Report of Distribution. 2.'i. In Hi,j)otliecanj Action. 24 25. New Security. 20 30. Notice. 31-33. Sufficiency of Afliciiivit. 34. Aiiieiiiliiient of lionl. 35. Althciinu' bond wus j;iveii. 3G. Deposit. 37. Ex('ci)tioii to. 38. Hvpolhec on real cstiile. 39. MotiiMi to dismiss Inr wiiut of. 40-41. New surctie.s 42-13. Oiu' surely. 44-45. Rei ' estate— Rcgistriilion. ■U\. Siipi'enie Court. 47. What uiiioiiiit sutliciciit. 48. Where to tic filed. 19. XXX. Sureties ix. Insolrency of surety. 1-2. Lialiility of. 3-11. Nature of suretyship. 1213. Who can become. 1 115. XXXI. When it Lies. From Circuit Court. Consolidation of appealable with non-ai)pealal'le. 1. Fee. >f Office. 2. Hypiithecai'v Action. 3. Irrejrniin'ity in proceedings ill Court liciiiw. -1. In Lessor nml Lessee case.?. 5-(). Under AL'ricultural Act. 7. Wlieie Evidence not in Wriiin.L'. 8-9. From Court of Ecriew. 10-14. Final Judi/nient- 151T. From two or three Judgments by one Writ. 18-19. From Jmhje in Chambers. 20-23. Frc7n Justice of the Peace. 24- 24«. From Judije in Vacation. 25- 25/>. From Interlocutory Judgment. Aliment to wile pending Suit. 2(1. Altering Del'eiidant"s pleas. 27. Decision at Eiii|Ucte. 28-.30. Decision of Arbitrators. 31. Delay to Appeal. 32-34. Demurrer. 35 43. Dischar;;in;: delibcrc until, etc. 44-45. Exception to tlieForin.4t]-50. m 108 APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. U I 1^ Expertise. .'A. Final and IiitcrliK'ulory .Imi^'tmnt. 52. ForccloHiire f(irNoiiA|i|)Piir- IIIU'C. o.i. Gmmiil-' (if. 54 5:). Iii-i ripliiiii ill Iiiiprobation. 5(1. Jmifriiu'iit rotri-riiiL' cafe to Roman Culliolic Bi-^lmp. .57. Jury Trial. 5800. Million torcji'i'tai'cimnt. (il. Order naming: Cmnmiissiiiiier.s in Expropriiitimi. (il((. Proof ordered before deeision of demurrer (12 (it. Piiicediire. (15. licjeclini: iimtion to unite cause.". ()(i. Sii.-^penpiiin of prneeedin^s to oliliiin leave toappi'iil. (17. Wliat is iin Interlocutory .luiJL'nient. G8. Grounds of. (iy-71. In M(dters of Habeas Carpun. 72. In FAectiiiu Ciisex. 7;i-7t, III Matters of Insiilvency. 75-.'<0. In Matters of Imprisountcnt. 8l-8:i. In Snininari/ Matterx. 84. In Qnasi Municipal Matters. K). In Municipal Matters. (See Municipal Cnrpdi'iition.) Ilcport of Distriliution. 8(1-S7. What Amount determines riijlit to apjieixl, 8S.;ili. Fiiiuie HiL'lils. 'JI. XXXII. Who May Ari'K.vi,. j eountry. Siecens vs. Fixk, Supreiiip Ct., 12 i Jan., i885,8L. N. 42 ; and 53 j Cussed' -^ Digest, j 2nd edit , lip. 235-237. I 3. Curator. — The curator to a person ' iiilerdicted cannot appeal from a judgment, until lie is autliori/ed by a judge, or the pro- I tlmnotary, on the advice of a family council ; ! hut he will he given a deliiy to procure the I aiilliorization,— the authori/ation of a tutor stands on a difti't'cnt footing to that of tlie wife. Clement vs. Frances, Q. B. 1883, 6 L. N. 325. I. ACQITESCEN'CE IN .lUDGMEXT. (8ee Trn.K — " .VciH'IKSCKXCE.") A volunliiiT )iiiymcni ot' a jinrtinn nf the judgment Hppenled fr ronstitntes ac(|uie.«- cenee, and the liiet miiy he estiihli-liMl hy iifli- davit. Charhimneau vs. Davis, Q. 13. ^875, 20 L. C. J. 1()7 ; See no IV. 3 inl'ra. III. CONSENT OF PARTIES TO RE- VERSAL OF JUDGMENT. Where the parlies, alter aiipeal had heen taken, consented that the judgment should he reversed— 7/e/rf, thai noUvithslanding siudi (■(insent, the Court was hound to confirm the judgment if the record sliowed that tlie judg- ment in iiuestiiin was well founded, and it was actually contirmed. McAndrews v.«. lioican, (j. B. 1871, 3 R. L. 439. IV. DEATH OF PARTY. 1. All appeal instituted in the name of a party who has died while the case wan en dclilierr in the Court lulow is null and void. Kerhy vs. Boss, Q. B. 1874, 18 L. C. J. 148. 2. A petition hy the alleged legal represen- tative of siicdi ilcceascd jiarly, to take n]i the proceedings, eaniiot he allowed. {Ui.) 3. Bill if the res|iiinileiit has Mn|iiieseed hy jniniiig ill the ]ircii'eeilinL's, alhiwing the assum|ition of the saniphy the representative.^ of tliedeceaci/.ur( — Ilchl, that the ajijical iiad the effect of tixinir all the proceedinjrs in the posi- tion they then were, and tliat conse(pieiitly a discharge could not he jiranted. Dcsjardins vs. Ouimd ., p. 288.) VII. ENQUfiTEIN. Proof will he allowed in order to take evidence to prove acipiiescence in the judgment of the Court hcdow. Jiirdan vs. Jdti', Q.B., .Sejit., 1875 ; Hotte vs. Champagne, Q. B. 1880, 25 L.C.J. 227, 2 Dorion Rep! 127. The Court of Appeal may order the adduc- tion of evidence and revise a ruling of the jndgo of (he lower Court jiresiding over the same on a iietition for the purpose ot taking up the pro- ceeding.s instituted hy another party dis(pm- litied for incapacity or otherwise. McKillid vs. Ktmntz, Q.B. i845, 1 Rev. de Leg. 152. Vin. ERROR IN JUDGMENT OF COITRT RELOV/. 1. A (derical error in the judgment of the Superior Court, hy which tlie defendant was condemned to jiay JE54 4s. in liiii of JEJO 4s., will he corrected hy the Court of Queen's Bench; and the judgment will he atliriiied, with <-osts against the iippellant, if, on the other grounds of appeal, the Court is against his pretensions. Lcry vs. Sponza, Q. B. 185s, L. C. J. 183. 2. Where a manifest error exists in thejudg- ment of the Court helow, aiiil the party who might cliiini the henefit of such error desists ilicrd'rom, hy a discontinuance filed in the jirothonotary's office and notification thereof .served on the opposite party heforo service of writ of appeal, sucii error will he held to lio eflfectually cured, and an a|iiieal, instituted for the mere purpose of curingsncb error, will he dismissed with costs. Brown vs. Wood,(i.}i. 1863,8 L. C.J. 53. 3. The Court of Appeal has no jiower to order a record to he remitted to the Court he- low, for the purpose of correcting an error in the copy of judgment, or to order the Court he- low to rectify such error. Sunhergya. Wihln. Q. B. 1884, '28 L. C. J. 126, 7 L. N. 108. Ki { f 'n f I 110 APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. tiri IX. KXHIBITS IN. A party caiinut file iti appeal ft (locument whicinviis not filed in tlic Ciiiirt iielnw. Do- rian vH. Champagne, Q. }). 1881, 2 Dorioii's Q. B. R. 196. X. FACTUM IN. 1. A Ciu'tuiii iiiuy lie tiled iil'ter the jireserilieil (leliiy, when teiidereil iit the time the oiijin^'ite party moves to dismiss. Dawson vs. Belle, Q. B. 1859, 3 L. ('. J. 256. 2. A fiictiini is not nupiired in nppenls from the ("ircnit ('curt, unless it he siieciiilly ordered, and the Cuurt will not make .sncli order uithnnt some caupe shown, andparticn- hirly on the |iart of det'enihint, the effect nf Piich order I einj; Id creiite a delay. Parties can always make a taclnm it' they desire it. Beamlct vs. Malwne,/, Q. B. 1878, 1 L. N. F>1d. 3. Uiion an a|i|ieal fnnn un interlocutory j\id}.'nicnt, any party may jirodnce and file a fnctnm, and il'snccesslnl, the cost of the same will li(> ta.xed and allowed. Bnt no delay can be irranted for the filing.' of snch factum. Tlwrniun vs. Tmdel Q- B. 1885, 11 Q. h. W. 216. XI. IX FORMA PAUPERIS. 1. Appeals cannot lie iirijujiht in forma pauperis to the Court of Queen's Bench. Ler/,nilt vs. Li-gatilt, Q. B. 186t;, 2 L. C. L. J. 10. 2. Motion for leave to appeal in forwapau- peris from an interlocutory judirmcnt main- taining.' a demurrer. Leave to appeal was gratited, lait no permi<'r.i waiitiiij; to coiniili'te liic record ciiiiiiot allcct the (|iu'Htioii of tlie rii.'littoapi>eal. Dubuc va. C/iainpaijnc, Q.li. l.'<74, 18 L. C.J. 224. XVII. PARTIES TO. 1, Tlic parlies itilcrestcd in the cotitestalioii arc alone to lie made parties to tlic appeal. De- intt vs. Jhirroii;//i.s, Q. B. 185,1,5 L. C. k. 70, 4 R. .I.H. Q. 2^.). 2. On an appeal all of the appellant's "op- po>ite ]iarty" in the Court lielow nuist lie niiide respoiuliiits. Brewster vs. Stariies, Q. n. 1874, 18 L. C. J. 1115. XVIII. PLEADING— WAIVER— RECORD. Held — that, in appeal, a party cannot in- viikc a waivir hy another party in the case, unless .such waiver liasliecn jiroperly pleaded. Alien vs. Merchants' Marine Ins. Co., .'Supreme Ct. 1888, M3 L. C, J. :il4. XIX. POSTPONEMENT OF HEARINO. .\pplication to have case jiostponed on ac- cinint of the ahseiice of one of the attorneys L'r;intcd on the uiuicrstaudiiiL' that it was not lii'c considered QS estahlisjiing a precedent. Cilizens Insurance Co. vs. Grand Trunk Hail- inii/ Co., Q. 13. 18.^0, 3 L. N. lii'.>. XX. PRIVILEGED CASES IN. The appellants ajiiilied to have their ease heard hy pri\ileu;e, on the jrrouiid that the aril. Ill had heen dismissed on a special pleading in ihe lower Conri reserving plaintiir.s re- ("ursc, and that unless the appeal was decided ilinin,L: that term the a)ipellaiits' recourse hy aiii'ther iietiiin wmild lie prescrihed. Appliea- linn lefu-eil. Merchants Bank v.s. Whttfiehb Q. 13. 1880, ;$L. N. 108. XXI. PROCEDURE. Mntidii to remit papers In Court helnw jiend- ii;-' ap]ieal in < rder to pmeeed with principal dduand, co]iies to he suhstituted in appeal. M.iiion rejected. Mills \^. Jfrtnv, Q. B. 1879, 2 L. N. 202. XXIL QUESTIONS OF COSTS. 1. Where the Court of Review has niorely reformed n judgment of the Siiiierior Court hy disallowing Ihe coiidemnaliori for I'osis, the Court of Qiieen'H Bench will not interfere with the discretion as to costs thus exercised hy the Court of Review. Bayard v.s. Martin, Q. B. 1878, 2.tL. C. J. 211. 2. Where an appeal involves merely a ([uestion of eost.s, the judgment will not, as ii general rule, lie disturhed. Muntrait \s. Williams, Q. B. 187i>, 24 L. C. J. 144: Anil see Rohland vs. lerguson, Q. B. 187(5, 8 R. L. 119, as to damages. 3. Esjiccially where it is only a ipiestion of rejiartition. Nadeau vs. St, Jacques, Q. B. 1887, 15 R. L. 2H2. 4. An appeal will not he enterluined on a question of costs, when the decision involves no (pieslion of princijile, hut depends on the mere I'xcruise of the discretion of the Court in the mailer of costs. Furroughs \^. Wells, 1887, M. L. R.,;3Q. B. 492. 5. An appeal will he entertained on a question of costs where the Court helow, in adjudicating on the costs, jirocccded upon a wrong )irinci|ile. McCartney vs. Linsley, 188r), M. L. R, 5 Q. B. 455. 6. Where the Court helow enunciates an I'rroncoiis priiuMple in the ailjiuliialion fif costs, the Court of Ajipeal will reverse the decision, although the apjieal involves costs only. Proiose vs. Nicholson, 1887, M. L. R., 5 Q. B. 151. 7. An appelliinl, who hy I'rnss a|ipeal in another case might have had the same jioint decided, will not he allowed the costs of a separate a]ipeal to the Privy Council. Gurjy vs. Brown, P. C. l.'^(17. 17 L. C. R. :!:!. 8. Proceedings du a secniid appeal will he suspeiiiled till the ensls of a previnus apjieal he jiaidj and if such costs lie not paid on a day certain, the secon,! appeal will he dis- missed with costs. Bouiicr vs. Revrc.t, Q. B. 18();i, 12 L. C. J. 291, 15 L. C. R. 405. 9. The Court of Queen's ]!ench sitting in appeal will not, as a gcneiiil rule, interfere with the award of I'o.-ts in the inferior Court ; aid where a judgment is eonfirmed as to the grounds or reas<)ns of judgment, the appellant may he condemned to pay costs on the appeal, thoiigh thejudgnieiit appealed t'roiii was hased on erroneous grounds. McClanaijhitn vs. 'Ihc SI. Ann's Mutual Buihlimj Sucicli/, Q. B. 1880, 21 L. C.J. 1C2. VI ii:i ! < ,11 iVi i\i mmm *■? "» ■<* " 112 APPEAL TO QUKEN'S BENCH. t XXIII. yUKSTIONS OF EViDKNCK 1. W iiTi' it in iiiil II inaili'i' uf ciiiilracl, iiik iKi line."!!'!!! cif law or |iriii('i|>li' in iiivolv and the cuff rcHdlvc.-' itHclf into a i IllTC (|lll'S- (ic(i) of apinwialiofi of cviilciiic, e. i/, as to the vuluf ot CUV ices, llic ("oiiil of Apptal will not ili.- the jiiil;:iii('Mi ol tlic ('oiiii liclow, iiiili'-'H a Hcrioiit* iiijii^lirc lia" lictii (lone to tlic appi'llant. SI- Lnwrfiiici' Stfiiii Ndv. Co. v.-', Lrmai/, IKH,-., M. L. li.. It Q, li. 21 1. 2. Wl ^ iilei piitlicliiii: anil cviMilv lialaiiccil (jiM ill liii" ca^'c ii^ to llic fxi.-'ttiiri' ot' tlif ili-casi' at tlir time of llic sale), llie Court of Appciil "ill not (iistnrli the ilcci>ion of the Coiii'l litlow. Mdiilriiil SIri'it llii. Cu. Liiid nail, \m\, M. L. H..OQ. n. vi: 3. Wlicri'llic case llinicil cntinly iipon llic 2' 'riio Court of Appeal oii^'lit not to inter- fere with riilin;;i on poiiilM of practii'e in the Court lielow. Lfjiinr vh. C'lmsoii, Q. U. 1872, Iti L. C. J. 2%. XXV. yUKSTIUN OF DAMAGES. The Court of Appeal will nut reverse t\ jiiilj.'nient. I ttu^e in ii (Icmaiiil for ilaiimne.s the (' hcl pw lia" ai'co rdeil n few dollars too iiii'ch. Miimliiii V.-. Quintal, Q. B. 1882, 2 Dorion'rt g. B. R. 175; JMihiii'l vs. />»•• l/iimm, Q. B. 187(1, 8 R. L. 11). XXVI. RETUOACriVK FIFECT OF STATUTl'lS. 1. Ti -lit of M'l niiiiial I H ''o\criied hv til evidence, the Court niinlc the followintr reiiiarkn as to the fuiiclions of the iieeii •■< Bend I in appeal such cases: J'er Curium, U is with L'real rejrrcl that we reverse a judj:- iiicnl on a niiitlcr I'f evidence. I'siinliy we do not do -o, when I'ithcr view of ihe evidence iiiav ill our opinion he fairly maintained, i veil nltlioii;.'li we niijiht incline to a view liflerent from thai taken. 1 de-ire particulari not (o he iiiisiindci'slooil in sayiiiL' this, for I . iii pei'- feclly i; Mire that the rule we follow has heen siili'^i 1 to soiiic inisconeeption in ditleiviit I 111." Ill <. We do not say that wc look Uj.on ;', d ■ -ion of the Court helow as wc shiiuld law in force at the lime proceeding's were eom- iiienceil, and not hy the law in for<'e at the date of judiinienl. Alhnilic ik Xnr/liU'iKl lii/. vs. romiiirillr.i'. U. I«i)(\:(l !.. ('..I. 241'. 2. Contra. Cif. du Cli. dr F,r de r Allan- liijiie an KonI Ouist vs. Descuriis. S. ('. 1H91, 21 1; 1,. 1114 ; Cii: dn ail. dc Fn- de I' Allan- liijiie an Xi,rd Oiicsl vs. .Indah.^}. \\. 181)1, L. r)27: Cie. du Ch.di: r,,di:l'All,tn- Niinl Oui:il vs. I'rud'inni. S. C. 1881). 20 It. titjUl 18 l{. 1,. 14.'!. (.S(l Al'I'K.U. — To SlIMlK.ME Ci.l IIT — KeTI ■UTIVl: EKI'KCT OK Al'I'K.VI, .'^T.VTM ES). ndiiii; of a verdict ■y a jurv, for ihai XXVII. KKilir.S OF I'AKTY AS TO l.KdlSl.ATION" SlIBSH(,n'i:NT TO Al'l'HAl.. i-ary. we are oliii^'cd to examine ami '; .\llhou;;h an act of the le^islalurc passt^il ■(■ llie proof. ]5iil we do iiol readilv afli r iiiilj;iiienl rendered in a Coiirl of orii:ilial III mere a|iprecialioii of the eviilt'ce. \ J.iri-diclion may allecl the rii'lils of a partv as a manifest error as lo our law. Ol ill's lo nu thai however dillicilil it i I'c I.I exuri ss Ih iipplical may ion oilers I praciical dilliciilly. in this case, however, we have iiol to consider this I'lil vv c liiive tli(y(\isted at iIk- iiistiiulion ot a suit, this circumstance cannot lie taken advanlaL'cof in an appeal from the jiidiiniint. llduiijuni vs. Diiitoiaui, W ('. 18;i5, Stuart's Rep., p. 01)'). only lo decide helwcen two judL'iiienls, and we think ihiil the judL'menl in the lirst instance was correct and should not have hcen loiiched. Xivliohon vs. Melia.i, Q. B. 1881, 4 L. N. 281. XXVIII. SF.RVICK OF Al'l'KAL. (See Motion fois i.k.vve to aim'k.u,— Skuvioe XXIV. QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. 1. Ii lurl of A I ipusiions purely of praelico, tie il will not, as a ireneral rule, distiirh the judjrment of tiie Court ln^it rcrnj vs. BcBvauJeu, Q. B. 1801), 14 L. C. J. 3:U ; Phillips vs. C/ioquetIv, Q. B., March, 1874; Voyle vs. De.yardins, No. 1)5 Q. B. 1) Dec, 1869. OF). Mot ion to reject appeal, the service hein;^ irrei'ular. Tl le service was maile on Mu A; M iloin. attorneys of res]Mindenl in tli rt hek hy servini.' a co]iy jiersonally Pliili]ipe Maloin. The nttornev in the Court helow Jncii person from Phi Mall e M )iii, and u ditt'erent aiiiiii, am I not merelv a misnomer. The time for ajipeal had elapsed. Ai)peal rejected. Gauvin vs. liocfielle, Q. B. 1882, 5 L. N. 142 ; following Dupuis vs. Dnjmis G L. C. R. 429. coini 6. J in hy that siirpi i.. (' V. hy 1 1 .•ifhda prieli Jaw, "illiji use- Kit I II h. C. 8. men! Avas ; cient. Rev, ,: AITKAL TO QUKEN'S liKNCH. 113 XXI.X. SEOUUITY IN.-(,tiiT. 1121 C C. 1'. iilirii;:iiti'il, fir new Akt. 1122.) 1. Absence of Opposite Party.— Sc- ciiritv III ii|)|Hiil ciiiiiioi lie Iciritlly ;.'ivon, in tlir iilpscnrc (if the ii|i|iii<"ili' |iiirty, (ill u diiy ijjlli'iviit to tiiiii ^ lutol ill tlio notice. Cliur- hoiintau v,-. /Aim, Q. 11. ia75, 20 L. C, J. 1(17. 2. Where the lioiiil in eniiiplcted, withonl jiii^lirieiition.aiiii in llie iilisciiee of the 0|)p(l^'ile party, wlio was present, however, when the se (iirilieH presented themselves (ediitendin^' thnt they ouL'hl to justify for neonsideriilijeanioiint to cove'" the possihle huliiiiee of n(;coiint), the ("niirt will not set usideihe security liond as irreiriihir or ilif;:iii, Imt will reserve to the appelliiiit his rij.'lil to attack the soivencv o( the Mirciy. Ilniiike \ s. Didlunvrc, Q. B. lH"5i 20L. C.'j. 170. 3. Befbre Date stated in Notice.— An appeiil will nut lie dismissed merely lieciiiisethe security was put in one day sooner than that staled ill the notice served on the respondent, if iiii olijeclion he niade to the sureties tlieiii- schi-i. Camilla hircstmcni cf- AijeMcy (J<>. V,-. lludmt, (^ n. 18H(I, 2;j L. C. .1. 227. 5. Bond executed by Error and Sur prise — Afier the prothonotaiy has receiveil the iickiiowledirineiit of securities to a liond, and .-ii'iicil and stamped the same, it is not ciiiripcitiil for the prothonotary to refuse to send up the n loiil.on tliejiround thai the hoiul was executed liv error and surprise. Mallelle va. Luinir, Q. 15. 1H70, 20 L. C. J. 2'J;!. 6. A security liond, duly sij.'ned liy the jiriitlioiintary, and stamped, cannot he set aside by the ('our' of Queen's Bench on the L'i'ound that the sicurity was executed hy error and sin(iri>e. Mallitic vs. Lenoir, Q. B. 187G, 21 L. ('..I.Sl. 7. By Indian- — .\ hond in apjieal executed hy Imliiins is \ulid, where it is estalilished hy jillidiivil that they are in possession as pro- prietors, accurdiii;.' to the Indian customary law, of certain real estate situated and lyin^r within the tract of land appropriated to the uses of the tribe to which they belong. KidiKiihitisa vs. Alcwireiiti, Q. B. 1859, 'A L. C. .1. 310, 8. By Opposant— On appeal from a judg- ment dismissing; an opposition, where security was L'iven only for costs— //eW, to he insufti- cient. Lampson vs. Wuvtele, K. B. 1847, 3 Rev. de Leg. 107. 8 9. An opposant, appealing from u judgment dismissing his opposition, inii«t give security to answer the c 'iidemiiation of the principal jiidgment in the case. Coiitlili' vs. None, Q. It. Ib02,(; L. ("..1. 1H6. 11. ——An opposant, who [h nnf also de- fi'n(hint,ap[iealing from a jiidgnient cjisinissing his opposition, is hoiiiui togive security for costs only. J'crriir vs. Dilhni, 8. ('. iHOl), 10 L. C. J. 220 ; Lioiiai.1 vs. Mnhnn's Bauh, Q. B 1880, 25 I.. (". J. 220, 2 Dori.m's Hep. 1!)4, 12. Delay to put in.- Ifil'l, that the Court would, on caus<' shown, prolong the delay for gi\ ing security on an appeal from the Circuit Court. Hirriiiti vs. MrCurLiU, Q. B. leOli, i;i li. C. R. 480. 13. Where the security on an appeal from Circuit Court has not been put in within the delay reipiired by .\rt. 114.'} of the Code of Civil Procedure the appeal must be di, 24 L. C- .1. 100. 14 Respondciit moved to have it de- (dared that appellant li:iil lost his right of appeal, security not hiiving been given within the time specilied by the order. The Court granted the motion, as there was a (piestion of costs on the application for leave to appeal. McCaffny \:^. Jiniiieau, i}. B. 18S0, 3 L.N. 2118. 10. A party obiaining leave to apjieal from an intcrlocutnry iudgmcnt t'orfeits such right if the security by law reiiuired be not given within the delay fixed liy the Court. Jinincau vs. .)frCaffWy,(i. B. 1881, 7 (}. L. R. :!04. 17. Execution of Judgment during Delay to Appeal.— Consent of Attorney. — Where the security is for ccjsts only, the consent of the party's atloriiey that judgment shall be executed is sutlicieiil. Fio/a vs. Hamcl, 4 Q. L. R. 52. 18. Where the creditor executes his judgment within the delay allowed by law to appeal, he does ^n at his risk and peril, and cannot, therefore, exact greater security from the debt'ir appellant than that provided by Art. 1124 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Coinpai/nic du Chemin dc Fer dc .Vontreal, Ottawa it Occidental vs. Bourjuin, Q. B., 1878, 2.3 L, C. J. 96. 20. In Action to set aside Deed of Donation. — Action for the purpose of (1) I'roceilure in iijipeal from Circuit Court l.< imw the same as from Superior Court. r 1} '< I ' 1; ' ii 'm . i Itt: f ffffT'" 114 APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. n h havin<; (V deed of iloiiiitiim docliircii mill. In July, 1880, the ]iliiiiitiir niiicie a doiiiidon to his brother, tao defetidanl, of hi?* nudivided nharc in the fiithi'r's estate, nlioiit ou third of w'lii-h cuMsi.-ted of an eini'livtenlii; lease which was to expire in eiL'ht years. The remainder of the estate consisted of ininiovealde |iro|ierly in the (!ity of Montreal. In 1881, the dc.nor brought an action alle;;ini: friind on the part of the donee, and hy his conclusions he praycil tliat the deed nii^'htbeset aside, and declared null and vnid. ami that the defendant he condemned to cancel the reL'istration of the deed of donation within a cerlani delay, and that in defanlt of his so doiiiL'. the juilj:ment of the Court shouM ellect the diseharj.'e of the rejiistration. The Court df Keview, revcrsiuL' the jud^rmen* of the Superior Court, maintained the action, and ;j:ranted the pltiintifi' nil the conclusions of his action. The (iefen- dant appealed f'';'Mi that judL'nienl, and con- i tendeii that he wis I 'lund to ".'ivo security ^ for costs only, on the principle that there was I no othercondemnation in thejud;iment than to have the reirislration caueelled. and that the jndjiment itself would have this ellect if notii .ij; was done hy the defendant towards •hat end— /i(7(/, that he must L'ive security not only for costs, hut that lit will p'osecute the appeal, and satisfy the cnMilemnation mi case the judjj;nu'nt was conlirnied. McCunl vs. AlcCord,ii. C. 1882, 5 L. N. •>-H). 21. In Action to Account — In the case i.f an appeal frniu a jud;;uient orderire; the ap- jud'-inl to rendei'an accminl, secuiity fnr costs alone is sulHcient. Brooke vs. JhilliiiKiie, Q. n. 187-), 20 L. C. J. 1T(). 22. In Action to Condemn Corpora- tion under .\ltT 102') C.C. p.— On an ap- jeal hy the dit'Midant iVnni a |ud,L'nicul ni'ijcr- iuji a railway cmcjiany tn cull the annual Uieetinir within (^iie innnlli, or l.. pay a line if $2,(liMi, ^ecul■ily for costs oidy is irisullicie-it ! the security must he to satisfy ilie condemna- tion. ,1/,,///.. I'oril.ni'l .[■ Bu.'.loi, U,/. 0-. v.s. n.iltoH, lSfca-eofan appeal from a jiidijment dismissiiiL' the cont. station of a judiiinciit of ilisti'ihution. and mainlaiiiin'.;' the collocation, the apjielhnil i-onlv liouml to ^i^^. security for costs. /'-/■//./»/(//( vs. ]i,tr/i,iH. N.3&2. 26. NewSecurity.— .\n appellant will not he ordered to jrive new security, hoeause one of the sureties admits and deidares that he was nally insolvent at the time he sijrued the bond, altliou;.'li he then decdared he was solvent. A'/(/'/c//vs.i»/c.l/-./(»r,Q.B. 1877,22 I.. C.J. 78. 27. Where the insolveucy of a surety in ippeal was alle the respondent for.?IO,000, and which was the verv property in dispute, by a deed in whicdi it was stipulated that they w.iuKl neither sell nor mortLiajie the properly, and that they would return it to her if she puid thejud;.'liient. One of the sureties swore tl at the properties were worth from!?lu,0(0 to$!l 7.000. They pre- tended 1 ) buy themtVom appellant for$. 2.000. In the Corporation books they were valued at $12,000. Neither the puicluiser nor the ven- dor had till- full tide to I hem. New .seciirity or.ler (I. yi'„/,r,7vs. T lie Trust Jb Loan Co., Q. B. 1880, 3 L. N. 378. 31. Notice.— Not ice was j.'iven on the 15th, that security in appeal would be given on the A ilJt APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 115 ivotlio mui't- which ■ed ill ■itliev it they ,r,iiint. )(_ii'rtii'« cy pie- 2,000. 17tli. Another notice ivas jriven tliat the snme security woiilil lie put in on ihelHtli, Imt secu- rity wa.-^ eventually jriven acconlini; to tlie tirst nolice- Tlie notice tirst jriven and the security put in were found irrejriilar and insuflicient, the first notice liavinj; lieen rendered of no ellect hy means of the second — Held, that no action would lie airainst the sureties on the liond thus Fdnsi.le. Smith vs. Eijau, Q. B. HGO, 10 J^. C. R. 2:iH. 32. One day's additimial mitice for eiicli 'ivo miles (if distance is nut necessary in the case of a security in appeal. Fiolii vs. Hamrl. Q. B. 1877 ; Gugiwn vs. Jliimel, Q. H. 1877, 4 Q, L. R. M. 33. It is necessary til ;:ive nulice to the opposite party liefmc puttiiij; iu security for an appeal til the tiuecn's Bench from a judirment (if the Superiiir Court. IJoiiuii v.s. Dorioii, Q. B. LSS2, C L. X. ;i25. 34. SuflBciency of— Affidavit. -.\ii ap- peal lidiid is in>ntlicient if the surety has not sworn thai the iminoveahles which he has niortL'ai:ed heloni; to him. Stuart vs. Scott, S. C.lSuO, 1 J,. ('. R. 21«,, 2 R.J. R. Q.4ti7. 35. Amendment of Sond. — A security Imiid in appeal from the Circuit Ciiurl may he aiiiendcd iiv s^ipplviiij: the descriptiiiri of the real estati' mi which the security jiistiiicd, and whirli had I'Cen omitted in the hcmd. Muntrial Cutlmi Ci>. vs. Tnirn of Sa/alirri-!/ of Vnlichl, Q. B. 1S79, 24 L. C. .1. l."i'.>, 2'l.'n. :{;!.><, 9 R. L. -.51 ; Marslutll vs. McCoJI);!/, Q. b. 1S7(;, 7 H. J.. 575. 36. at the time Bond was given. — The Cuurl tif t^neen's Bench cm iimt entert.iiii a petition to have the security ilcclaved insiitK- eient.oii the irround that the rt'spondeut has (lisciivcred since the conipleiiuii i f the Imnd that the securities were iviilly insullicieiit at the ti !.■ the hjnd was signed. Lnjuiinte vs. Ftiulkucr, i.l B, 1877, 22 I.. C. J. 5:i. 37 Deposit.— Where the defendant iiiakr- a depii>i( instead of iiixiii;; srcurily whirii tlie prutluiiKitary lias deidared shall lie foi- ihr paymi'iit of cii>ts mdy. a inoiiun to >i-t asi.lc the ilcpisil - iri.-iilliciiMit will hr rejected, if'il a|'|ieirs tn the Cnuil thai the deposit is sulliriint to co\ er any condi innaiioii in m lex , whetliei fer costs or otherwise, to which the d leinlaiit is lialde (o lie condemned, and the pi'i'lliMii.ilary's order will he ameniled accord- in-lv. lloclu'tte \^. UtitlMtc, (I M. 188H, (i L. \. 112 38. Exception to. — The suflicicncy of the security ofl'ered in appeal cannot henues- lioiied hy ])reliiiiinary exception, and Huch an exception will he dismissed hy motion. Kiiowl- toii \<. Clarke, Q. B. iHtili, 13 L. C. R. 500. 39. Hypothec on Real Estate re- ceived conditionally. — Action a^'ainst the appellant accompanied hy capia.^. In the Court helow apjiellant had ^iven .security on the capias liy transferring to the phiintifF unpaid vendor's claims to the amount of $4,344. The ainoun sin-d fur was $l,.t50. The defendant, now appealiiij:, prayed Kc/e of the declaration that he had previously given security to an amount three times the amount sued for, and he renewed the otler of this security to avail a.s security fur jiulL'ment anil costs on tiie apjieal. Secuiiiy accepted on condition cif proving the value of the hypothecs, and that it wa.s suffi- cient for the purpose. O'liriin vs. McLynii, S. C. 1880, H L. X. 14!!. 40. Motion to Dismiss.— A motion tiiilisiiiiss t'cir -.vaiit iif suiliitient security is not tmi late, althiiugh a term has intervened since tlie appearance t'nr the res|iiiiii|ent, especially when the return nf the clerk uf the Circuit Ciiiirt is irregular. Beaudet vs. I'roctvr, Q. B. KSC.:;, 13 L. C. R. -150. 41. Allidavits setting forth that the property descrilied in the appeal \kkv\ is not of the value nf .t'50, will he received in support of auiiili'in to dismiss the apoeiil fnrwaiitof sutlicient security, and the appeal will he dis- missed on such miition, unless the appellant depiisit the sum Jard;iis; Q. B. 18-^0, 3 L. N. 108. 43. A new surety may he suhsti- t\Ued fur line whnse real estate is prnved tii he (if a value less than the amniint cifihe Imnd. Murin vs. IIa„ner,(4 B. ISso, 3 L. N. 309. 44. One Surety— Real Estate.— Where there is ndy oiie surety, >uch surely must ju>tifv (III real estate. Mur.s/iall vs. ('u/fiii;;,() 15 I87ti, 7 1!. L. 575; Ihnr.son vs. 2)i/(,.wM, 'j. B. 1875. 1 Q. L. R. 121 ; Fiola vs. Ha)iiel,q. B. 1877, 4 Q L. R .52. 4.5. On appeal frmn Superinr Court tn Q B. one surety is sulKcieiit. Fiola vs. JIamel, Q. B. 1877, 4 Q. L. R. 52. r.' 1 < It i ' I flUP" 116 APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. Ill J l* " » 43 Real Estate— Registration — Sfcni'ity iiiiiji|icul (Hi real c.-tiitc, tlic tillc •ici'tl 1o wliic'li is iKit rcL'i.''t(rct was made hy the defendants hefore I signilicalion of the . judgment I'enderpil in the Court lielo\v,and although no alisolutp judg- n)ent was given in the Court lielow for I'osts, hut only a judLniieiit coiideiriiiing the defen- dant to [lay the dehi and costs, unless they |iri'forred to aliaiulon the property. Fixlicr vs. Frovmcher, C.Ct. 18t;;i, 13 h. C. R. IGO. 5i Other Cases. — Where a judgment (irdprs tliP issue of a writ of incarceration against a defendant, and his imprisonment until he shall have paid the delit, i merest, costs, anil suhsc- (|uent costs in tliecausp, \<\ virtue of a. previous judgment, and on an appeal from thejudgment orderingtlip imiirisonment the sureties ohligate themselves that W. B. (the ilefendant) shall eflcctually |irosccule the appeal of the said judg- ment, and pay such eondeiiination money, costs and damaL'e as shall liea. Rupin, S. C. 1S50, 1 L. C. .I.'20,i. 7. Sureties for costs mnv 1,(. sued li\- the parly succeeding, allhoiiiih di-liaclion of Costs may have heeu awardeillo his attorneys, when the suil is instituted liy the same attor- neys. Liiroac vs. ini.ioii, Q. B. 1872, IG L. C.'j. 20. 8. — ^ The suretiis in sindi case are not entitled to a delay of (itieeii days from the day of judgment, {lb.) 9. Sureties in ajipeal, when thejudg- ment has lieen confirmed, and the Court has not granied leave to apjieal to the Privy Council, are liaMe for the costs absolutely, and they have no right (o annex a condition to a tender of such costs, that the money shall be returned in the event of the Privy Council IJ,- APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 117 giiintiiiL' a P])efiial appliciiiii)ii to appeal, anil the jiKlL'ineiit beiiij: reversed on such appeal. Carter y^. Ford, S. C. 1880, li L. N. 412. 10 Appeal discontinued.— Where loMve to appeal to the Suprciiie Court from a judL'niPiit of tl' Court of Review was allowed, and surety Imnds were entered into, hut the appeal was dropped — Held, that tlie sureties wore mil liahle. Canadian Meat if; Produce Co. vs. Wiseiuitn, S. C. 1880, .'i L. N. 85. 11. •' In case the Judgment be confirmed ". — llild (reversiuu; tho dicisiun of Jeiti', J.,M. L. H., 2 S.C.58), that a horid j;iveii as sffurilv foi-debt, interest and costs, on appeal iiy a defendant from the Superior Court to the Court of Queen's Bench, to the ell'ect lliat the houilsmen will pay the condemnation money in i-usc the judgment he confirmed, is hindiMLT, Ihouiih the jud^'menl of the Queen's Heiicii ri'vei'si'd the judLrnu'iit of the Court hi'loM, if the orijiinal judiirnent ul the Superior Cotii't has hecu restored hy the .ludicial Com- liiiltee of the I'rivy Council, and the efl'ecl is the smiic as if the .Superior Court hud liecu iillii'nied hy the Court ofQiieen's Bench. Lawni/ y<. Iluiith, 18sT, M. L. R..;i Q. B. 8(11, :!,■; L. CI. Vk 12. Nature of Suretyship. — Sureties in appc;il are Judirial sureties, and are nolcntitlcd to dr.naiid llir discussion of llic principal dehlor. Ri(Haiid siil.icct to coeicive imprisonment. WinniiKj V-. Lclilanc, S. C. 1^7(1, 14 1,. C. J. 2',)S. 14. Who can bccorao Sureties.— A priicti<;nL; altoiiicy raniiot heromi' hail or surety in a|i|ieal . Laiuelin \y . Luriic, <{■ 15- l^iid. 111 L. ('. U. r.H), 15. But J/rld, thai a hond in Mp|)eal hy an Mitoi-nvy-atdaw ir- valid, notwilh^liindiii;/ llieilili Kule of Piiiciici', and assiiirdn^' lliat Rule to he applicalile lo >uch a homl. Fuiiriiii r vs. Caiuwn, Q. B. 18(11, (J Q. L. \l. 228. X.XXr. WIIKN IT LfHS. 1. From Circuit Court.— Consolidation of Non Appealable with Appealable.— Where si'\cnil noicappealahh' actions in ijie Ciiciiil Court are cousiilidaled with one that is appeidahle.as involving' the same i|uestioii, the wlhjle will he ailjiidicuied on an appeal in the principal case. Cic. dii C/i. de Fir Montreal if- Sorel vs. Vincent, Q. B. 1881, M. L. R . 4 Q. B. 404. 2 Pee of Office.— In an action hy a parish beadle for three (piiirts of wheat or three ([uarters of a dollar, which he had been accnslomed to receive from such parish as his emoluments of oflii'e— £ft7'/, that such action was appealable ex natiira rei. Martin vt^, liruncUe,il. B. 18(19, 1 R. L. 01 ti. 3- Hypothecary Action. ^ An hypothecary action for an amount less than SlOO, accompanied by conclusions, to the ell'ect that defendant he (condemned lo jiay '.he debt unless he prefers to abandon the piroperty, is app.'alahle. Rodier vs. 7/-'/-r/7, C R. 1871, 111 L. C J-41. Reversing S. C. 15 L. C. J. 2()9. 4 Irregularity in Proceedings in Court below. — The parties phiiiitill' and defendant havin;r i)roceeded iti the Circiiii Court inun appealable case as if the ease were non-appealable, ami judL'ment havinjf been rendered in favor ol the (ilaintitl — Il(dd, upon an appeal instituted by the defendant, on the Lrrouinl that the ])roeeedinL's were irrei;uhir, the evidence not beiiiL' in writinj; and no articula- tion of facts or inscription for enc|uete or for hearinii' on the merits ha\ inc;; been nuide, that the ('ourt vouldtiot disturb the jndL'ment of ! the Court below. 0.-;/';oi U .1 Ifi' f ' ...ll 't f lpi n H I) III i 1^1 n •I s s i ? J' 1 f •J 118 APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 8. Where Evidence not in Writ- I finiil servit'c ovtrtho dead liodyof an indivi- ing. — An apptiil lioH to tlieC(]nrt ol' 'i'. B. on points iif laxc, from a jiid;:iriPiit of ('. C.> wlieii t'lc siini or value of tlio tiling denmnded ainounis to or oxcceds SlOd, altlioiifrli the evi- dence lias licit lieeii taken iluwii in writing'. Adam vs. Flaii.-ed on aceoiirit ol' a merely clerical errnr, where no injury is done to the purlies. McKiiizie v dual, is a final jiid,i:nient.and may be appealed from. Wiirlfle vs. T/ie Bishop of Quebec, Q. B. 1S52, 2 L. C. B. (iS, 3 R. J. R. Q. 9:!. 18. Respondents mid one M. liavin;; been aiipointcd <;omiiiissioners in i'xpro|iriation under 2"i'28 Vic, cap. (iO, made tiieir valuation ofcerlain land which iiail been exjiropriated. On |,etitioii< to the Siijierior (\mrt, by certain contribiitdi'ifs and the Corporation, aiipellants, the respondents were reiiidved from olliee.oii the ,L'round that they had in their valuation adopted a principle, which was so palpably ernmeons that itsiiddplion amouiiteil to a want Titrgeoii, Q. B. 1HS2, 2 Dorion'sCJ. B. R. 24;i. | ,,f,iilj^r,.|iee. whicdi jusiiiicd the court in onler 10. From Court of Review -Inter- i inL' their removal. This decision was reversed pretalionofol Vic..cli.48.sec.2.— This se<- j hv the Queen's JJeii.di in appeal— //<•/. Lultuie, Q. B. IsTti, j do a specific act. as the delivering: of certain 10 R, ].. 11,"). I |iriimissorv nntes within a certain delay, or to 12. .\ iudL'nicnl conlirnied in Review i l'">' " f"^'"^' amount. i~ a final .iud-nK'nt from isnofsn-cepiibleof appeal. theprovisionsoft,).. I "•''"'l' •'" ''I'l"'''! ''^-^ ''« ?''""" '""' «itho"t 37Vic.cap. t;.amendin-3i;Vic.,cap.l2.a|, v- | ''■"^"'' "*' the Court. r„.«//.v y<. F„ir, Q. B. ingto .iud-menls rendered under Art. S23 of ! ^^^-'- r^orion's (^ B. R. :!S2. the Code of I'lMcedure. as will a-^ tooiher.iad'_'- j 18. From two or three Judgments by ments rendered in ri ■.lew. Mcldvniiirt Xnliininl . one Writ.— In an appeal by one writ from ii((/l/,- V-. /',///«■. (^ 15. ISTH. .") (^ 1,. R. ;172. ; ihree dilHTcnt .jiidLniu nt-^ rendered in the 13. When a sub-i.ntial chani:v has Superior Court,- 7A'/./, bntli <,i, niulinn and on been made in the iud-meni nf tii-l in-lancc bv ''"' '"•■"■'"-- ^'f 'I"' '■'-'■. 'Iii" '""' •'PI""'' '•'^"'^1 the judiinieiii of the (■..uri olK'evieu. an appea'l '"' '"^l""!'''! IV"in "uc i-rincipal .iud-m..iil.and lies from the lalter jnd-nienl. Frasn' vs. I ''■'"" ''"' .i'l'l.-'H'i'i"- npnn oppo-ition- in the Brnncttr. Q. B. |s«T. M. 1,. R,, :i O, |!.:;ii) : -an,ecau-e. W,ni,j,n,cr v.. liirl;cr, t^. IS. 1802, • 1.'! L.C.R. 102.(2) 14. .')1 Vic. ((,).). ch. 1^, MX'. 2.— Ildih^Wr.a an appeal doe- nni lie I,, ihe C.,ui-i ' '^^ The appellant filc'd Hvooppn-itions, of Queen-.- lienen ,-imn- in app, a! in a ra-e ''>' one of whi.'li >\u' r\-Muvd a share uf the in which the ,-.,11, clainudi- under S2I)0. and l"'"l"'".^- -'■''"■ ' ''V one title, bv tl,e ,,|lier oppo- in which iud^inenl has b,..,, ivndered bv the -"!"" -I"' '•'■'imed (he remainder . r,!,,, ,„., ,perly Superi..i- Cain -iliin^ in review. JSnirii, v-. I'.^' •'""''"'■ "'l''- The two , 'as,- were eon- Vcmers. (}. li. 1-1)2. 1 (,»iie. lis I. diidel s( |,aralely. and two iu lii-mc'iils inter- \eiied n ieelili'i the appellaiilV (ip|pn-ili.ins. 15. Final Judgment. -.\ judgment of -pi,,, ,,,,,„,ih,„, „„,i, ,„„ „„„ ,,,ii ,,f appeal fmm 1hcSuperinrC,,url.,efu-in-ln.,nu>t a writ of i,,,,), j,„|on,enl<. The r,-p..ndent moved to m.andamus up..,, a petition complainin- ihat ,,.,.,,., ,l,e appeal. .Motion di-mi--ed but with- tht-^Si-hop.if (luel had refn/o;,/ievs. J!os,; Q. B. 1880,3 (1) Note .Alt, Itl-.'C. c. I'., it l,li;isl),.,'n,inieii,l,.,ll,v I.. X. 2',t:». 534 Vli't. l.*ii), hy slrildai; nai tlie Hr.-t iiai:.Kr.i|iii lieKliiiiiu- Willi llie wonl "wlieii the sunr' niiil end- , C.') 'I'liis iiuljriiM.iit woulil jinitial.ly luiKl under tlio ing by tlir wur.ls "on iioiiits ol lu«." i piuseiit ineiliod nf proeediuo. APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 119 20. Prom Judge in Chambers.— An uppt-al lies to tlii' Court of Qiu'i'ii's Bencli, from ii Judiriiu'iit in ('IminlK'i's, rcfnsiiii^ a writ of iii-ohiliitioii. Kxp. O'Fatrell, Q. B., 6tli .March, 187:). 21. Then.' is ;io ajiiJiul to tlu' Court of Qui'i'ii's IJeiicli f'OiM 1111 ordur givi'u liy a juiige ill cliaiiilifi's as a gciuTiil rule, t'X(M'|it in (.'iiscs wlicro tin' law, liy a s]n'cial(lis|i(psitiiiM, assinii- lutes tlic iiiilgi' in cliMiiilicrs to tlu' Superior Court, a- ill tlic casi' of prohiliitioii. Bdiceuu \ vs. C/ien-cJils. Q. 15. 1870, 1 Q. L. R. 209, 9 I R. L. am'. ' 22. Tlic Court of (^uwii's Bfiicii siltin^' in iiji|i('iii will giiint U'livc to !i|)iii'al I'roiu ■ an order of ii judin' in cliainlicrs, wlicru the judge is given the jnrisilietion of tlie Court. (1) ' MvCra/icit \^. Lo(^ue,(l\i. 188:i, G J.. N. 320. j 23. An aiipeiil from the decision of a judge in Chaniliers to the Court of Queen's ; Bench does nut lie unless such decision lia-^ j first lieen revised liy the Court helow. Ji'oss j vs. Jton.s', <}. H. 188«, M. L. II., 2 Q. B. 1, 15 j R. I.. 280 : R<,hiUard vs. Dufaux, Q. B. 1887, - 10 \i. \j. 235, :)l 1-. c..l.2:u.' 24. From Justice of the Peace.— The j Civil Code of Procedure lias not taken away ' the right of appeal from judgments rendered | liy justices of the jieace in agricultural nial- ; teis. /<;•(((//«)■(/ vs. H7/fcH,C.(". 1871,5 R.I. . ' 2t'J; reluy Cmirt of Review, lie ri tabic Securities Mnrh/ni/c A.iso- eiitlion \s. H'lciiic, 1871), 2 1,. N. 325. 25'/. And Court of (.^tiieen's Bench (iJ.iriuii C. .1. dissenting). MrCnnl.-rn \ s. Lijijuc^l H. 1883, (i L. N. . •!:"■. 3 Dorion's Urp. 2l'l8. collll.Mllillg S. ('.. I.. \. %\. 26. From Intorlocutory Ju Igment— Aliment to Wife pendingSuit.— Leave to ii|i|i/iil will iioi lie Liiaiilrd IVoni an iiiterlocu- I'Uy jii^lgnieiil allowiii'i a wile aliineiil- during till' pt'inleiiry of a -nil with her hilslnnid. iiii- lr-> ii is rvidenl thai iiiin>lice has lieen dune. ni.ukhck vs. Cro.-~li!/,q. 15., .Mavh. I,s7.".. ih Sii' M|iin..|il--froiii .imlj^e in viR'ation aiiimiiuiiij,' i» •■|iie-lr;itiir. 27. Altering Defendant's Fleas. — Where - peul will not lie allowed from a judgment dis- missing a motion to revise a ruling at enquSte, the jiarties in such case jn'oceeding at their own risk; and if one of them he ivggrieved, tho case may come up in appeal at a Interstage of the proceedings. Jludoii vs. I'ainchaud, y. B. 1805, 15 L. C.R. 437. 29. There is no ap])eal from an interlocutory order at eiKjiietc maintaining the olijection of the plaintifls to hearing the hus- hand of the defendant as a witness. Ontario Bank vs. Duchesnaii, Q. B. 1805, 10 L. C. R. 194. 30. .\n ajU'lication for an !i|)peal from a ruling at eii'/iCte, which is manifestly wrong, will he rejected, when the granting of the ajjpeal will have the eftect of retarding the case. Cnr^, etc., de Heaitliarnois vs. Robillard, Q. B. 1870,20 L. C.J. 294. 31. Decision of Arbitrators.— Tliere is an ajipeal to the Court of Queen's Bench from decisions of the Superior Court, upon review of orders of 'he ]irovincial arhi- tralors. Alturncij General vs. ElUre, Q. B. 1S';5. 10 L. C. H.04. 32. Delay to Appeal.— A p|ilication for appeal from an inter!ocutoi-y judgment must he made in the term next after the judg« ment to he appealed from. Si'niinairc ile Quebec vs. y'inel,\\\ Dec, 1871. 48. Aetiipn fur penalty nnder sec. M'J uf the Insolvent Act of 18C'J hy the aasi^'nee. The action alle^^ed thai apjiellant look a jmimise of ])ayment from one I., an insolvent, niio.-e as.~igiiee fesiHUident was, a.s a C(jnsideiation or inducement to consent to the discliurLic of such in»(jlvent. Defendant lileadcii to the fdrin, ^ettinj;- up that tlie a.--i^Miee could not now liriiej; such action. The exception to the form was t'ejected hy the Cuiirl lielow. The dclcniliint therefoi'e a.-ked leave to appeal. Co'.irl refused leave to appeal, as the ooint could he lieller decided on ihe iiiei'i!-. ./(/.vf/)// \s. MiirjihijAl. [i. \''i^\, IL. N. 101. 49. .Motion lor leave t) appeal from inlerloculory judj;inenls on two motion-. The lir.-r motion was hy plaintili' to coi'rect a eli'rJcal el roi'. hy eUacini;' the woi'ds erve defendi-.nt wuh a duly cerlilicfl copy of ihe wi'il. ihe -opy ,-er\ ed not heiici cerlilieil. Both ihesi motions were acronlcd i,M payment of the costs incurred on Ihe exception to the form previously tiled hy the ilcfendant. 'I'lie Couil ri'jecled the iiiolioii for liiiM' to appeal with costs. Thiriun \s. n',:,l/ri,//:. (I U. 1881, 4 L. \. 10(1. I DorioiT- Rep. ;!OII. 50. Wheie the riuht of action is iiol (ieiiiiil hy Ihe drfendaiil, hut he complains of liie vii'jueur-^ and insulliciency of the all(i;iilions of the d( claralion, it i-; mailer for an e.\ception to ihc form, and not fur a demurrer, or for a motion for particulars. .\ii interlocutory jud,Lrment rejeclinir an exception to the form in >ucl case is suscept- ible of ajipeal, heinj; a miitier which cannot he remedied by the final judgment. McUrecvy vs. Jieaitcag,', 1891, M. L. R., 7 Q. B. 8'J. 51. Expertise.— Leave to ai)pettl from a judgment ordering an investigation by expert.s may he refused in the discretion of the Court, although it decides part of the issues. I Been vs. Valiii, (^ B., .'!rd June, 187.V i 52 . Final and Interlocutory Judg- j ment. — Where a party appealing from u i final judgment is desirous of appealing at the I same lime from interlocutory judgnu'nts I rendered in the (raut-e, mentioi; thereof must ] he nuide in tiie writ and reasons of appeal, nidess the ((uestion decided hy tiie interlocu- tory judgment he also involved in the tinitl i juilginenl. StrI'diii vs. Monbleaii, <). -B. 1881), ' M. i.. K.,5 Q. B. 'I?,. (1) 53. Foreclosure for Non-Appear- ance. — Leav.. to ujipeal may he iiranleii tVoni an interlocutory jiulgment forcidosing a party at cHijUi'ti' for non-appearance. DaiHiii;/ vs. h'ichard, Q. B., June, 1875; Ihill \s. Kiiigy I Q. B., 1 Marcii, 187.'.. j 54. Grounds of. — An app-al ougiit j to lie allowed from an interlocutory judgment ; which cannot he remedied hy the liiial jiidg- ' ment, unless the Court is (dearly of opinion lliiit tlie judgment complained of must he coii- lirmed. C/intii/ vs. Frigoii. <^ 15. 1870, 1.5 ; L.C.J. 07. i j 55. The Corrt will reject a motion fur a rule to obtain a writ of appeal I from an intei'loculcry judgment, it' the Court I he against the moving jiarly on the merit-^ of I his application. Maiu! vs. Lumhe, t^. B. 18(;2, I i; I.. C. J. 7."). 56. Inscription in Improbation. .Vii appeal from a judgment di-mi-sing an in-criplioii in iniprolialion on a demurrer caniiol he >ued out ile jilaiin, hut must he moved for as in the case of an interlocutory judgiiienl. litjiiKilri/ vs. Miii/dr, i/c, nf 'MuiilmiK n. B. 18tii;, 11 L. C. .1. 28, 2 L. C. L. J.2:)l. 57. Judgment referring Case to Roman Catholic Bishop.— .Vpplidition for leave to appeal from an inlerlocui.prv judg- nieiii referring the ca-e and the parties to the itomaii Catholic Bishop of Montreal, in order that he might decide whether the marriii'.:e tie iielweeii appellant and her hiishand should he iirokeii, ami al.-o from a previoii-i judgiiient of .'ilst March, lS80, di-missing lier demurrer, and Miat part of the coiudiisions which [iraveil i . 1 ". \ \ (1; Those (iecisions are ]irol>alily appliciible untlor the present iiietliuil li proeediu'ehyiiiscriplinn. ' [■, 7' ' rf i 122 APPEAL TO QUEI:N'S liENCH. J. f thnt, the |ii'cscnt cause -Ik mid lie mi scut to tlic bisliii|) fnr iidjiiiiicutidii. J.ciivc t(i iippciil was gmtilcd. Ki'dils vs. lAirnmie, (l- H. IH.S'i, T) L. N. \U. 68. Jury Trial.— Motion fur leave tn nppeiil rniiii an iMterloeulnrv iiidj.'iiient (pf tlie Siijioi-iiii- Ciiiirl. seltliriL' llie lacls I'nr a jury trial. Until ]iarli parties, who wished to appeal fnun an interlocutory judgment, to apply lotjie Court of .\ppeiils for the allowance of an appeal of which he has L'iven notice to the other side. Sfid vs. Srott, S. c. is;,;t, :! l. c..i. i:m, :; i,. c. ,i. i:!2. 08. What is an Interlocutory Judgment.— .V judgnient which determiiie.s all the matters in litig'Uion between the parlies, with the exception of the amount claimed under a plea of coiiipen-alion, and orders, lielore determining a- to the validity of .-uch plea, that the anion i! of i-onipeiisalion he settled hy cr/iirts, and rc-erves the i|Uc-tion of co-ts, i.s not a deliniiive jiiilgment enlitlini: the |iarty agiiiii'vid to>iieout a writ of ajipcal (/'• plann, and a writ so -ued out will he set aside on motion. U'lirdh- \-^. Jiel/iinn; Q. B. 1802, G ].. C. .1. 221). 09. Grounds of.— A conservatory attach- ment 111 inn' allaidied by e.\i'e]ition to the form, the latter was di-missed. Motion for leave to appeal was refused, because « niorce.\]ieditiou8 (1) Reiisijiis (if Appeal liave lieoii dispeiiseil witli by ri3-.")-l Viet., 18110. APPEAL TO QUEEN'S BENCH. 123 iHfifJeofmcctinj; tlie.'pizurecxiHtoil.anil nothinj: liiit delay would result. Lebcl vs. Pacauil, Q. B. 1879, 2 L. N. 202. 70. — Appeal will not lie on tlic ^rround of iri'ci^nliiritie.s in the Court of firfit instance which have not lieen nientinned in Review when tlieease was hefore that ("or.-t. Scroijijy vs. Gordon, (}. R. Is79, 2 J.. N. 3r.O. 71. A dilatory e.xcejilion was tiled, ask- ing for seenrity for costs. Security was ;_'ivcn I'v the plaintiff, tmt no jiidjrrnent was rendered on the e\ce|)lioii. — //(7(/, tiiat this(iniis>ion not cansinL' any injustice to the plainlid, who did not complain in due time, wa; not irronnil for an appeal. Jioirrii vs. Gordoji, Q. I). 1882,5 L. N. ;!(I0. 72. In Matters of Habeas Corpus.— The Coiirtof Queen's Bench has no jurisdiction on an application for /lahca.i corjiiin to correct an error in a warrant of commitment by the Su|ierior Court. PoJInck E.rp. Q. B. 1881,5 L. N. 21t;i. 2 Dorion's Q. B. K. (Id. 73. In Election Cases. (1) (See also " Ki.i:cTioNs.") — No np(ieal lies to the Court of Queen's Bench from a judL'ment of the Su- perior Conrt on an election petition uTuler the Dominion Controverted i-'lect ions Act. 7ir»- ncdu vs. Miis.s;,e, Q. B. 1878, 2.'5 L. C. J. 60. 74. The only appeal contemplatcil hy tiie .\ct 52 Vic., c. 10. is an apjieal l.y a Jiai'ty convicted of coi'i'upl practices at an (lection; no cross apjjeal is allowalilc umlcr the Act, and therefore the only cliarL'cs upon which the C(nirt of Appeal is called upon to adjudicate are those upon which the appellant ha« lieen coiivicteil liy the Court liclow. W/iylr vs. ,1,,/iiisoii, Q. I!. 1890. U \.. C. J. M,-.. 75. In Matters of Insolvency.— No n]ipial lies fi-diii a judiiinent rendered in a cii-e under the Insuhi'nt Act of ls'7.') alter the e\pii-iiti..M cif eiLdit days Irom the rcndcriii;,' of the judLTnicnt coinplai?ic(l ,,\'. Ja/nisloii \s. Loi'r, ^^ 1!. i87'.». 2:; L. c. J. 2i;2. (2) 76. (38 Vic., c. Iii.s. 128.) The term of ei,L;l]l days, witiiin which, un ier sec. 128 ,.f the lii-olvent Act, 1ST.'), proccrdiu'^s in appeal oi' I'cvision must lie prosecuted, applies id judi'inriits in Review as well as to those of th(> court of first instani'c. Graftin \<. Slciper, Q. li. 1877. 1 L. X.31, anil 22 L. C. J. 71). (2) (l| Sec. c.i;i ]{. S. Q.— .\ii iiiijioiil lies to Co\n-t of y. I!. fri>iii iuil^'nient wnviciiiif; of c''ii-ni|ii pnietii'cs ■iiii(I.T(Jiii'liiM'('i)ntrov(Tti-ii i;iccti()ii Aft, lis anifiiilod 5-' \'h\, i-li. Ill, soc. 1. I'TiitiilVilerat Act, appeal lies to Supreme Ct., 1 It. S. C, sfc, 5(1. 77. A rule to show cause why a writ of a[)peal slioiild issue will he rejected where the only cause for the rule was the mere fact tiiat the diday for appoaliiiL' under the Insol- vent .\ct had expireii. Cation vs. Tfie On- fario Jiaiik, Q. B. 1877.22 I, C J. 77. 78. Wiien one of the parlies makes an a=siLrnment under the Ins(dvenl -Vet, the other party may ohtaiii (on motion') ii suspension of all proceedini:s until the assi..'nee takes up the iiiRlitiico. Bnrhtnil vs. L(irof Court ora jiidL'c ; hut where smdi (U'der or judL'nient is an interlocutory one, leave must first he ohtainecl in the usual manner. Merhaiiicn Bmk vs. SI. Jean (f' Jiy/t-. Q. B. 1879.2 L. N. 315, !l R. I.. 659. See article 2 L. N. at p. .'?21. 80. No a|i)ieal lies from inlerlociitory jiidLrments rendered under the Insolvent .\ct 1875. .S7. LawieiK-ii Suhiioii Fis/iiii;/ Co. vs. Miichn/, g. B. 187(;. 7 H. L. 572. 21 1.. C. J. 76. (2) 81. In Matters of Imprisonment — .\n appeal may he in.^-fituted from a judirment dismissin;: a petition for ndease under a rapias, and fnun various other interlocutory orders or jiidirments in coimpction with «uidi '■apian, rendereit partly hy the Court helow. and jiartly hy a ju'lire thereof in (diamhers. liv one ami the same writ, and without ohtainiiiL' the previous l)ermi'sion of the Court of visiiiiis of tlio Code of fivil I'roceilare. .Vrts. 703 and following. h 'i Jl ' 4.1 w^ ir ■M *•'■, , f 124 APPEAL TO SUPHEME COURT. 84. In Summary Matters.--Tliin i-- noa|i|ii'iil tVoiri jii'lgiiH'iil- I'l'inlci-ed cillu'i' in cliaml/ers (»!■ in haiira wlicii lln'v ('oiHtcrii iiial- tri's ol siimiiiiiry jiiii-ilirtinii wliicli arc nol conU-lc'l. Andrews \>'. Jhiric.'i, Q. 15. iwrifi, I R. F.. 210. 85. In Quasi Municipal Mattors.— .Vp poal fVi'iii jiiiIl'iiu'nI 111' till' Siipcriiir Coiirl rcTu.-inf.' 11 writ nf |ir(iliiliiliuii to pri'vciil tlw ri'^iiiotKieiit .\iilir.ii .lu-licc I'l' llic I'fiici', ulici liail<'OiMliiiMU'il I he 11) ipc I hint let piiy Ihr piiiiilly proviili'il liy .\ri, "ICi Miiiiicipiil ('mlt'. iVniii e.XfcutiiiLr till' ,iii'l;;Mii'iil. 'I'lic rrHpiPiidonN ini)Vi''l In rrji'i'l iIk- iippriil. on llie lmmuiiiI llml it wii:' a miiiiiripiil iiiiillcr, iiinl ciiinc williiii 10:!:l ('.('. l'.— /A7/, llii- wii-' iinl ii iimll.r rcliiliii,'.' Ill iniiiiicipiil ciiriionilions nini ollii'cs. williin llii,' iiH'iuiiiiL: nl' .\rl. 10.'!.'! ('. ('. I'. Corp. of SI. Ij.mirc vs. Aniu'. Q, 15.. 4lli Mill-ell. ISTCi. 86. Report of Distribution. Appml liis (i) tin' Court nl' Qi.ccii'.s IJeiirli fi'uiii a JiuL'- iiH'iil liuniiiliii;iiliii;; a report ot'lli^*l^illlllilln not ; lliuii. I)i;r. 3li. (;OM(('-lc.|. S/iiir/i.s v.-i. Xioiimnd, l^ H. 1877, , .'! (j. !>. I{. 'Mt ; F.iistrni '/'oiriis/iij).i Hunk vs. I'ucind.il !!. ISilC. 17 ].. C. It. Vh\. 87. Ami lliL' rec'iiiii'se liy uppo.sition accoi'dc'i] lo ilic I'l-eililor liy Art. 7(11 »'. C.I'. ijoi's imt lake luviiy llic riu'lit of iippciil. Shaytls v.s. NoruKind, (^ I?. l.-:77, Ii (^ L. H. :!S'^. 88- What Amount determines Right to Appeal.— Ciisfs lioliliirj; it is ilie aiiKiiiiil (icinaiiili'il. ami nol llii' iiiiioiiin of llie jiiil,:;;- lueiit appealcil trnin lliiii ileliTinincs the riL'lit (if appeal. Grdiiil Trunk h'l/. vs. Gtidhonl, (1) Q. li. 1877. :i <,>. I.. 1{. lillJ: Bowlreau v?. Sitlk-AlW. \s-n.:\il I,. U. .i.id ; 7,'/,/„-,- vs. r»,//r/-, q. B. 1870.2 II. I.. 211 : Shinlon vs. //'/';;,' hi.--. Co., q. U. 1,S71). 2 1.. X. :il 4. tlicv hail nil rii'lit to appeal. Jiun.^el vs. Or'twelc,/, Q. U. 1852, 2 L. C R. 49 1, 3 R. J. K. Q. m. 91. Future Rights.— .\ii appeal litn to the <}. H. friini Circuit Court in an action to rrciivei' niiinicipiil tii.xcs, altlioiiLrli the amount ilaiincil is uiuicr 1?1()0, if the n'l/h/ to inipuse the lax isimi in issue. Corii.ile Cluunbbj vs. L,tmonrmx,^lW.\^WK VMl. h, 312. X.W'II. WHO MAY AIM'KAI,. Generally tliii-i' whn hiive iiii inleresi in.ay appeal ; cmii llmse not purlieu to the suit may intervene In prnsoeute the appeal, ami so a Hillary wlmse iiiiinile is altaekeil hy way nf iiiipriiliatinii iiiiii will) has liueii exaiiiiiieil as a wiliiessoii llie inscnplinii in inipmliation iiiid deeiared lie had no interest in the suit, will he allowed lo intervene in order to appeal from llie iudL'mi'iit deedariiii: his deed lo he defective. Drfoij vr'.Forli'.il 15.. 20tli Decemher. l87'J, (-/) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT 12. 90. 'I'hc plaintill'iihiaiiied iiiii'-'iiienl in the court I'ldiiw for a siim exceed iiiL' C\o. upnii whii-li a ui'il of allachmenl issued and ajiidi;- meiii rendered iipnii the allachm"iii fur a ,-uni e.xeeedin^' i-'l."). The appellants intervene,! in the cause, (daimiii'.' Xi l:!s. iM. i,fi||,. nimiev atlacheil. and hcinjr dissatislicj willi ihe iud;;- iiiciil appealed— /Ai7'/. I hal in such ca>e, the demand of the appellants not exceediii'.' XI."), (1) Si'O iiDte to tlii.s eiise in liains.iy's Dif;e.st at ii. Tlie .rurispni(lciii!e of tlie PiMvy Coi il is in a ciiii- trary ."iMise Si'c Apiicil le 1'. ('.— Wljeii it 11, -s— .\li|ii','ilalilc Value, Nns. (Mil. And tlie Sniirenu' ( imrt lliially a(l,i|iti',l the ivasuniii},' of tlio P. (;. ovcniiliiig ./oi/!.. \ 31') See .A|ii„.,-»1 to Siipreine Coiiit— When it lies— Wliat anionnt iletermiiies. But this point is n,)\v settleil as regaids .■ippeals In the Siipieine Ct. liy ,-)4-.w \ie ,.h ii. see. ;)(4), which eiinets iliiit tlie anloiiiit (leiiiai'ided shall deteinilnethe right to appeal. r, |)i:i,AY TO Al'l'i:.M„ IF. Uiioi NHS oi'. FFl. l'oHi:i! lit-- St t'i:i(ioi! Coiitr to I.xtki!- Ki:i!i: WITH C.xsi: in .Vim'Dai.. IV. (^KSTloNs ol' Cosrs. (.See also //i^/vf VFFI.32.; V. (}fi:snoNs oh' Aviot NT of F,).VM.\i;t;. \'l. .Si:ciiiiTV Koi: Costs. VFI. Ski iiiiTv Bond. VFII. Wiii:n it i.iks. Arlinn In Di.s'iii'ci'.''stul ]mrty wiis re- fiL-ed tlu' c'OHl,-' of R|i|ieiil. Lirerjxml if- Lon- don (('■ Glolic In.'iurancc Co. \!<, H'l/ld clul., Sii|irfiiie Coiirl 1877, 1 Can. 8. C. U. 605. V. QUK.STION OF .\MOUNT OF Dam AUKS. Wlicrc, in an nctioii of diiiniijrcs, ii jnd).f(' tricrt W/iic/t 5'J. Amount Uete, rinine.'i. uc I. DELAY TO APrKA!-. 1. '{"lie Ciiurl of (^iiepn".< I'lvntdi lias discre- lionaiv jiower to allow an a|i]K'ai to the Su|iH'nie Court, after ihcdeiay nientioncd in the .-latute has expired. Cdrcrhill vs, J'obillard, Q. B. 1.^76, 21 L. C. .). 74, 7 R. L. 575. '1. IJiii will refuse le.'ive lo ajijieul in such c!i-es nllK•s^ it is show. I liiat special circuni- siuiices have retarded tiie a]ipeal. Md.isiic vs. Cvrjiordtionde St. Ainu', 0. B. Is87, M. E. K., ;■.(,). H.:u;>. \ the case witiiout a Jury, and is not sliewn to ' have acted upon a wrorjL' |irineiple in assts.sing I the iiuantuni of ilari)a;;es, tiiis Court, as an ajipclhite court, will not interfere with the dis- cretion sucli judj:e has cxci ci>cd in deterniining , till' amount to he awanh'd. Gini/rd,H vs. 7Mv(7(7,s-, Supreme Ct., 1 llh Fch., l^Sl.Cassel'.s j Dij:, 2nd Edit. 211!; Lcri \^. Reed, Supreme I Cl., 6 Can. S. C. K, 182. II. GROUNDS OF. ()uc>tioiis not in tlie |ileadini.'s or record in the Court below cannot form j.'round of or he u.-ed as an arjruinenl in a)ipeal. LTnion St. J(i)|i|if lliiiil un till' ii|i|MlirMliif (ilc'l IpV li'-<|ioiiiltMl cxccc'ilt'd tlic itliiijlilil III' J'J.dOO. Illf jilil^rilieMl oli llic pt'tilKiii t'cir ili-iiv(i«al wiiN uppcaliililp. -//(/''. alfo, timt wlicrc ii |i(liliiiii in iliMivowiil lius Ipccii stTvcii oti 111! |iiirlii^' lollii' -ilit. iniil in oiilv (■(iii(i'!-(id Ijv till' iiiiiiriji'V, wIkihi' imtlior- ity to iirt i:- ilcnicil, tlic lultci' ciiiiiiiil on un uppiMl ((iMipliiiii tliiit all parlirs inlcri -tnl in tlir result are not parlies to tlic a|ipi'al. DiiwsiiH vs. J)iiiiiiinl, Snprciiii' Ci., 20 Cuii. C. S. R. 7(llt. 2. Action to Vacate SborifTs Sale of an Immoveable. — IJdd. apiicalalile nnilcr K. S. C, c. i:!.5, s. 21) (b). L'fentitiiii vs. Vcrroniicaii, Supreme Vi. 1H9.'), 22 S. ('. U. 208. {Ihi/rcvie v.s. Diiou, 1« Cun. S. C. R. SOti followeil.) 3. Annual Rents. -B. II. elainud nmler tlie will of the Hon. ('. S. Kodicr and an .Vet c!' tiie L(;.'islatur('ot'the P. Q., ')4 Vie.,e. Dli.froin A. 1j., Iisiuinenlary executrix of the j'lstatc, the fuin of $21111, hcin;: for an instalment uf the monllilv allowance which A. I-. was author- ized to pay to each of the testator's daiiL^htcrs out uf the revenues of his estate. 'I he action wtt.s dismissed liv the Court of Ijiieeii's liench for Lower ('aiiaila ; ami on appeal to the Supieme Court it was— Z/^/i/, tliut the amount ill controversy lieinj; only $2(10, and tlnTe Ipcinj,' no '• futnie ri^rhls " of H. I{. which nii;;lit he hound witiiin the meaning of those word.s in p. 29 (6) of the Supreme ami Ivxcdieipier (!onrt A(!ts, the case was not appealalile. (1) Annual rents in s.s. {!,) of sec, 211 K. S. C, cli. I'M), mean "ground rents" (.reittcf Jon- ciiri'.i), and not an annuity or any other like clmrges or oMigations. llodicr vs. Jjupiirrc, Supreme Cl.. 1,41)2, 21 Can. ,S. C. R. Gi). 4. From Q. B where Action originat- ed in CircuitCourt.— An appeal will not lie to the .Supreme C uitof Canada from a final jlidirnicnt of ihe Court of tiueen's Bench. Ap- ]ieal side, in cases iu which the Court of original lurisdictioii is Ihe Circuit Court for the Province of Qnehec. Marjor vs. Carpririilionof' Citij oj Thrcf Uinrs, Supreme Ct. 1,'<,S2, 17th Nov., Cas.sel's Dig., 2nd Ivlit., 122 ; Le Mitirc ct OiimcilU'r.t de. Tinrlioiiiie vs. Le.i Snmrs ilc t:i Providenn;, Supreme Ct., ISlh Mav, 188(1, Ca.«sers \)\'i., 2nd Edit., .i:i4. ,1 (1) Uiit soo now 5f) Vic, ell. 2'.>, aniendin^' SHbsec. (M (if Bcc. 'I'i, K. S, C, ell. ];i5 J and see imni " Future Itiglits." 6. From Queen's Bench and Court of Review.— By ni r.') Vic. (iwiil i).).c!h. '2.5, sec. ;i, amending R. S. C, nee. 29, muIi-spc. 2, it is provided that :— ••2. Where the matter in controversy in- volves any suidi (pie-tioii, or relates to any such lee of ollice, cjiity. rent, rcvenni- or sum of money |iayiilile to ^ler .Majesty, or to any Hiich title to hinds or tenements, anninil rents or such like matter.H or tilings where rights in the fiitnic might he liound, or amounts to or exceeds the sum or value of Iwo Ihoiisanil didlars, there shall he an appeal from jiliig- meiils leiidered in the said Province; (liuehec), although siK'h action, suit, cause, matter or judiiial proceeding may not liave heen origin- ally inslilutcd in the Superior ('onrt. " .'t. Provided tiiat sueii appeals shall lit; only from Ihe Court of (Queen's Beiiuli, or from the Superior Court in Review in cases where, and so long as, no appeal lies from tliejiidg- meiit of that Court, when it conlirins the judg- nieiit rendered in the Cotiit appeah-d from, which hy the law of the i'rmimM' of (iuehec are appealahle to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." 6. Retroactive Effect of such Amendment.- -.\ judgmeni wasilelivered iiy the Snpe . • Court in Re\ iew in favor of D., the respoi. lent, un the same day on w hitdi the Amending .\ct came into force. llild, thnt Ihe appellants, not having shown that the j'udgmerit was deliv clcil suliseipuiit to the passing of ihe amending .\ct, Ihe Court hail nil jiiri.-diciion. Qu(i'ii\ whctlier an appeal will lie froni a judgmeni proiiOMiiced after the passing of the Amending Act in an action pending hefore the <;liange of the law. Hitrlnhisc vs. DcKinnrlenu, Supreme Ct. 1891, 19 Can. S. C. R. r)(i2. 7. Where a case was argued and taken en df'lihf-n' in the Court of Review, on the same day in which the aliove Act was sanc- tioned, and the judgment was rendered a muntli later in favor of the respondents— Jldd, that the respondent's rights could nut he prejudiced hy Ihe delay of the Court in render- ing judgmeni, which should he trealej as liiiving lieen given uii Ihe day when the case was taken cii (/e'/Z/n'/v', and theit'fore (following Hudubise v.s. Dcamailedu, sujira) the case was not ajtppalahle. Coatiin; vs. Boniliard, SuprenieCourt 1892, 21 Can. S. C. R. 281. 8. rom the above hoM iiig, (jrwvnne J. and Pattereoii J. d.ssented, ami tlie.'^e two judges further iZcW, that the judgment being ArrKAK TO SUPUKME COUUT. 127 I fur U'Hrt tlmn XTjOO flcrliiiv', it wit- nut a judn- niPiit fruMi wliicli tlio u|i|>fllHril liiul u ri^lit to ii|i|K'ul til till' I'riw CuuiicmI. TiiHi'licrcuii i(. exiircHHiMl Mil opinidii on tliif |K)iiil,iiij(l Foiir- niiT J. Ht'i iiiecl l<» cciiiciir. Strong' J. coniMirred ill jtKljriru'iit oC ToHi'lu'reuu .1. (Il>.) 9. //('/'/ (Tii^cliiTciiii iumI (iwviine ilin- Hclilili^')' I'l"' ''"' i'l">vi' Act ilocH not extend to cii^es siiuidin;,' for judjrinent in llie Su|)i'iior Conrt prior to llio lui-Hin;; of fivid Act. (Cou- ture vf. Jiour/iiird, HUjira, fnliowed.) H'/V- liiiiiis v.x. Irriui', Supreme Court 1H!),'1, '12 Clin. S. C. H. 108. 10. IVr Fnurnier.I. Tliat the Stiilute ii* not iip|iiiciiljie to ca.-c.>i iiiieady insiitmed or ])rndinj: !» lure llic Court:', no fipecial word-' to lliiil cllict lieiii;; used. {ll>.) 1). So lield liy the Court (Gwvrnc .1. (IIfs.) in Mitchell vs. 7'/r;i/Hi//»(', Supreme Court l^lt.i. 22 Can. S. C. H. :!;il i Kriius vs. Cowau, Supnnie Cuuit \W.\, 22 Can.S. C. It. 3:!1. 13. From Order of Judge of Q. B in Chambers refusing Appeal, or to Com- pel such Judge of Court to receive Se- fiuriiy refused. — Uthl, limt Ihu Supreme Cunrt liad no jurisdiction to ;:rant tlie culi- clnsions of tiie motion, even if llie appellant liiiil ari;;lit lo appeal in such case. Jiiiuii/it vs. Jilauf/ianl, Snprei •" Court, 29lli Nov., 1H,S2 Ca.-sel's Di;:., 2nd K.iil.,42:!. 14. From Judgment on Interven- tion. — In an apjieal to the Supreme Couil (/ii the principal action, defcMiiiint cannot have the judL'inenl on Ihe iiitervciitinn in the Superior Court which was nhaiiduncil in tiie (Queen's Bincli. reviewed, //(/// vs. Mi.Cdlf'nij, Su- premo Court. 20 Can. S. C. K. lill). 15. Fees of Office— Future Rights — Tojiive the Supreme Court juris^iictiou lo lienr an appeal in a case from the Province of Qiiehec hy virtue of sec. 29 (t>),\i. S. C, c.h. Ki'), the matter relatinir to fee of otfice, where the riLrhts in future iiiiLrht he hound, must he the matter really in controversy in the suit in which the ii]ipeal is souirhl, and not snmetliiiiL' merely collateral thereto. 'I'his clause will nut jiive jurisdiction in a I'ase in which the action was hrou<;lit to recover |)enalties for hril ery under the Qiiehec Klectioii .\ct R. S Q., Art. 429, and where the ellect of the jiid'iineiit may he to disipialify the appellant from holding: office under the Crown for .-■even years. Chiirjuou vs. Karmand, Supreme Court, IG Can. S. C. U. tiGl. 16. The plaintiff, a school mistres.s, hy lier action claimed $1,243 as fees due to her in virtue of c. OH C. 8. L. C, c. 15, now m. 207,'l K. 8, Q., which were collected hy llio hcIiooI commissionerH of Ihe city of Three UiverH, while she was employed hy them. At tlio lime of the action (he plaintiff' had ceased to he in llieir empluy. The Court of tiueen'M Hem h adirmiiiv' 'he judv'iiieiit of the Superior Court dismissecl the aclioii. On ii inolion lo the Supreme Court ;.f Caniidii to allow the hond in upp<'al, the same havin;; been refused hy n juilf;e of Ihe Court helow, the Re;:istrar of the .Siiprt me Court, an i a jiidj^e in Chamhers, on I he ground that the case wim not 1 appealahh — //cA/, Ihut the matter in dispute 1 did notndate lo any office or feesof office within the meaniiijt ofs. 29(^), H..S. C. c. 1,'i."). (2) Kvcn iissumin;; it did, that there heiiif; no future ri;:hl involved, and the amount in dispute heiiig I less than $2,000, the case was nut aji|i( iilahle. j (.'1) The words •• where ihe ri;.'hts in future I iiii;ihl he hound " in s. s. [h] ol sec. 29 ;;overned nil the prccedinii words " anv fee of office," etc. (C/iiii/ndii vs. Ni)niiiiiiuecn"8 of Bencii, and dediictin.' tiie amount awarded hy the experts from the lialaiice (daimed hy St. J>. jiave .judirment fo" the dilU'rence. Tliis iud;.'iiicnt was afHrmed liy the Court of Queen's liemdi ori tiie IDtli Jan., 18S2. | Ihld-on appeal, that tiie .iudj:meiit of the i Court of<>'ueen\s Bench of the2lth Nov., 1880, i was a Hiial .iud.>;nient on the inei'its.and that the I Superior Court, when the ease was remitted to it, riL'litly lield that it was liound hy that .jndLT- iiienl. and that St. L. was entitled to the hal- aiice thereliy found due to liim . Per I'ournier J. : (1) Tliat the .judL'tnenl of the 2-ltli Nov.. 1880. thouLdi interlocutory in that ]iart of it wliicdi direcl"d the reference to expert>, was llnal on tlie other points in litigation, and could therefore have heeii properly appealed from as a final iud;:menl. (,'i.j Tiiat altlioULrh on appeal from a final jud;L'meiit an appellant may have tl'c rijiht to iinpiij:!! an interlociiiorv jud^niont rend'.>red in tlie cause; yet he loses tiie rii'ht if lie voluntarily and without reserve acts upon siudi interlocutory .judgment. Shaw vs. ,S7. Louis, Supreme Ct., 1883, 8 Can. S. C. R. 385. 20. — No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from ajmiginent in appeal con(iriiiing a I .jud.'.'uieiit of the Superior Court granting an ' iii.iunution. hut reserving to al.judicale as to amount ol damages until after an account has heen rendered, ir/iilflinvl \-^. }V/iit<; ISHC-, .M. L. K.. IQ. B.482. 21. .\ .iudgment of the Court of Queen's Bencdi ipiashinga writ of appeal, on 1 he ground that the writ of appeal had iieen i--ued con- trarv to tiie provisions of -Vrt. Ultj C. C. I'., is not a final judgment within the meaning of secli.in 28 of the Supreme and Kxcheqner Court Acts. Oiitiiriii .V Qiither li'i/. Co. vs. M(,rr/irti-rrr,(\) Supreme Court, 1889, 17 Can. S. C. K. Nl. 22. A .judgment of Court (Jueen's Bencli 'eversing a judgment ol the Superior Court, wliiidi i|ua>hed,oii jictition, a seizure hefore .juilgmenl. and ordering that tlie hearing of the jietitiori contesting the seizure should lie pro- ( ceded with in the Superior Court at the same timeas the liearingof the main action, is not a liual judgment appcalahlc to the Supreme Court. (R. s. c, idi. i:;:' 24 28.) Molsoii vs. Ihiniard, Supreir.e Ct., IS'JO, Is Can. S. C. H. (i22. 23. 'J'lie plaintiiriu an action hroiiglit to set aside a deed of assignment ilied liefore tlie case was ready for judgment, iin(t the res- pundeiit, having petitioned to licallowed to con- liiiue the suit as legatee of the jdaiiitifl' under a will dated 17tli Nov., LSU!), the appellant con- tested the continuance.oii the ground that this will had lieen revoked hy a later will dated 17th Jan., 1885. The resjiondpnt replied that this la-t will was null and void, and upon that i>sue the Court of Queen's Bench reversing the judgment of the Superior Court declared null and void the will of 17lli Jan., issfi. and maiutaineil the continuance of the oriL'inal suit hy respondent. On appeal to the Supreme (,'onrt, the rcspo ident moved lo (piasii the appeal, on the ground that the judgment appealed from was an interlocutory judgment, and it was Hild. that the judgniciit was /■('.< Jinh'cii/n lietwten the parties and liiia! on the petition for conlinnauce of tliesii,., und therefore apoealahle to this court. (S/nar m^. SI. Louis. siipni followed.) Ihqitist m'. Baiiliat, Supreme Ct., 18'J2, 21 Can. S. C. U. 125. 24. Future Eights.— Section 29 {b) of the Suiircme and Kxclieiiiier Courts Act, R. S. C, cli. 135, lias heen very inateriallv altered hy ,50 Vic, ch. 29. The words 'or such like matters " now reading "and other (1) SLaw V. St. LouiB, 8 Can. S.C.K. 333 distlnguisheil. On. ■iitiT 1) II ll ■■1 ii ■ ■■■rl,i f.iim ImliM 11 >> I'lil lie '///'/-I, -mil I. ill III ,1' iM. 1,1, ,M ii> ii-,,- 1 111 .A.-l iif l>, 1 1 nil Nn:, I; Mil; III APPEAl. TO .SUPKEME COILT. 1 2'.) iiiiitteis."' 'J'Inis iii'gaii\ iiij; most of tlu' juris- pni'ieiiiX' on lliis puinl. (1) 25. 1'lie words •• ) of sec. 2'.t -ovcrniill tlif prccciiinj: words •■ an\- fee of iillicc."' t'lc, dr. fjitririirr \~. Sc'iuol Cuiii- iiiissiiiiifr.'i III' I/k; ('ill/ ';/' Thrci' li'lceix, .■suprcrnc Cl . 18'J4,.j|li N'ovi'mlicr. 26. — Uy 11 prin-t-x-ri rhiil niailc I'v liie \liinii-ipal (^Mimcil of Sic- Ainu- clii Binil ilc i'llf, II porlinii (if llii' roil 1 froniiiij; llie liiinl of (iiic ]{. was oriiereii lo lir iiiipiMN eil Ky raisint; aihi u i'iciiiiiL;' it. rpnii i{."s rc'liisal lodoihc wcirlc. llic <.'oiiiicil iiii'l it pcrfornit'il. paid S'JOO l.ir ii, iiihl siiliscipicnlly sued K. tor llit said .•sJOO, 'I'lip Court of IJiu'pn's lipiu'li alliriiicd a iiid^ini'iil ill fiivor nf lilt' Municipal Council l.ir lliiil aiiMiuiiI. Oniippciil In ilic Sii|ircint> Ciiiirl ll \>, I,, I III" II. S. (,'. Is-iH, I'.; 1.. N. 7ii, ami lili'aii. S.', Mt. IS'.i : hnminioii S,lli;ii/i it ll'/M 7.;,e/ r.., v. /;/■.,«■», ■-'u I'iiii. S, I'. K. 'Jit!. Our 1) . lieillL' ilesiriill-^ 111 eslalilisllilli: a ellei'se t;i|.- tMiv in liie liiuiiiil .MiMilncifiuy, .in ii;;riM'iiiciii \va> eiitereii iiilo lii-luei'ii liiiuM'lf ami tlie ilelemlaiil ami iiliilill nlll'TS. wllel'eliy llie filler Were In llirilisll f.M- tueiity years all tlie iiiilU of their imu s in ilie siiil lluliailiC. Ill 111' inaiiiUaeliireil lllln elleise. illlllailie to n reive ■( |iereelltil;;e li ir niallllliea lilill^. //. /./— li\ liu Mine .I.iii ehaniliers.llnii lie eiuisiileieil llie ra-e siinllai- til (Hie (if II ciinlrael l.ir |iayiiieiii ..f ii -inn l'\ leiliin inslalimiit- In an anioiinl nt >lTii.-0 in nil. .iiiil.a|ian tniiii llie .■iimniiil sniiu-lit tu lie reeover- il, iiul eiiiiiiii^ v.itliiii til" wiirils " ri^tlils in tiiliirc" I see. H III the SUlirelne ('(iiirl .' .ll i A.I i.r 1^ ilnieiit refuse 10 allow lea\c lo appeal, an I iliai w ni re tlicre \\as any dillieiilty leave would lie niven, as llie respondent wouM always have hi- recourse I icfore the Supreme (.'.niit i.i have ihc appeal rejected siinimarily. M,'/'/' v -. Oil;/ iif Montreal, Q. H. Is'-T). .^ \.. X. l.'i.j. 30. Action to recover $:iiil.l)(), fiiuoiiiu of Hpecial assessment for drain — //c/'/, that the case came williin the words '■ su Ji like mutters or things when the rijihts in future mi;;ht he hoiiinl." and was therefore appeal- ahle. Kcc/i'-iiiisliijite.t ill S/. ,s'/(//i/'e<' vs. (iiif of Jfo^Z/'w/, Supreme Ct.. ID Can. S. ('. R. :',[)'.). 31. In an action lu'oii^ht hy the plain- tills, 1 laimiiiL;- .SI, 000 (lamaj.'C's, aicl pravlnn that the def'enilaut he condemued to li.'moli-li the temporary hridire iiiterferiiiL' w idi pluin- till's franchise — Ifc/il. that as ri;:hls in future iiiitrhl he ll luiid. the cast was appealalilc- (I'liliiinrnii vs. (,'iii/liriiiil/, Sup.emc ("t. l.'^'sij, 111 ('ai).S. C. K. .')7',i. 31". Hvpothecarv Action.— fii an hypo lliecai'v action for ,'»1(1.').SJ, or the alian lonmeiit of the immovealile. appeal wili not lie to the Supreme Court. Hiiiih- nl' Tiii-i,hIii vs. ('lur cl Muriiiiillims. ctr , Supreme Ct. l.-fsil, IJ Can. S.'C. R. 2.-.. 31/'. Where the ipicslion lieci.Iel |.y the l^ieeiTs lleiic;i was as lo the p;a.irilv ulji hyp.ithe.-ary deht of ijioHii, no appeal lies n, the Supreme Court. ri) ,1/"/7/;( vs. .1////.V, (,i. 'J., I'l 11. I-. R. '.t-^. 32. Ill Action to quash By Law— By Law rcp;alcd- Costs. —If m an mi:..!, liroiii:lit a;zaiii-l a munieipal eoi p.iralion. f..r the purpo-e of ipiashiug a hy law ol such eor- lioratioii, jii.h_;niciit he rendered in favuroi' the defciiihinl, l.y the Court of ori,/;,.i, , 'i ^'il/ai/i' iij' Jliiiiliiiijiliiii. Siip,-cme ('t. li'^'Jl, ID Can. o. c. l{. :;ri:;. 33 In Action to sot a.sido By-Law or Proces Verbal.— J uilu'iiient >eiiin- aside hy-law or jirdi-i's r- •bid, deliuiiiL; wh.o weie to he liahie lor the ndiuildiiiL'- and mniiitc nance of a certain liridL;e — Hcbl. that the cas.' i In j;ive all appeal In llie .siipreiii ( I .it I'auaila. Iliiiiih:iii vs. Ili iiinlcln :. Siipreiiio I't. i I'il I'.asiiii.' liis ileeisinii ii|eiii the prlueiiile ..t /,'n«,-,;f/ Is^ii, Mill .Marcli. ('as el'.s 1)1-. -.'nil Kdil.. 4;il. vs. Illiiiir/iiii-il, \)i{. [.. 1! > ■■'■X t'fii ' '!p?* i' 1 III m i iljl 1 Ml i 1 If ' 1 1,, = i ,j r 1 j 5- ■fS^ '1 '■' J: il . ,' 1 ;^o Ari'KAL TO SUPRiaiK COURT. \vii,- ikH appt'iilublc. ami 'lid not coiiio uitlmi see. ■>'.) or ?(T. 21 (//) K. S. ("., cli. l.T', no Intuio riKlil.'- within meiuiini.' ft 'Ik' Ibriner scciidn bciiii;' in '|iieslion. (l)nniltli(' .ap[]Ciil not beinr; ("rotn a rule or order of a cC'urt (|ii!isliing or refusinL' a liv-law of a miinirijial corporation. ( mnili/ "l I rrclni's alli.ucd [>\ K. S. C.,cli. i:3.j, sec. 24 (.g), applies only to ilecicioii^ of the " highest Court of final re.«oit " in the Province, hikI an ajipeal will not lie from any court in the Province oi' Qnehei; hut the Court of Queen's IJench- '.•nery : can the Dominion Parliament give an appeal in a cuse in which the Letiislature ol' \~.Villv macadam- i/ing and keeping road in repair under muni- cipal hy-law, iinllily nf wiiich plcailcd — llrhl, that the oMigalion to keep the road in repair under tlie hy-lau n<.i lieing " fiilurc riirhts "' M iihin the meaning of sec. 2'J \ '/) K. S. C, oil. l.'io. (1) and the appeal not lieing from a I'ule or or !er qua-hinL' or rcfusin'i' to ipiash a 1 IV- law of a municipal cor)"iralioii. the case wa- uotappealalilc. Ihiln.is vs. (',,i/no-o/i"ii Vil- laflfi ':>' Str. /,'fjsi . Siipi'eme Cl. IS',):;, 21 Can. S.'c. H. Cu). 34^'. Ill Matters of Assessments.— By ."i2 Vic. (I).), cli. .'IT, sec 2, amending .«ec. 24 of the Supreme A l-i.vi liequer C(jurt Afl-^, an appeal lies lo the Supreme Court. •' From llu- iud'.'inent <'l any CDurl uf last resort erealeil under ]irovincial hgi>laliun to adjndicale cunceriiing llie iissi^smetil uf prcipcity f,>r provincial or municipal imrpose--, in ca-cs where the pers.m or person'^ prc-iding uver such Court is -^c-sment (.f pio- pcrty at a value nf not less ilial SIO.OOO." .\iid hy ")7 Vi.'. (IS'.il), ch. .111. (W Q.) pro\iiling for appeals fViV,, the IvecurderV Court m nuitlers nf as-o^ment-^, it i- pi-o- vided that .'■■ection.= I and "i -hall ajiply to the appeals provided for in llie I-'cderal .\ct, 52 vic.cdi. ;;:. 35. In Matters of New Trial.— 1,'. .S, C, cli- i;i5, Pfc. 24 ('/), as amended hy ,51-"),') Vic. (D.), ch. 25, sec. 2, jirovides that appeal to the Supreme Court lies " from the judgment upon any luotion for a new trial." 36. New trial ordered ly Court of Queen's Ueiich suo niolii is not a llnal judi'- ment,and does not coiue within the e.xceptions .illowing an appeal in cases of new trial. Accident Ins. Co. of X. J. vs. McLnc/ilan, Supreme Ct., 18 Can. S. C. H. 027. 37. InMattersof Mandamus.— A pi)eal to Supreme Court in inattei's of nuvitlamus ' (t)Hut SCO now .'le Vic, ell. 2!l, amoiuliiiff K. S r ill. 136, sec. 21) (fc). B ■ ->• V.., 1 .-.1. 38. Interlocutory judgnunts upon pro- ceeding- tor anil upon a writ of mamlamus are not appealable to the .Supreme Court un- der sec. 24 (,v), R- S. C. (di. 1,35. The word "judgment" in that s. s. means the linal judgment in the case. Lanfjerin vs. Cu-;/- iiii'ssdjns il' Kioir, Supreme Ct. 1890, 1,S Can. S. CH. :m. 39. In matters of Certiorari and Pro- hibition. — .\ppcal now lies to the .Supreme Court from the judgment in any easeor pro- ceeding Ibr or upon a writ of reiiinniri or pro- hibition not arising out of a criminal charge. R. S. ("., ch. II!.'), sec. 24 (7), as anieudeil by :,i--<:< Vic, (D,), ch. 2."i, sec. 2. 40. of Procedure.— The Supreme l,'(Mirl will ui't interfere. Poir.fon vs. (Jniuu /.'.()(/,■, Supreme Court. 17tli Feb, l8S.'i, Cassel"- Dig., 2nd Kd., 429 ; MrDminhl vs. Frnlois. Supreme Cl. Isl):!, 22 Can. S. (', R, 2(',illc/'. Tlitrcsi, I2li. X. iJ.'W, Stipreiite Ct. ; •-;•. li; Can. S. C. li. OOil. ■i4''. The .luilge ipf the Superior Courl, I ., lie niiidc the oi'der in .|Uestii>n, acted as ,, y. ,)■( i/isii/iiiita. (lb.) Judgment rendered before Siiproinc Court Act came into Force.-- Till" riu'lit to iipjieal to the .Supreme Court iloes i.ot e\i-t, in respect of any Judgment rendered prior to the coiniitg into force of the Act creat- ing tli ■ Coiirt. Jheicslcr VS. Ckopiiiitn. ^i, U. iSTCi. 20 L. C. J. 2<}-). 40. • 1'he judicial functions uf the Supreme t'ouri of Caiuida took ell;ecta"d came into operation underC.,o8 Vic. .cap. II, sec. 80, and by proclamation issued thereunder by order of the (iovernor in Council on the eleventh day of January, 187G, and the .said Court has no juvisdictiin when the judgment appealed from was signed or entereil or pronounced previous tothatdate. Taijlnr vs. Rcgiiin, Supreme Ct. I87(;, 1 Can. S. C. K. 05. 40i(. Nor can the Court appealed from or any judge thereof allow an appeal in such case under sec. 26 of the Supreme and 1C.\- clie(picr Courts Act, {lb.) 46/'. Petition of Right Act (P.Q.)— The provisions of the Su|)reme and Exchequer (Jourts Act, relating to appeals from the Pro- vince of Quebec, apply to cases arising under the Petition of Ilight Act of the Province of (Quebec, 4G Vic. ch. 27. McGre.emj vs. Reuina, Supreme Ct. 188(;, 9 I^. N. :;87, U Can.S. C. Pw 7;!'.. 47. Servitude.— l>y a judg>nent of the Court of Queen's Bench, the defendants in the action were condemned to build and complete certain works and drains within a certain delay, in a lane separating the defendant's and plaintifl's properties on the we"t side of Peel street, Montreal, to pre- vent water from entering plaintiirs hotise which was on the slope below. The ([uestion of damages was reserved. On appeal to Supremo Conn— Held, that the case was not ajtpealiiblo, there being no controversy as to S2000 or over, and no title to lands or future rights in ([Uestion within the meaning of s. 21), ss. (/() of the Supreme Court Act. The words"' title to lands '■ inthis sub-section are oiilv applicabletoa case where a title to the pro- perty or a . ight to the title may be in (piestion. The fact that a i|uesticin of the right of ser- vitude arises would not give jurisdiction. (1) WiHcherij vs. Utimp.inn, Supreme Ct. 1S91, I'J Can. S. C. K. Hii'.l. 48. But in an action ncjatoirr the plaintitf so\ight to have a servitude claimed by the defendant declared non-existent, and cl''Mne. iloi's not apply. (11/.) the 'Joiirt of Ruvu-w—Ilr/d, tli.il tlic artioti ' 54. The plaiiitill', uIjo hail acteil a- oii^'ht to have heeii iiistimieij in the Circiiil ai'i'iit lor the late J. H. S.. liroii;/hl an action fjf Court. On appeal to the ."^nprenie Coiirl— J:1,.1T0 for a halance of account ilue him a- !/«/(/, that as the coi-e was ori^riiially iiii-tiliileil such aLrent. The (lefeinianl-, in aLlililion tu a ill the Superior Court, and U|..oii the face of the j;cneral denial, pleaded eoinpensalion for$ii,lli; Iiroei'edinj.'H the ri<;ht lo the pofHe-,«ion ami priiperly of an irninovealile properly was in- volved, an appeal wonid lie. Ilhili-I/I'ii'd vs. McJUtiii. Supreme Cl. l^iMI, I'J Can. S. ('. li. 12, swered ihat tiie transact id illlere^t. 'I'he plaiiililf replied that il n was paiil hy the transler by him of certain imniovcalile.- in |)a\ inenl. he defeniuml- ah- kill was nm a ^iiviiil' ;!• 51. In a case of a dispnie between payment, nut a ^ivin^ of .-eeiirily. Q'l adjc ),!;• proprietors of iniiiiii: lands, where lierirh Ihhl that tne d( ft'iidants had bi an encroiiehment wa« complained of, ami it a| peared that the limit- oftlie respective proper tie.s had not been IcL'allv delennined li\- a 'mi the transfer of the imu oveab; a'lil that ihe delendants owed a balance $1,151 lo liie plaintill. On applica r/yf, the Coiirl of <,)ueeii's Jiench//'/'/, Ihatan m.ide to the Ue;.'istrar ot the Supi iiinclioii Wdiild not lie to pMvent the alle^'c I it In encroaehment. the |iio| ("hambers, t le .-ecurily tor appi'al to inc Hon lje;ii^ CuMVt 1 to li ler remeilv IjeiiiLT an Supreme Court was allnwed. On a motion 1. action ni 001 h> 'i/c—JIi/'.l. ihal a-^ the mailer in ipuisli the appea IV the plaintill for want itrovcr-y liid not put in i-Mie any lille In ,)unsdicl!on. on ihcLirouiid that the amount ,11 and, where tl: le ri'Mits in liiliire iiiiL;ht bo •untrover,-y was under !?-, <"'".— //'/'■?, lb;'' iniarv intere.-l of the ilcfendanls all'er'" I iind, the I'jise was not appealable. L'/mrdlil ihepeci r/ios}i/iiile Co. \.-. Aiiijln Contimittal Gii'iiia liy iuil.i;menl appealed froni w,i> nmre ll upreine ft. \><\)2. 21 Can. S. C It. J'.', 000 over and above the pliiintiU's rla;! S. C jr,„-/.-.v. Si 422. 52. What IiiterestDetermines.— Ill appeals from judnnient^on uppo.-ilion, the prin- ciple followed is ihal laid dow!i by the I'rivy 7''/^v//», Supreme Council in Macfarlane |-.<. l.eclaire (see .yi/y;r« ■)(!• ]>. 10.'! J. \\/... I lie ri;.'ht of appeal in >iich rases i> 55 and lherefi.ire the ciise wa< appealable iii,.h 1:!.'., ."ec. 2'.). [Marluirln Li:cl(iire.\-> Miiore ISl, iulli,wcc|,j llioit v-. (•(. Is'JI. 21 Can. S. C. lie .r.tnii lii-uiaiice C. determined by the pecuniary interest cf ibe ,|pposilcd with llie l'rnlbnm.tar\ df the Sin parly appellunl. Clinitiiiuiix vs. Lupin-n^ nor Cmrl, under the .1 ndicial Depo-it .\ct Supreme Cl, 1 :> .liine, ISS!!, Ca.'-scl's lb;;.. o • iiebcc, ibc Mini I'l .i^.'l,IHi(), bi-in;: the ain"iiii i:dit , p. I2i;; 0',m/rn,i vs. M, ■Don,/,, II. ,,f a life pulley i-^iied by the Company I. Snpienie Cl.. lib .Mar Cas>ers Di; 1-;. 1.., wliicb b\ il- It id Ivlil., p. -i'M) ; Jl,iiiriiil v-. lildiicliiirfl. toll nil- liuil liccoine pava (,». li. l.s-2, 1) (,l. I,. R. 2li2; k'liii;/M lose entitled In the -aine, but lo one li if which -iiiii ri\al clai^n- were piU in. I inir, Supreme Cl.,2:ird Ocluler, l-H.i. 22 appell. Can. S.C. li. .11 ints, a- collaleral heirs nf ll le i|ccea-e bv a pctitiiHi eli.iined tlu' \\ bnle ol the S.'f.l'l' 53. 'rbu> uliere the plaintill' d iiitested and the re-puiidenl [inite-i n r.msij, [.etilioii an npposition 1) Jin . 1 le ca-e wa-^ iidi appea lable, C.piirl df Ciinadii it ua ILhI. 1 1 lal Kliii/lii vs. Liii-iii', Supreme Cl. Isii:;, 22 the miii 1 or N.-iliie ul tlie matter 111 ('(jntrnvi c. II. lu; ilw, ell I i.e I at I le- 111 ibi ■a-'e wa-^ the - '. I'll J.' ■'I'l" ■•\ nil ^ 1 !:■■ 1 '!■ ]'.'• !m'U II. '''l;ii (h 1 Ml . ■'.(■;, -. i'he -■"'■i' I 1 "I III ) '"'" /lis,',', < -.in ,it .. ';■! >elliiil ''•■•'- :iW[: ^'ii'i:''li\,. ','H' cnV 1;, line. .It., - «l,..lli,,,,i'i thai 111. ^,-;, ''"' .111, ,11111 I'-cl e.s til. '■ ' «lii,.|i ■""■Ulin.l '^-1 lil.Viii. I III till.. UN. I hvtli Mm !...<„( .^ '"■I -ei/eil iiii'l iiitere APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. 133 I :' ■ l,.')0(l. an. I (I'll -liurt of the appeiilubU' iui lilt, llic ciise was not ii|i|ie!ilalilp. It. S. C. (• I 111.'), ~('i'. 'I'.l. Cl-'iiuniier. ,\ .s iliiliilanti'.) J.r.ll, \<. l',.n-lii,i,i. Supivrni' Cl. IHS'.I, VI l„ \. i;;i.:iii.l li; Ciin. s. c. r. :;:»o. 5i3. I-', a trailiT -oM to (J ., cmc nf tlie ;. -1 ">iiili'iit-. I'l'al c'lau' in Montreal wliirli u,-ii I'rM.'n-f.l l'ur:*7U(Hi widi a ri.;lil (pf rclcnii'lion I '1 'lie ycai-. V. mu'lr an a-^iLruincni. an'l Flatt ' ■ /,. cr.'ilitors .if F..in tin- -nin nf 81.>^00 I ' iglit an acliijii a^'ani-l (i. lo have the (ii'ol II' -ale i>\' llic iiiMjicity wliich was vain".! at ..w si 1,0(111 -ft a,| tliat lie was willin;;t(i !■ • I'll iIk' prdpiMly npori payiifiit ol'llic sum ni -l.OiiO wlii.-li hr ha! a.lvaiici'il to F,, and ti," Uoiii't- lu'low ili-niissi.,j Flatt el h/'m ;,,.i, ,,,,._ //,./,/ appeal to Snprcine Court of • 'a'lala, that as the appr I Ian Is' claim was under SJ. '1(1(1. iiini thcv iliil not represent F.'s credit- or-, tlii' amount III controversy was in-ullicient t- 11 ike the case appealahle. Fluf/ vs. Ftr/diid, .-'^ i|ireiueCt. IS'.l'J, 21 Can. S. C^ li. :]■>. "'7. Which Amount Determines. — l;»'. '4 .");") Vic.ClSHli.ch. 2:>. -ec.,'!. amending' H >. C. ch. \'.'i'). sec. 2'). suh-sec. -. it is I- V provided that whenever the rij,'lit to api-al is ilependeni upon the amount in di-- p 1 e. siicii amount shall he understood to he ti.ir demanded and not that recovered, if tiiex- av ditlerent. I'l) 58. In the inlerpvetation of the above statute the proper cour.sc is to look at the amount demaiiiled liy the statement (.>( claiii\ (in this case, ,*!l(l.(illl(), ivei\ tiiuu,i:h the actual anioMiit in controversy in the Court appealed from, was for less liiaii ,*'2.(Ml(t. Thus where the plaintill'olilained a jud'.). 59. .\ltliouj;h the amount claimed by the declaration is made to e.xcced .'it'J,(IO(t hy 1 ■liiri-iini.li' li' !..,■,■ I>;il. I. riir siiiim,- ys \ic.. rail. Il.si'i'. IT. eiiai'l,- llnit ].'■ .i|'l"''ll -llllil i '■ Hll.lWfil In Mil .OIV jllll^ MI ill till' r,"\ iMi-e 'i| i^iii'lii'i' ni any i-iisi- wlii'iein ihe siuii or VlIlN- ill lll.-jlllh' it llul .■llliolllll to two tilollS.lM't 'I'liiis. II. liic'iiL-'lu nil a'lioii :i^;niiist .1.. iirayiii' lli.c .1. l.i' nnlri-e,l In |.iill il.iuii tlie Willi mill ivin.ive 111' ii'« wiirUs ii|.lui I .,t. rn-.. ill til,' Willi of II. 's li'i.i- . ami |iay i:."iiHi iliiiii;i;;.'S h Itli int. Tot ami I'l.sts. II. ■'■tiiinvil jml^iimiit fm- .slllll il;lliiii;;c> iiji;iiii.-a| liy 11 .1. frmlaiu. till' |irci)ici- .■.iiir.sf was !■• 1" ik at till- aimiuiil lor wlii.li Hi,. il,M>larali,iii ,',iii- • ;iil'-.a:i,l mit at 111,' aiiioinit ..t tli,' imlgiiiMi.t. ./..... v^l, //.o■^ Sii|,r,'im. (1. 1S77, 1 Can. S. (J. I!f|i. -'. ill,' ri^lit ol ii|,|i.;il 1.1 till' s„|„','iii,' ('i,,|,'| is ;; '». iiii'it liy til,' aiiminil >ii,'.l f. .r. ii.,l liy 1 1 1,' aim unit "1 111 1 jmlKiiu'iiI. .•ihirdlini vs. 'I'lir Oll-nni .li/rnul- I'lrn /H.siri-.oi., r,)., s.c. is:;i. •_' I,. N. 'jiii;. ■\. .\|'li,'llaiit su.'il ri'sj I.'iii lit'toi',' til,' Supi'iiiir •' 'lit .Vrtli.ili.'iska in an a.'ti'Ui ,,| .sln.iiiio ilnmap's I'l i.Tbiil -lamh-r, lli,' iu,li,'im'iil ..t ili,' Sii|i,'iiMi' <-".i! awanli'il f Hpiii'llaiils SI. mill for s|i,'cial ami ^Ui'ii. 'live llama;.',-. K,'S| l.'iil a|i|i,'al,',l t.. Hi,' <.in. ,11 s |'„.|i,'||. ami lilt! aTmiinil of ilaimi«,'s was l■,'- llll,"lt., .s:,|pii. aii.l ,',,sts .it aiii.i'al ac.iiiist aii|.i'llaiil wli"ilii.r,'ii|ii,ii .iiiiM'al,'.! to til,' Su|ii','m,'C,iiirt — //././. t nil lii'was eiitiili'.l to liis aiipi'itl, as in ,k't,Tiiiiiiiii)r Hi" .111. .tint 111 til,' maltiT in e..iilr..vi'rsv li.'tw.'en Hi,- I'.iii ,'s. till' |.r..|M't' ,',,itf>,' was 111 look lit tli,' niiioiiiit !■ 1' vvliii'li 111,' it,','laralioii I'Oticluile.s. ami ii.it tlie mn 'Uiit (It till, jmlmimiit. /.. ,'/ vs. I!i,il. Suiireme Ct 1^-1. 11 Can. S. C. K. .l.si;. I 111 tills eas,' tlio a|i|,o.'il aois,. nttl ,if an opimsiti.iii ti..-l liy til,' aiipellaiil to tli,' s,'i/.iiii' of tliii'tv-tlifco si. , OS. it .Mdls.iiig liaiik eto.'k, pHi't of a lari:,'!' iitini- I'.'i '•eizeil umler ii writ of exe,'Uti,iii to lew «:U,I'J5 iii.'l iiiiereft ptirsttant t.ia jmlgim'iit obtai'iieil in a suit of Cni-I' I- \f. Mnlsiiii. Till' p.ir v<(, No. XIV.) II. A.MiAisi.Ks Cd.MPosiTiuits. 1-:; (See also infra. No. IV, l.Vlti.) III. Ar.HlTllATOH. J/'jii'inlnKitl. 1. (See also No. I. ?>.) As Heprcscntnlirc of I'urly nom- iiiittiiii/ him. 2-3. Bisqwdifkation—Accciititiij He- frc-ihineiils— DanuKje.s. -J . Jhiiic.f of. ."). Feci of. (1-7. I'cwcrs . 17. I I'rcm. nri'. 18. j h'liuhrul ontsidi: I'lnre nf/ruil ' iijwn. 111. I ■ I * Till' law ot Arliiti-atidii ,ii vi'unnl locxniopi-jution i pr.K-e«lii,)js IS now govenie,! by the lulilliiou of ew- ' t on S to tlio JicvisiMl Statutes ot the I'rovinec uf ; 1890 "'''' '' ^''"'' '■'""^^''■'' ''^ ^ ^'i''- >^^l'- ■■!« i Cliiiptor K eeo. .I. U.S. (^ (artleles 178C-1HI(I), n,.„. , i'.i .'."■ "'''"""tiu" i" relation ti. eortain dispmes with tlic Department of fulillc Works of the Pi„- Scrrice of. 20-22. Whether Otijectionuldc Part .'^'tir/'- aide from the licit. 23-24. V. Costs I.\. (See also No. III. 8.) VI. Kkfht of. VII. Ix DlSI'lTKS IILTUI.KN Hi I.AT10N>. VIII. NoTirK In. 1-2. IX. I'KNAi.rv. 1-3. X. l'(i\vi:ii 111 Hkkkii to. XI. liKI'ollT. ('ompli lion oj. 1. Del a 11 to render. 2. Kridcnie in Ai-tian on, :',. Irrrynlarilii''. -1-7. XII. Ki:s:'i:('Tix(i I)i:iiTs (u- I'imivinc k<. XIII. SllfMISSUlX. I .'l. Ill Isolation, ()-8. XIV. Statitks I'liiivmiM; iiiii — WiiKXim.v (iisT Till: JritisunTiox (if iiii; CulliTS. 1-li. jy RAIIJVA Y CASFS. I. .\|'I'i:ai. kiicim .\w\i;ii. 1(1. II. AlllllTIIATdliS. Apjtoinlnii nl o/. ] -2. (IhlceUnna In Arlnlralor.< ,i,hl their Arts. :\i), Pou-er.i of. (i-'.i. Ihinnneralinn nl — /'eronr.'^e /',,,• Fees. 10-11. ' /'e.si(/nation — Fjl'ert ol ■ 12. Sn-earinij ol , 13- 11. III. AWAIII), .\li.iinri III' Disxi nlimi Arhili nli , I. ' A'ljiiiirninenl .liii' die, 2. Form III. IJ-ll. hilire.it nil. 7-8. Inlerferenee with in .Ijipial. I'-iT. Jlomoiiii/alion of. 1*-I1>. Xolariul. 20-21. Xidier if Meetinij.i. 22. Xotire to AlixenI .\rliilriltor. 'l.\. I'ai/nii nl nf Di pn.iil. 21. I'rinri/ili.f lor di lerminini/ I'liin.i- lion. 2.V2i;. (See under lit!i — " M.XI'IKil'lilATiOX."; I'rolifnipdion i,J Jhlmj for .Uo'.i.,,,. 27-28. See also. — 1'".xi'i;iiti.-r law, that parties can- not by eontr.ict oust the Courts ol their Juris- diction ; bul any ]ieison may covenant that no right of a<'tion shall Hccriie till a third person has decided on any dillerence that may arise between himself and the other party to the covenant.'" 6. In a Quebec case decided by the Su- jireme Court according to the above principles. tlie contract contained the ordinary powers given in such contracts to the engineers to de- tpi'inineall points in dispute by their final cer- tificate — Hilil. that thecertiticate of the en- iiineers was binding on the parlies, and could not be set aside as regards any matter coming within the jurisdiction of the engineers.* 1 1 con. firming in this respect the decision of the (^leeii's Bench (10 Q. L H. 12!)), but reversing the Superior Court (1.-) Q. L. R. 277). I'eler.i vs. (/iiebee Hnrlionr Coiiuiiimiinliers, Siifireme Cl. 181)1, 1'.) Can. S. ('. It. OS,J. 7. The plainlills by their declaration sought an account from the defendant of the value of two vessels which had been built liy them, and concerning which a number of written agreements had passed between the parties, in one of which a reference to arbitration was stipulated in event of dispute — Helil, coutirming the jii lament of the Court of .\ppcal, that such clause was not to be construed so as to admit of a reference to ai-liitraliiin for the purpose of defeating the appel'ant's construction of the deed, and the objecl ot the parties thereto. Sliuir \<. ./ejl'rei/, \>. c. isoo. 10 1,, c. R. ;mo. 11. AMIAI!l.i;SCOMr»OSITi:URS. .\iiT. IIUO C. C. R. CSee Ai.so iNFUA No. 1\'. l.j-10.) 1. Jfd'l (reversing;- the judgment of Tail .l..."i Que. [S. C] 1(1), although arbitrators who arc app.iinted to net as mediators {nminhle.-' rmii- (I) liy tUc l:iw of S,'otl:iiiil. :i ^^I'licral ;i;irccnn'Mt In I't'liT riitiiie ilitfcrciii'L'S, if Miiy, ;iimI wlun lliov iirisc, tci arliiters win) iirc iicH ii;nncil, i^ uut liiiMlinifoii I'itliL'i- 'i| Ihe eipiilraetiiiK |>,-irties, ami (hies nul ini.sl the Jnrisdii'tioiMif tlieCciirts. lint the iiMi-(lieti"ii is ousted where (till injili tlie ai'hiters are not iiameii, the anieeiiieiil luaUestlie award aeiniditioii iin-eed.-m lo a rij;ht of action, (i ■.iledoiiiaii Ins. i o. r.-i. i lilmour, llousu of l.onls (Seotelii IsiKI, 1 l;. 11(1.) ill this ease Lord Watson saiii ; " In m\ ojiinion. the distinetion hetween those eoiiiraitls cif suhniission to arhiters lumanied, wltieli ha\u heeu held to he invalid, and liaise wldcii tile lasv su-tains. is to lie foiuid in tlie fuel that tlie one elass does, wliilst the other does not. oubt the jurisdielioii ol the ordinary* I 'oiirts of the eountrv.'' The ri-ason assi;;iied loi- tlie deeision ill ISiiehaiian (■.<, .Muirlieail i.Moi- Diet., 14, ,"i!l.;| was that •' su|iiiorliii;;siieli clauses would ere.iti' a new Court ;"" »\\:\ in all lli(^ ea?es wliieli have followed on the s.inie |ioiiit tiiat has lieen aeoepted hy the lieueli as the real tirouinl of their judjjnieiit, alihouitii some iud.Lies liave doubted wiiether it w.is salisfaeloiy. i >ii the other Ii.'IIkI. where the idijeel (d the refereiiee is to aseertalnsonie f.iet or term wliieli is made essential to the eoiislitiilioii of eoiitract rij;lils or liabilities, it does not raise a iH'o)tei- /*s. .\s I.ord Peas said in I'oc'.hrane I'.s. tiuthrie l_M Sess. (.'a.s.,i;na Series .(Til) : '' Itlias Ion;; been settled that such a stiiiuljuion is olVectiial. It is not a siibinissiou of disputos and ilitVerenees. It is an aureeuient that theoeeurrenee of a certain eontiii;.'eiiey siiall bo ascertained in a e-- '/ /" l-'in'l 'I' /'""" ^o-, S. ('. 1S!)|,.". • Ii'ilhle llrrnl'.|||M_' to llir nilr- (it' lilU. Ill' veil hi- I^H'. I^il. l.~-, ulih'.' actiii- ii- -iicli in'Jii >.iliivinv 4, Disqualification — Accepting Re- hniiml KJ oliMMU' till' I'-M-riii;.! i,.rir!.- ni' iirlii- freshmcLt.s— Damages. Am. rJC ('.!'. c li:iliciri I i'rl;ni;it,_' In iu-iuc. uimI iIh v "il I mil —'I'lu- uii- iiii actimi \y mii iirl'ilialnr 111' |iiTniilt(.h.. iiciih ,'111 111 l.ilriiiy i.iariniT ;,._r:i;i|.| diic i.f I 111' |iint ii'M li i llic >iiliiiiissi,iii, Inuanl' till' |iiirlii-. An.l uh.vi' il ii|i|irai- In (;,,. ,|:iiiiii;j(-. |,ir ii iil.cll.iu-. | iiMiciUiuii liv iln- lilt' (.'■•urt llml (.1 !■ (if tlif |iarlir- l.i llic ail i- |,,,|iv m ,,,, i,,.|i,,i, |,i |,a\c llic auiinl mI iisnli'. Iliilii.ii nil- iiikiii l,y Mi!|.'i-r. iiii'i 11 1 I Im | |,,. ,,', C-iiiliiut iillc-i"! liiat tin' a iliil rut(ii-< ")'|""'"ii"A "I' >'>|'|"iliM- 111- |ivi'|i h-.Miis i,a,| iU(T|i|.d r(fi<'-liiiiiMl< ami .Iriiik- (i-oiii 11 iTc i-|ii( ia!!\ 111 ,1 cii-r «Ih ic llK'iiiliilr.i'di'- il,,, piniy i \|iiMj.iiiitf.i, ami wiic thcicliy on "'■I'' not Ji a |ii -,l;..n tuaiiivcata .-ncct -,.viTal ,,rca>i(iiis n-mlcrnl unlil I'm- ihiir '-' I'lalc if the 11 ml uliirli -I,- nil! Ill- ,|,||i(,.. Tiic ivnlciicr ^howcij that tlii'iirlii- auar.li'il uilliuMt I in- llir | ml ;i- mi I I hi ir |,Mt..r< Imd iiccc|ilc.| simlj fclrc-luiiciils ami l.iool>, tlirauai-.l uill licanniillr.l. M) y,'/V/,.- ijiinks iVoni tlic pniiinftor.-— //fA.', fevers in;.' Ihii ,[• 1), it. (,■!■■ y,ii- C... X-. (■'■Ill iiirrrl.il i.|,l;:iiieiit olConit I.elow, t iial (lie a|,|iellan t t'liioii As!.,-. (■,,.. (.). I!. IMII, :; Que. nil. |,.i,i .^ ,,j^,|,, ,,, ,„,,].,. ,||(, aliove inentioned 2. The !|iialily < I miiinli/i tniiipusildir allegations, tliey IicIhl' line, without inenriin^ iloi-- licit |ii'nit;l the itleiee- to enliiiye the any lialiiiiiy llieietcn. Il woiihl siini tliat .-e.i|ie of the mailer- .-nlunilteil to them. the |iii-itiiin of ail'iiraloi- in .-ueli inalUT y.*')////!' \>. .sVcoy/K/. (^. n., I J nii.., ls;,'i. iiiiiii. can le a-.-iinilaleil In ihat of jiirynien. ami l)i'-'.. |i .■;.. that the hiu a|i[iliealile In the liitler iimier 3. (Per l''nnniief. ,1.) .Meiliamrs are not , A i1. rjCi C. C. 1'. i< ii|i|i]ieali|e l.i tlie former. Hilijeet to the |iriivi-inn nf .\it. lIMd C. 1'. (".. Atlmitir il; Surtliin^l /,'i/. ('... \>. Ilinitsiloii, ami their auanl ean ..nly he set aside hy rea- Q. I''- l'^!'-'. - Que. ITd. snii of traud or eolln-iuii if '.'iven on iheiniit- 5 Duties of. — \\ hen aihiirators a|i|iointed ters reterrid In tlieiii. MrOrni-i/ vs. '/'in- in value a |ii'n|ii'rty iiroeeed ii|iiin an ermne- Qiircii, ,S,i|,reii,e Cl. l^!'.ll^ I'.t Can. S. V. It. on- ha-is in law, ami relii-e t,, admit the I.e-l evidence ot value, an inleresitd patty may olitain a ui-it of iiiiiinhihitis ii;:aiiist the aria trators to eompel them lo admit siiidi evidence- //(,' /■Jj'/iriijiiiiilidu III SI. Jnlin'x /linli/i'. June-' vs. lAiiiniil, S. ('. l.^^S,'-), M. 1,, I!.. 1 .S C. .i;!<. 6. Fees. — .\n arhi'ialnr eiuim.t recover hi- ('ee>, when he lia-^ failed lo make his award. l>it. Ilf. AIMUTKATUK. 1. Appointmsut.— vVhere the | arlieslia\e eacli cho.-en an arhilralor to determine the Mi- lne of a liiiildui;,' to hesidd.. and have arran^zed Inr the a| I oiiitii.ent of a thiol aihitialor in ca-e of di-a^M'.emeiii, such third arhitrator '""' "'-"''■>■ ''"' """"' "'"''" ' 1'^' '''•'•■'>' ^l"''''' cannot le chn-en hy the Cniirl. M.nl'ln ismi Vs. JJniiiiiii, S. ;'. Issi. i; |{. I.. (;;2. 2. As Representative of Party nom- inating him— .\ |;er-nii named by a parly a- hif- arhitralnr does not represent him in the feiise that the presonee of the arhitrator, and III- takinir Jiart in the prnceedin,L"- and de lilieialioiis, will jii-^tily a sialeiiK iil hv the arbitrators in tlu-ir award that the parly was lied in the siihiiiis.-inii. Minimiiil \<. Muriu. r. C. |-T:'„ 17 1.. ('. .1. I 111. 7. .\n iirhitiiilor is tlie ii>:enl of both parlie- tn the nrhilration. ami not nnly of llie parly appoiiilin;: him, and. theri-foie, he has a Joint and seMial recourse for his fees a;.rain-l ad ihe parties to the arhilration, .Uh/d \s. hniJ A- I.'iini Co, S. ('. ISDI,.-, Que. H:!. 8. Powers.— .Vrhiiri'.lors. e\-en when vested iieard. /,'ic/ii/iiii ,f- (liilmin .A'kc. Co, vs. with powers of ((////r(''/'.s- (-ri(/(y/o.v//e((C.v, cannot ('(iiiniiircial fuinii J.v.-.r. 'V/., Q. U. l,s;(), :i adjud'cate (in liie question nf cnsts, unless Ih,- Qiii'' ""■ siinie IS specially reh'ired to them, and so 3. An arhilralor is the ii^'cnt ot both """''' "' ''"'''' ""'•"■'' "" li'l.indicales witli re- thc jiarlies iiavin.' ncoiir.-e to arhitralitn and "l"'-'' '" ''"' ^■"^'"' "'" '"' '''' "-"'''• ■VfAV///e' vs. Ta/i/i. ('. C. IsJS - I>- V. ,1. r.lll. (li I'crKaii 111 Sellmni in IJnl.iinl r,< (■iis>iiiv (!' C Isv- II I. .\. i!4--')i ■• riieii- l.,mislii|,s ».iulil,'„o IN'. AW.M'J). iliiiil't, lii-.-^iliito iiiiieli bi'fiiie llii'v liel.l Unit In entitle ■!ii'i','«^V,?i'l'''V''''''-7T'''''''^'''?'''-''''''''"^^^^^^^ 1- Acquiescence — Conditional. — \ all law mill lu he arliitrarv ill then- ileiiliini> Willi 111, • i- , I'-'oties. ■' I parly to an arbitralioii wiio accejits coiidilioii- 111 nil ii-'-,-,l ieelci ( nliliri 1 :av i- 1 t.liiii c (1) A.> l.-i'. .S'J AIllMTRATroX. i;'.: ;t,.y llie iiiiioiiut uuai'ileil, tlicivliy i\C(|uic~rfs )■, ilic uwiii'il, mill i- IiiiiiikI I'V it s(i Imiil' a- ilic M'li'iiliwii uijiliT Nvliii.'li he ii(icp|ili'>l it i^ iiiil ]■, Jlli/cil. MrDniKllfl V-. 77/, V"""» •'^- ^'• ]-:<'. HI (). L. i!. i;-Jl. 2. A oiiMlitiim — ■• Ihiil if I'li 111 MMV (,,)-(■ ill.' ( inv CM liliH III -in nil ( I'liclu'li' 111 II rnii-i'li'f 111' rrci|ifii In ;cii\ ii iilriiclnr. . . . I :,• 11 111 I III- ill ili-] line. Ill iiii\ iiuiii'il (!>■ c ill I II 1.1 l;i:i'l(' liV llnMli . . . . llir MIIIH- |in\l!f^r will 111- I \:i lnldl 111 Mill " — i- lint ICiilxi il I'V iIjc (net li 111 niii' I'f ihc iilliri' riiiitr;icliii> liml lililaiiicii III 111 liir I.KUIIIiUIlt (■ii\ Cllinl' an iililcr t ilMl :i;-liri' lii'i.'ci.c .m a ijitilmii nl rijilit |i|-i'S"iili'il I V liiiii ;.,•■ I'lc |piii-(fuliiiii ( ( 111- (•laiiii. (III.) 3 By one Ai'bitrator --■I'licCoriiiiiaiiiii. ii||it'llaiil, liail i;raiiti'il to I In' Colii|iuny. 1'i'^-|kiii- liiii.. tlic |ii'ivil<'j:i' iif liiiijiliiig ami (i|i('ratiii;r II jjnix.' lailuav ill llif I'ilv. fur Ml year.-, ii lai'iiii:.' llic liiilil I'l a-Miiiiiii;; llic ii\vii('r,-lii|i al'i r '_'. 1!. 1-m;. 12 Q. 1,. H. :!1T. II !;. i.. \vi. 4. Ami ill -mill a ca-p of rcfii-al to a|'|i"iiit an ailiilralnr, the Cniii't caiinnt a|i|iiiiiit niic (///.) |n'r Sirnii;; A- Ihnii'y, .I..I. iii Sni'iTiiic Ci. l-'-T. l."iCaii. S.C. I!. 1(11, icvcr- siii- I:! ».i. I.. K. 'Jori. 5. Complaint of Irregularities alter Award.— An nnii'v inr cMciui' n wa-^ a-i7:i, StI, Sept., Kaiii. 1Ii,l., p. lit). In K. L. l,".:',. 7. Where the iiarties ii^ieid tn -nlnnit tlieir dillereiices In arhilralnr- ainl me'llaln|■^, aii'l iiolw ilh.-landing .-eriuiis ii rej;iilai il .e.- c n the |iart, (.if the iiiediiilors, proceeded witli the arliiti'alion. it was too late to eoinplain nf Ihe irrci^nlarilies ater the award w.i- len- derel.C:;; Unllmid \^. V (.■<.-. 8. And so Ildil in Hii;. vs. MrCrorii , Q. H. l.^s,-). 1,") H. L. .-)li.'), rniiriiiiied in Snpii'ine I'l, nil ihe jxiniiiid that theiuvar'l wu- valid. I'.i Can.S. C It. \>^\.). 9. Deposit of.— The depimt (if an award ciinnnl he inade hy mie w Im ha- ceased in he an arhitialiir. Siri,/iii/ vs. I'lOiiili/niA'.li. 1-To. 1 (^ L. II. 122'. 10. Form of. — Thai an aw.'ir.l in the follnwing form. " and a fnilher and adduional •• -mil of .•>!::. alHI to he paid In the said .J. U. •• .\ln|soii. f(.ir loss of river froiitane if the said •• .] . 11. R. .Mol,-oii is eiililled In a river frniil- •• ai:e." is hypiillietical and vnid. Sl<(riu.-'- vs. Mnlsim, Q. "]!. I.SS15. 2'J I.. C. .1. 27.-1. 11. The award nf an arliiiratnr and iiiiiiahlr ii'i:ijiii.-;reed upon by them, Heg.y-. .VrGren-;,, i). B. 1885.1". H.L.:,'X,, confirmed in SupremeCouit on other j^roundj, r.i Can .S. C, H. 181. 20. Servic3 of— Delay,— .\n award nf arbitrators and mediators not signified to the parties iiiiei-esle pronounced or served i.i null, even where the arbitrators are iiminhhx (■(iiniKisi/iiiis. llrhert vs. »'/•/.//(/, (^ 1!. |8'J2, 1 l^ue. :;ii|, confirming .'s. C. l8-i',». is R. L, 538. 23. Whether objectionable Part scv erable from the Rest.— (Sir .lame- Col vil ;<«) : •''i'he point was never taUen in the Canad an Couri-^, no oiler of wai\ ei' \\as made there, .-inil it may be i|ueslionable whether that point i-aii now, fortlie first lime, be rai-cd here. A.ssiun- iiig. however, that it is open to ibe appelhrrs, tlieir Lordships are (jf Ihe opinion thai ibe award i< mil severable iu the manner sii:;- .a'sled, the compensation improperly awarded being eombined a-; it is \\ith thai which was properly awarded, and bol b declared to lic '• le montant do la compensaliou A I'tre pa\i' pour le dit luorceiiu de terre, et pour tons les domma;es resultant de la pnsses-ion d'lcelui,"" .\nd if they were severed, a i|iiesiion might arise, as Mr, Benj.imin ha- argued, whethi r the award would not be delt'ctive in that it failed to de.il fully with one of the (luestiuns submitted to the arbitrators, viz., the amount of coiiipen-'ation due to the appellants uiider ARBITRATIOX. 1 -Vj the fourth lioail of llieir claiiii.'' Bourt;. .\1. L. R., 'l t^. Ij. SH. VII. IN DISI'UTMS liKTWKKN RKL.\TIOXS. Ai!T. :!41 C. C. 1'. The courts have a right to refer lo arbi lion dispiit-s between relations, where facts are ilitiicult of appreciation, without being necessary that the contestation sbo be the result of relationship. liotiert JxWnr/, i}. B. ISiii, ;!1 L. C. .1. IS. t ra- the its llld vs. VIII. NOTICE IN. 1. Ujioii its being established by an affidavit of the jilaintitl'that an award purporting to be made after notice to the jjarlies was in fact made without siicli notice, the award will be set a-ide. McCnllocli vs. McNccin, C, C. I8ti2, GL. C. J.K7. I.\. I'KNALTY-IM.KADING. ' 1. .ViiTs. l;!U!, l;i')l C. C. I'.— A party who ; has submilted a matter to arbitrators canmit, after the arbitrators ha\c made their awur.l, call for till decision of the resjiecti^e tribu- nals witiiout previously payini; the peiuvUy stipulated in the arbilralioii bond, unless ilie award be absolutely null. Trenihlai/ \s. Tn'i,il,l.ii/,ii. ('. is,)";!, ;•, I.. ('. R. 4^2, 1 R. J. R. Q. lis ; A',',/, vs. MrGrerrn, l.'i R. I •.'.' i.. ;VJ7, Note 1 . 2. Where a party, dissatislicil with an award under a bond of reference to arbiiration, con- taining a covenant that the jiar.y refusing to abide by the awanl shall pay a penally of .$100, siie> to recover an amount involved ui the reference, theilefeimaiit car, legally ojipose the non-payment of the penalty bv way of temporary exception '■/( droit. Allard v-. licnoit,^. C. 1870, 10 !.. C. ,J. 79, and see Report ot Tmnljloi/ vs. Trfiiddoi/ (snjiro). 3. .V stipulation in a bond of arbitration to pay a penally is eommiratory. Honthitlicr vs. Tiircol, S. ('. 1.".'.8. :i I.. C. .1. .'id, \. I'OWKR TO HKFFR TO. The agent of the contractors of a railroad lia\ iiig reterreii to arbitratiu's the valuation oi" a pieceof land reipiired for the construction of u road, the iiuotion submitted was whether, under the cirriimsiances, the contractors had received from the company the iiitessaiy power to refer the matter to arbitrators, and whether thai power, if they had it, bad been transferred to their agent. The Court below- held the award gooil. and the judgment \va= contirincd in appeal, the judges being eiiually divided. (^ucl)Ci' il- Uicliiaond Ri/. Co. vs. (,)itinn, 0. n. is-ji;, f, L. C. R. 121) and 3.-,U : atllrmed by Privy Council IS'iS, 12 Moore P. C. 2:!2. " XI. RKPORT. 1. Completion of— Formalities.— The Court may, on motion, order arbitrators tiud ainiables componitcnrs to complete their re- port, by adding a statement of the Ibrmalities observed, and an explaiialioii of parts of tlie report, and also by annexing a certilicate that they were sworn, etc. Dnhi' vs. Coristiii,', 1S89,M. I,. R.,0 S. C. 132. '!'' t M '■i.: w ]40 AIU'.iriiATlON. 2. Delay to render. Akt. :!:i7 C. C. I'.- Ml. KKSI'KCTIN'C DKHTS OK TMK i'i;()\iNci:.s, Ai liiiriiini-- iiiii-i :,,ii ciiilv Ik'iiv llii' purlieu, ImiI IIIM^I (Icrl.lc IIjc lllllltrr ill .|i-'|illlc> I'I'liilc till' ('\|iiiiiiii)ii of till' mil' 111' vcfcrrncc, llicir jii-iM'cC(|iTi;;< lire ullxT^vi-r \i'iil. (iill<-i/ \-. .Mill"; K. |[. l-ll, 1 \l^^^. i\r I ,.■-, .M . 3. Evideiieo in Action on. — In un mil. in lir.>ii_'lil ii|j.iii a iv|„irl oT nrl.iliiilni-. i he ijc I'mh:!! .Si:( Tinv 1 1^ I!. .N'- A. Ait.* Tlio Siiijprior Cmirt of Ciiiiiiilii liii'^. JmiMilio- iImii Id (>iii|iiire w licllii'r ii i iirLiii'iilur, ii|i|icmiiIciI l.y I III' (iii\i'i'iiiii('iil III till' I )i III! Ill inn III' ('iininlll, iiini.T SIT. j.rjiif till' I'., .v. A. .\i:t [Si;:, m in I hi' liM'.'il i'\erriric nC lli^ uilici'. thiidiil. v,\ . :iiii; ti'iiiliiiil limy riiiili-l llir Miiiilily iilllu' iv|. ill, J/l,,nii . .I.n7<, .S. (.'. 1S7I, l-i I.. ('. .1. L'^;. 2. Ai;t lIMli C. (". I'.— Art. I:;n; of llie ('oile oIl'iMceilnreiloc-i not prohiliil pariie.'J t'rotii slipiilaliii'.: in a Miliini.-^i 111 arhiiiators in their report, that thev "''^"'"' '"'""■- '''"''" ""■'^"«''i '''^' ^ulmussioi. liii.lexaniii,e.ithepr.,..eeiliiigsofrecor,i in the '""^"""^ '""["■•■""^■'■' '""• "'^' •-'li.ulation in cause, eNainineil the witnesses of the parlies '''"'"' "'' '^•' ''"" '''"''' I''""'-'"' "'•''' revokeil. miller oath.an.l lieliherateii, will nol snllice : ('"'"' ,7- I'"''-""''' ^- '<■ 1«^'' ^I' '" ^^ ' '■'' Imi such report shoiilii alleireiine notice to the ; ^' *^- '''■'■ )iarlies. or iliat they were present and were ' ^- ^t''^'h atliriiiin;.' Jiiil;riiient of tlie Court heanl; anil a report iliiis ilefective will lie set ' "'' Qi't'e'"'' Bench (l."i U. L. 5"J5) that the oh- a'l le on motion, lirjira v-. Sinitli,S. C. l^W, i; L. ('. ,1. I2(;. I It ti( wi II re\ ri^ Ira sill wl oft ■■■ See article mi tliis suliioi't in lieviie Critinuo \ 111. I, pp. la-SS liy Dcaiii' (lirmiaril, (^C I'lO. a!;ai strci wha (lain Cum iiiim nil. A I! 15 ITl: ATI ox. 141 jcct of (lie Miliriiixcioii wa" lo iisccrliiiii what real v^. Ihidiimiiinl, V. C lH"i;, 1 .\|i|i.('ii- miioiint llic coniructor T Mi:(i. wiix U) receivt- 881, 22 L. (". .1. 1 (IftHcrsm^i; Q. U, |s |.. ( . from llie (iOviTnineiit, ami the Hpccillcuiion ' ,J. 22.')). ,,: the -cvcMiil limlt.l-M rcliTr.Ml to in the 2. U^W Jlrl,/. nni'm, Iv llie yi.r..,,'- Hihn.i>Mioi. WftM iM.Tely to scfiiiro that in .k- |tc.|.(jh(A|.pe.il -i,|,.), .;o,uii,ci.lin..' on ih." lib.M- t.TiMinin;. tlif ainouiit the nic.li.itor^ ^liouM ,|,,,.,h„„, ,|,„t the SliiiiiK. 27 an.l 2S Vic, .1,. fully oon-i.k.r all those matti'i's, an"- aiM*! if ih.' c..r|ioiali.m .h -iiv- l„ has ■ ih.' con,- prcnif Ct. IHl'O, 11) Can. .S. ('. U. isl. |,i.|ii.uti(.n cs'imat.Mi l._v ( imii«- inncrs, il nm-i 6. Revocation. Aur. IMIT C. C. I'.— move tin- Comt to appoinr ih.rn. Jf il fail- 10 J'artiiH ii'.-iilvcd lo reter a nuitlcr U> uiiiiiihha do so, il ai:i|mcsif> in tin- oidmarv proofilMrf. roiiiii(i'ili'aior^ had iiflerwaids. Mm'risnn \-. Tin Mni/nr, i/r,,,,> taken ii|i the mailer the defendants' arl'ilialor ,Vo/'^■l■r(/, t.^. I!. ISXI, I!,. N'. 'J."., 1 hurion's refused to j;o on. and made delanlt toapiieur. (}. It, Hrp. KiT. Tlieotherlwo,allernoliliealinhlohim,wenl.,n , 3, |„||„. j,„„„, ,,„;,,., i;„|,,.,,y j, ;,, witlioiit him and njade a rep..rl, altiioii/h the f/,,,,/,, ^ s. Cil,/ 1,/ MM|l. V> defendants previously notiliid lliem that they |^ (- _[ n, .^^^„^. j ', | revoked the sul-.nissidn . IMiiinlill then -ned fur the amount of ihe uuard. Uefeiidanls' plea was that the award was iillra rirns, null and void — //(/'/, tlial the award was a nullity, and the action mu>l hedismissed, as ihedefHiidants liad revoked I lie snhmis.sion hefore the report was made, which they had a rij>ht to do. Mi'tiriii\!>. ('oiiiiiiiiiKiiih' 'k Siriii:-' Sti. Criu'x, S. C. IriV.s 7 U. I.. :!8H. 7. Where the snhmission staled that the delay for making the award was lo |„. Hve weeks from date 2llli .lune, Iml that the aili- irators could piolonj: the time at their discre- tion if need shouM ari-e, and ihe pruoi < dini:- were adjciurned hy sini pie consent of parlies in ihe 12lh Oeloler, and the aiipellani then levuked the power — H'lil. that lie hail a hval lii'hl lodoso, and thai no aclioii ol dainafre- uould lie. FiiisiJ vs. Dt'li/, (}. II., (^udiie, 7lh Sept., 1>71. 8. Sviiililt ih'M the power i;iven loarl'i- iralors to prolon;: llie delay indelinilely is siinihif in cllecl I" li.xin;; no ]ierioil wilhin which the award shall he rendered. (//(.) 4. 'J'lie II. ode of proreidln;; flivi-h hy I' .11 of ihe ('. S. I,. C. ivvliich provides (or the appointment of experts lo delrrmine llio dania;^e from o\ erilow dune l.y mill dains, eir. , did not ONclude the ri;:ht to proceed l>y unliii ary action. (1) llrcakfii vs. Ciirlrr, Supreiiie Ct. iss,-,. Cas-el's Di;^., 2iid Ivlit., p. I(;i,.<. I'. IS^I, 7 Q. Ij. K. 2rf(!, |ier .liis|ice Casault ai pp. 2SS- 2 •''.t ; Eiiiiiiiil \<. (Imilhii I-, ,'^. ('. IST7, ;! (,,). L. It. :;i;(i; and see All. ,v \. ir. /,'v. C. vs. L'lin'niii, Q. I>. IS',)), :! (^iiic. at p. li)'.!. 5. Ihit Ili'I'l, i-iiiili-ii, Ml a prior cii-.- under the same slatule. lUnis v-. l,ii,urji, II, , liiais vs. lUni.-t, s. c. 1m;:i. i:; \..v. .1. 277. 6. - — A direi-l in lion ran i.c lakei, \,\ im insuri'il aL'iiin-t a miiliial lire in-nranrr ciiin paiiv for I he ana mil I olinsiiraine in ea^r ol li; 1 . willioiit limiiMj; reco!ir-e lo arhilral ion as ihd;- I'liied hy h') \'. (t^liie.), ch. .'il, ~eiJ. .",1 .",7. c;, , :l' Assnrniiir Miiliiillf tl ilr Jfiniliii'ii/iii/ \~. Ciirlinnni',!!!. (,». 1!. l^>s. ji; 1!. L. •J7,-,. 1 ", Q, L, K, SC, MV. STATl'TK.S PIJOVIDINfJi FOR. (See also Xo. I .-iiijirn). l.y AM//, ir.i )' CASUS. Al'PKAJ. FROM AWARD. (2) 1. ol Vic. (D.), (11. 2'.t, .-i.i\ 1(11.— The rem- eiiy hy appeal to the .s^nierior Court of irre^'u- larities in ihe iiroceeilin,L;8 nl the arhilratoi-, 1. When they Oust the Jurisdiction : t'.\isis under sec. ir,l of the Railway Act Of'the Coui'ts. — In an action of damaj^es iii;ainsl the I'ily of .Moiilreii.l for rlosinj; up ;; sirerl in \Si'X)—lI(hl,\u the I'rivy (/Ouncil, that whalevir may he the rij:ht ofllie proprietors lo daiiia;.'es, they cannot 1 lem 111 id them hy actional tuinmon law, hut the damages must he deter- I'll 'J'.i. .■'.'I', nu, .■ipiii'.il lies Ir . , awaril for saiiis (iMT .S4IHM" Siipi ri.ir i.uiiri III! '|U under 27 and 2-' \ ic.. ch. (HI. Mdyar al Manl- \ lions of I'aet andot law. is only when a valid award e.xisis that the Court can he calleil upon lo increa-^e or diminish ihe amoiini of the award. Cii 'hi (.'laniiii i si'iiM- ill -V. .<'.i^/ \». /.'.I'./".-. :>ili .Mai-cli. ISi'.i. DiiMil I'. •!., ;:ii'l ( ;iroii. Iiiiil'.;li\ . ]li'iir..iiiniiil. .1,1. Sim- ills. 1 1.1 11 linger. ( mii mem aire liii Code Civil, \ i>l. I. p. 110. Nil. 'J".. mined hy the Commissioner^ in expropriation ' '2) t-'nder ,'■,1 Vio , .'li •J'.i. .■'.■e. n;i. .ippc I ! ;, ; . i ■ '. i itu ■ i ^5" 1 It a -1 «, 142 Al^lUTRATIOX. |)Ower (o appniiit an arbitrator for either of the parties, or to replace an arbitrator who has resigneil. On/. (0 (^ue. Ry. Co. vs. Lnloin; S. C. I'^SC. M. L. R., 4 S. C 84. 2. K. S. Q. 511)4.— Tlie respondent in naming liis arbitrator ileclareil tliat he only appointed liini to watcli over the ariiitrator of the company ; but the (-ornpany rteogni/ed iiini officially, and snbseqnently an award of §1.9"4.2."i dainaj.'e> and co^t for land expropri- ated was made under H. S. Q. it\M—Held. that tiie appointment of respondent'.* arbi- trati'r wa* valid under tl;e .Statute, and bound y,r dcVAnni,li.,ii< 'b> Xo,-d-<)iusl sr.. .h„lnh, \ both j.arties, and that -n awaniing damages ", eonlirmin'' ./' M. ,(■ n. vs. ,S7. Deni^, (}. B. l.^'.i.l, 2 Que. .■.:',2, affirming S. C, .M. h. R., S. C. 4,«4. 2. Where u party tor certain consideration i.grees to submit to the terms of an award, he cannot appeal therefiotn by virtue of a statute )ias?6d subsecpient to the agreemeiit and allow- ing appeiils frntn awards. AHaiilir if' -^ • ll". 2?!/. C". vs. TrevlK.hur,^. C. ISIHt, I'J 1!. J.. (i.V.), 1-^ I!. L, .■.27. 3. Retroactive Effect of Appeal Sta- tutes, .'ll Vic, I 11. '.".I. .-i;f. li;i.— The rinht of ujipeal isL'0\ernrd ly the law in force at the time the awarii is rendered. C/i'. 'hi Ch. ih Sdiiu: v.> l„.„nn<, S. C. IHPl), 1^ 1!. I.. M //,.svv„/f.sS.C. isiM. 1:1 R. L. IHI. 4, Sect, lill of Jl Vic. (C.),cii. 2!', provides : •' Whenever the award exceeds .•?4(lll, any party t'jihe arbitration may. within one month affr rei-eiving a ivritlen notice from any one oi the arbitrators, or the sole arbitrator, as the ca-e may be, of the in,.Iiing of ihe awiird. appeal therefrom upon any (luestioii of law or fa t to a Superior Ccuirt of the province in which such lands aro .-ituate : and upon the hearing of the iippeal the Court shall, if the -aiiic i> a ijues- tion of fact, decide the -ame up mi the evidein-e taken before the arbitrators, as in a ca-^e of i Hrj. Co. v original jiiri-dii:tioii." Thi-^ Act was assented ; ()uchc to on the 22iid May, ISsS. The award in (pies- ! ("a«s'd' tion wa- rendered Islh Mav, Isss. and scrvei on the ap|)clhnit- 2i''th . I line, 1S^> — ILh), , . ,, . ., that an award lia^ the force of '7/o.m' jiniiC. i ' . , ,' ■ ■ ' i'.\ni'0pria'i'ii rannot between the partirs only trom the diiie ol ■ (^ ]!. 1.'<ii])a■) 7. 'Jilt' ili'mami fur (xpi'upriaiii'ii as i.iiiniilateil ill tlie ctinpanv's notice to iivi'ili'atp was for the widili of llicir track : I'lil llie MWanI jri-antcii ilaiiiufjics for tlirce lect or.;>i;le of tin" fences on each -i'le a< l^einj: N.ihieless. In an action lo .-et aside tiie .iwaid-— //(•/(/. adinnin? ilk JiuIjimh-iiIs uf the <-.inrts lielow ((^ 15. K-i<8. 1,") (^ L. U. iiOd). I lint ilie arbilralor.s lia>i nol cxceedeii their iui'isiiiciioii. (^iic. Montiii'ii-i'iirii it' CliKvlt- i-t,;.i- Ii'i/. C'i' ii pii--age, ■')' in the alternaiivi- : • pay slated .lania'irs. (Pimi vs. \<,rf/i SlmK' l!'j. Co.. II App. Ca-^. ,;iL' lolK.wed.l ./;/;/,,■ ..ii.llr \<. Xiivtii SIkiii lly. t'o., Snpreine Ct. '---, IT Can. .^, C. H. ;it;:{, reversing <). li. :;') 1 .>^. ('..Ml [{. I.. .),«. 9. Contra.— The fiuiciini,-^ ..f valu- ;i:nrs appiiiiited uiider the (Jiieliec llaihva\' .\'i, li' value property on the hank of a i',\cr '•■r the ])nrjioses of e.\pr(i|ii iatioii, diics not tMeiid lo auarding ci.inpcnsalii'n for the lieprivaliun nf any (asenuni .ir servitude iipuii the puhlic wharves i.r l.;niks of the ::vrr. even -iippii>ing any such right lo e.xist. Siiirnes v.s. M\\or!.. — mole pal liciilarly ulieic im objection wa- iMide at lli( lime by the aibilralor who icprcseiiied the parly objeeiiu.j io ihe validiiy of the award, ."////.s- v~. J /,',-// //c cfr -V. W. Ihj. (■„., is>^, M, !,. I! , -1 s, c. :;u2. 14. — IliJd. that where arbilnuor-, appo'iiicd I'or ihe piirpo-e oi' ilxiiig the iii(k-m- hily lo be paid by a lailuay (ompMuv, |',,i. land expropriated by -nch coiii| any for the purposes of ils railwii;, , proceed |o |i\ such indemnity, and render their award as siudi arbitrators, wilhoiil having lieen pre\iiiuslv swoiii, the Courl will aiiniil and set aside such awaid of said arbitrators. That wdierc in such (Mise one of the ]!a"lies ins|itu(es pro- ceeding- foi the recu-atioii of any of such arbitialors, notice of siicli proceeding in reci;-- ation must be given to tin' arbitrator agi'.in^i whom they are directed. Whitfit'd vs. Allantii- <(• XotiJiar.st Ihj. Co., ^. C. 18S8, ;]:i L. C.J. 2-t. I III. A\V.\RD. i 1. Absence of Dissentient Arbitra- I tor. 51 Vic. (1>.), Cit. 2;i. Skc. IGl.— The (1) Ciunisel— Ueniinieiattoii of.— See under title I " Advocates niid .Vtt'ivney— Fees of." \i ',}' \ • t.W.i. mw r ;,if if ^ ■■• ■ ■,. 1 1 •'■■■' ?^ mi I liH'i'i 144 ai:biti!ATIon. inii.i(p|-i(y nfihc nrliiiraior.- l]a\iii- ilir I'i.L'lii H) i On ilif oili iJecciiilK'r, JuJj.'ment \.'iis reiulereil make an awar.l, llic ab-CMi'e of ihc disstiilii'iit in favor of K. B- ct ah for lln^ anioiiiit of tlic iirbiliiilor al the time llie auani was >ii'iiiii uwanl. From tliisjml.L'meiil the railway i^om- hpforc iMPliirv is not a L'rnnn' )f nnliity, pi'iiy ap|ie pled to the Ciiiirt nf Queen's Ben Mills vs. Mhnilir a- A' ir. 71"//.. r,,,. S. C (ll Q. L, K. -IVM, ami that Court rev<'rsi'd tl l«s.«. M. J-. Pt.,-1 s. c. ;!ui;. 2. Ad.jourcment ••-■('/(« '//<■.— An ndiunrn- ment to eiialile mir nf the arliitial to \ isit jildfimeju CI iiihi f the Superior Court, iioUlin'i the |irdp( rt_v, w.llnMii any ( next ineriinL;', did nni ti'rnin)Mle llie arhiira' tion ; and that an auard made /(/■ ('//(( the award had for uiieertaiiity, and that the ease shonld al-o he sent hacd^ to late heni" lixed for ''"' Superior Cotirt. to allow the defendanls hiira- '" ioi-ucr the /i/Z/.s 1 1 niireme cpieiil day, the three aiMl raloi - heii..;- pii-t nt. Conrt of Canada, it was — IIcl'l. 1. Thai there was no mieertamtv in tlie was a va lid award. (Jii/. ct <,hii. /,'//. (': ■d. a- ll le uor( H of ihe awtir I and not b;e .Ir., ,I,SI,. Anil.- ,ln ll,„if ,/■ n^li'. "■'■'''■ -uHieieiil of ihem-elve-; lo de-erihe the I^:il. Jl K. I.. Is(i. M. I., l;.. 7 I). ]!. llli. property intended to he .Apropriated and le Ci Form of.— In an auaril for l;iiid I \\nH;li was vivliie wc-r /(///.•.■ f:l nrlir!,.-i was propeil_\ rtd'ii-ed. Jlniii'lr/ \<. \(.if/{ S/,..,, /.'. A' .■^uipreiiir I ouvi, Can. .><. ( not neii-sarv I hal the awa! tiiere is an aileipiateainl siillieient liesmpiion. with eonveident eertainty o| ihe land inlmdeii to he valind anil ol the land ailually valiinl, stieh award cannot aflerwai- Is he -it a-ide, mi 5. It i- the ;:riiiirid that there i- a variaiion hel\\t en shonld eontain the rea-on- of the aihitratoi- thi.' diM-ription of the land in the notice of lor arrivim.; at their i-onelu-ion- ; nor that e.xpioprialion and in iheiiwaril. Ilii/iKnicl/e they should -peeifv therein liie damajies t' i' \~.\t,iili S/ii'ii' Uij. Cii.. Supreme Ct. ls>s, wliieh an ind:mnitv litis heen granted. ('" . 17 Can. S. C. 1! ' .18,-'. ■ill, I, revrrsinj 111 11. I,. '/'■ Cheniiii (Ir Ftr il< .lniirli.,ii ilr Butiilui: rs. L(,h:r.Q. IJ. l-'Jii. i:» I!. L. 76. 4. i;. H. It al,. loiiil owners of lam 6. //'/'/. allirmin- tl S. C sitnate in the city of CJuehee, were awarded Wurtele .1 M. !,. K *ll.'.i(IO nnde.' Ill and -11 Vie., eh. I.'!, -ir. :i. |;„i|„„^ a,., (,.;,,,, i,,.,. |;. s. C.) o,,! e inilL'tlielit "I for a ijortioii of .-aid Ian e\| lopi'ialrd for llie if tl.r Xoilh Shore Kaih^av C ipi On the I'Jih .March, l.s,-.'!, I-;. |{. d „/. in -tilnted an ael mn a^.ain (\ miianv, liased on llie ; ■t ihr .\. s. i; iiol 1 iiniii:; | leaded, I. d on 'Jlst .\i i-elo-iiic wa- '.iraiili'o, il'il, pi'oee-s liir iiileri'o'jaloi'ir- ) only i-;'iplir'-- lliat the award in arhitralioii pruervdiue^ -lieiild >tate elearlv the >iini au.-irded and tie p rope 11 y fur w iiirli -ueli -.niii i- to le ihe eom- p< ii-aiioii. ]| dot - no; ie.|iiire that the awavi "' '-""'l''"'.^ >liould imiiijoii ihe per-oii lo \iliom lie ujion /r'nV.v 'I 'irlirlrs was is-^ued. and reliirned ,,, j,,, |,,|, on the 'Jl'ilh April. The (ompany mailede .huinl limit. On l>^ili June, ihe /■„;/.>• .t nrlirlc were deelared \;\\iv\\ lu-u cik I'l ssi ; . (In Itlii award is to he paid, nor what amount i> lei I p.iid for land, and what amoiiiil for hiiildin. en. mil' \vh.-il anioiii 1 ha- h ^[ay, Iv 1!. ■! al. eoii-{ii|e,| ihal the defe dam- he allowed lo plead, hiil il tor liii'i eii-i .1 \ aim to j.e i:i\ en lo tie rem nam eif ihe properly. Hdiiiiii;/ v<, J l/itiit.i .1- X. ir. A'. ru..<). U. is:in..M. i,. li . i; Q. !;, wa- oiih- o ihe 7lli July ihal a plea >va- (lied, alle thai llie arhiiralioii had I eeii irre'^'iilar ■ :',<'. :il 1.. c. ,1. :;(i|. ' CI..-JU Can.S. C. ll. ]] d ill Sniiren wa- aeaihst the weiiihl ot e\ I'leie-e Oi :nd ."^enlemher, el al. iii-ev the eiiM' for lieariiii; on the inerii-.oii which ilir, ihe rnilway eoinpany nuoed for permi-si..ii lo answer (he/i/Z/v t/ a>7/e/(.v, and the inolion 6". The All ill i|iie-iioii does ijoi require that the anard -hoiild -lio,v on its (aee that a day had heeii tWed on ..rhelore ivhiedi the award had 111 le made, or tha' i! wa- made uilhiii th. lime So li.\ed : it i> -iillieit m i hat il .-hould 1 .. proved thai as a matter o| faei .-indi lime wa- wa- refn-ed. Tie noiiee of e.Npr,,p,iuiinii and ''^'''' "'"' ''"" '''^' ii"'"'' *^i'- loade within tl ■d holh deserlhed 111 e I: lei eX|ir, lei ay. ( /A ) \i ih plan of the raiiv 7 Interest on.- /A A/, ail eompaiiy depo-ited aeeor.lnif.' to law. hiil in ment of d ail, ,1.(.\I. L. It another pailcif llie iiolieeji de.-erihed ii a- where a railwav eomnanv iriiiine' tli( jnde- (;. 211). th ihlUII I'oriniii;.' part of .a eadii-ti,il lot 2.'il."i. an in of land on makin-- a deposit, and the arhitr; the award a< formin- pan of l„i- 2:il4, 2:il.-,. | tm- siihse.pieiiily make an award of Hint ordei "ilh lia' I'owei deli.i had" illiMlee lor an ,iiel;.'m( o( v i; .iMd;.0„ tiillilioi //.A/, •'"-mnii Inialdei aiiioiii;, eollld „ in iiul t,ll,.. .A,,/,,/,, : 8 In ■hi II V ARBITRATION. 14- inoncv for tlie value of llic land, ami " in full ■• payment and .'atipfaoiioii of all daniajros '' rcsnllinf.' frmii tlie taking and usicgoftho " said ))ipt;(' of lami for tlie purposes of i=aid "railway," the company is liable for interest nil the aiiKnint cf the award only from the iliilc tliereof, and not from the date when tiic i-.iiiipaiiy obtained possession of the land. It will lie presiiiiic I that the arbitrator.-' inchtded ill their awiii- 1 compensation for the comiiany occupation at' the land prior to the date of the aiMird. n,l,i(rn vs. Out. ,(■ Que. 7?'/. ( Vi., 1890, -M. L. It., (i y. ». ;iSl, 'U L. C. J.'20'J. 7(1. lint Jlr/d, where the railway Company take> |)ns.sesciuii of the land reipiired by it, after the insiitution of arbitration jiro- 11 edin^*, liiit prior to the date nf the awar'.l by liic arbitrators, the latter are (onipetent wiinesscs to prove that the matter of interest bcluecM the date of possession and the date of llu' award wa~ nut taken into coii-iideration by lliciii, and ill that case the jiai'ty expropriateil i- riilitk'd to Mich interest in addition to the aiiKiiint of the award, ami it can be recovered by direct action. Allautir, A- Xorth West I'l/. Ci: vs. Laiiiiiit/. Q. H. ls;)t, ;> Que. 1(15. 8. Additional. ;')1 Vic, ("ii. 29, Ski s. 1711, 172.— T'l a petition {>> the .Siiperinr Court, piiiyiii,:: that a railway company be ordered ti' jiay into the hands of the prothotiolary of the Superior ("oiirl a sum eipiivalent In six pi'i'c(iit. on the amount uf an award jire- \ iiiiisly deposited in Court uiwler s. 17U of the li.iilway .\cl (pf Canadii, and jirayiii}.' further liiat till' company slioiil I be enjoiiu'il and ordered In pi'i.ceed to contirmatioii of title with a vie'A to the distrihution of the money, ti.c company jileadcd that the Court bail im |iii\vci- to ;;rMiit such an onler, and that the delays ill procc'dinir to continuation of title liiiil been caused by the petitioner, who iiail iiii~iiccc>.-lully appealed to the bi:;her Courts lor an increased amount— //cA/, rcversiiij^ the jndL'mcntof the Courts below, that by the terms ol <. 172 of the llailway .\ct, ii is only by the in'l^inent of conlirmatioM that the cpiestion of lid litioniil iiitn'cst (tan be adjudicated upon. ll'hl, i'unher, ( t'ournicr .1., dissentiiiL') that, iis^iiiiiiiiif the Court had iurisdicliun, until a Ii 1 1 a I del "rnii nation of the eonlrovcr i «i**"'* :'■ :■> i :TI h'4,l liffllft ^i<^' 146 ARBITRATION. the juPtDei»iiof tlic award, wliich pliould only I'C set iiHiile in tlie case ■> c r the Railway Act, ")1 Vic, (di. 2i>. Cic fill I'/icmiit de Fer Montreal A Ottawa vs. St, JMii,:-; Q. 13. IS!):?, 2 Que. 532. 24. Payment of Deposit.— A pro- ]iriiiiir e.xpmpriated is entiilod to obtain the aini'iiiit of the award out of the deposit made ly ilic ciinipiiny, although au action may have bci n lii'ciii^jbt to set aside the award, ('ie. dii r//..A Fn- de Q. ih 0. vs. Cur,', ,•!,:, dc Sie Aiiiir ,lr liellevuc, M. L. R., 3 S. V. 154. 25. Principles for determining Valu- ation (See under lith — " Exi-roimu.vtiox.") — Tlie piineiple to be followed by arbitrators in iiiakiin,' >ucli an award is tliat the jiroprietor shall be left in the same position, tliiancially, a^ lie was before his property was e.xpmpri- al(ii. without alluwiiiL' any sentimental value, and ihercfiire, wiien, as in this ease, the e\ iilnioe nf the proprietors' witnesses proves tliai I he value uf the remnant of the propertv aiMeJ tn thf sum awarded as compensation is ;:i'eMter than the jiriee for whieli the pro- pi'iet'irs were williiij: to sell tlie whole jiroperty before the e.x]iroiiriation, the award must be lieM to be reasonable and adecpiate. Benninij V-. Alhinlir ,{• N. W. liy. Co , Supreme Ct. Mil. 2(1 Can. S. C. W. 177, M. L. R., Q. B. :{8.-), .M L. C. J. 301, M. L. R., 5 S. C. Lit). 26. An award is not voiil because the nrliili'ators allowed lor future dainajres which the properly might sutler by reason of the cuii.-iruction of the railway. Cie, du ('h. de Fcr di' Jouclion de Beauharnoin vs. Ledtic, Q, 13. 1S90, I'J R. L. 75. 27. Prolongation of Delay for mak- ing. 42 Vic, Cii. It.— Where the delay for rendering the award lias been prolonged with ilie consent of the artiitrators and the jiarties, neiilur of tl:e parties can complain that the iiuiird was given after tiie delay originally ti.xed. ( 'ie. dn < 'h. de Fer Q. i(- 0. vs. Cure, etc., 'Ir Sle. Anne de Belleme, .S. C. 1887, M. L. R., ;is*. »'. 1,>1. 28. (2 Vic, Cu. 9 (D.)— Under the Riulway Act of 1879, (2 Vic.cdi. !), where the iirl itrators appointed to fi.K the compensation for a propirly adjourned to a day subse(iuent toihaturiirnally fixed for making the award, without stating in their minutes that such udjournnient was for tlie purpose of making an award, and at their subsequent meeting the three arbitrators and couns'.i for tlie parties were present, and no objection was made to the regularity of the meeting, such ab.sence of objection constituted a tacit ratili- cation of the proceedings up to tiiat titne. Ontario d- Que, Rij. Co. vs. Le Cure, etr., de Ste. Antie du Bout de I'lsle, M. L. R., 7 Q. B. 110, 21 R. L. 180, M. L. R., 5 S. C. 51. ARCHITECT. I. PUOPERTY IN- I'L.VN.S. II. LiAuii.iTY OK. 1-2. (See also under titles — " BfiLDERS '■ — "' (.'oNTKAC- TORS.") III. Rkmuner.vtion' of. Eeideuee — Quantum Meruit. 1. Refusal to Show Flan.'i. 2. Who Liable for, .'i-5. IV. Sni.MissioN (IF Plans. 1-2. I. PROPERTY IN PLA.NS. Plan=, identitied by parties to a contract to build a church and ly the notaries, although not annexed to the contract nor specially stated to form part of it, form, nevertheless, an essential part of such contract, and, in the abrence of proof that they are the property of the architect, will be deemed lo be the pro- perty of the church, and cannot be revendi- cated by the architect in the hands of the notary having the legal custody of the con- tract and being also the depositary of the plans. Mojatt^y^. Srott, Q. 15. 1863^ 8, L. C. J. 310. II. IJABILITY OF.-(See also under title— " BllI.IIKRS " — " CoXTRACTOUS.") 1. Art. I(;88.— Where the floor of a build- ing had sunk, in consecjuence of the insutH- ciency of the timber used to support the joists — Held, that the architects, as well as the carpenters and joiners employed in the erection of the building, were jointly and severally liable for the damages incurred. Darid vs. McDonald, McDonald vs. David, and Hopkins vs. David, Q. B. 18G3, 8 L. C. J. 44 and 14 L. C. R. 31. 2. Art. lt]8'J C. C— In action by an archi- tect for his commission — Held, that architects are responsible for defects in buildings erected m'. * if'St' WA . ' ': ^Siiii ■ .V I il 148 ARKEST. liy them, tliougli the plans were iimle by another aroliitcet before lie assiinied charjie. Scotl vs. The liicumhent d- Church Wanhns of Christ Church Cathedral, S. C. 186'i, 1 L. C. L. J. t!:). IV. SUBMISSION OF PliANS. III. REMUNERATION OF. 1. Evidence— Quantum Meruit. — In an action by an arcliitecl lor the valneof iiis .services renJercil in eonnectinn with the con- struction of a block of buihling.'^, the vahic being cstiniuteil at a certain |i?rcentai.'f on tlw (•osl of thebuililin^.-— 7/c7t/, that althongh the architect hail nn right, in the ab.sence of an e.xpress agreement, in recover .v commission on the property «'; /(o//j(H(', yet the value of his services coiiM bee.stablisnei! by eviiicncc ; that the allowance of a comniis.^iion was usual, anil was a fi'ir an tl nnonable moile of remu- neration, in which case he wonM recover ii-i (ova (jiiniitii III iiiirnit. Foo/iier v. .lunejih, Q. IS. isoo, r> J.. C. J. 22,-), 11 L. ('. R. ;)|. 7 K. J. H. 0. -178; reversing S. (".,;! L. ('. .1. 2.3:3, 7 R. J. R. Q. 477 ; Jioi/ vs. IIii„(, S. (' ]?79, 2 ].. N. '31', ami see remarks, 2 L. X. 34.J. 2. Refusal to show Plans— The appel- lants in this case having refused to sIkjw the plans prepared by them as architects, for the respondents, or In phu'e them althc irdispn-ial, CMuld mil re'jover the price thereof. Rixtlur vs. Frircs des Ecolcs Chriliciines, Q. B. 18110, 34 L. C. J. 80. 3. Who liable for — In an action by an architect to recover the amount BLri'ce.l upon fur the superintendence of a house in course of construction— //c/'Z, conlii'Miiui: judgnu'nt of Court below, that an ai-idiitect cannot a\ the sam"> time I.e enjployeil bv the proprietor and the builder and receivi' pav from both, and the fact that the ai'idiitect has c.ivenante.l with the buil.li'r to lecei', e pav fi'cjin him was sudicient to rlisc harge the |)ro- pri^(or. T'llirlaiid v. /.W/t/-, Q. H. ISiit). 1(1 L. C. R. 47;J. 4. An architect who has made jilans, and suiicrinlended their carryirjg out at the reipiest (if the proprietor, has no claim foi' conindssion against the buildei' or contractor of .suidi work. I'oilrds vs. Aj«/«(/(c/(r.v. S. C. Is72.4 R. L. ;i7.-.. <>■ The fact that the builder went to the architect to ,-ee the plans, anil excn to borrow them, is not in itself a presumption that the arcliiiiect was emjiloyed by him. {lb.) | 1. Action was brought by the idaintilV. an arcdiilect, to recover the value of bi- ."crvices in the preparation of plans for a (diuri.di. Letters were addressed on behalf of the c .n- gregation to the plaintitl' and three other architects, inviting ihein to submit plans. The cost of the edifice was not to e.\lan wa~ not in accordance with the conditions. Tli<' othei'- being also dissatisfied, the plaintitl brou'.;ht action on a '/i/i/h/mw wT»(7, and it was Ile/il. that he was entitled to his quaiituDi iinriii/. and jud^'mcnt for an amount cipnil to one per cent, or $S20 was granted him. Ifn/ikiii.<: \<. T/io)ii]i.ioii.ii. ('. 18G7, :{ L. ('. L. J. 3i;. 2. The plainlitT, an architect, in response to a public advertisement, ofl'iored plan> in com- petition for a building about to be erected by the defendant, on being !issnred by the pre-i dent of defendant's board that all the plan< sent in would be submitted to disinterested experts before a ( hoice w.is made. The plan- were not submitted to e.\perls, and ihn-.' linally adopted were submitted by an archileei who was not a coiripetitor within the t'>rm~ oi' the public advertisement — He/d, that !lie plainlill was not entitled to damages, it beinj evident that the defeii lant was not nnand i i adopt the plan- which might be recomiicMilr I by the experts, and no partiality or iiad failii in the selection beiiii; proved. Wullifiuk \- I'rdlestiint Ilns/iilal for Ihc Insinn. l-'.M. M. L. It.. 7 g. B. Mil.' ARREST. 1. Privilege of Members of Par ment. — Held, that privilege from arre.-t ui writ of capias did not attach to memli.-r- the Cainidian L^ui^latnro in virtue of any or usage, (ir by reason of any amiloLiv biiw it and the Parliament of Great Hrilaiii, that it attached solely on the ground ol' nr-* . III. I'Aii.riiK TO Pk()1ii-ci;. l-li. I\'. W'llK.N Al.l.OW.VIII.K. lO. I. DKLAY TO FILK AXSWEIIS. 1. A I iirty will he allowed to im^liice and llle uii->vers toartii'ulalinns of facts, even after Ihr lifjiil hearing of the case, upon payment of (li-i-, tiic Miotiiin l\ir leave bein>: founded on !iM iiili lavii to the etfect that such answers liiuc hill been pioduccd through oversight or iii.M ivcilchce. Jiosirctl vs. Lloij(l,S. C. 18G'2, l.i I.. C.IM21. 2. -V piuiy will not be allowed to tile an-wti- 111 iu'ticulatidiis of facts after the case lia< Itcu inscribed for review by the opposite jiun . Sicoltc vs. J^ecvis, C. K. I8l)5, 1 L. C. L, .1. luT. 3. Where a party has be .mi permitted to die ;ni-ut'i- to iirticiihitioii-: of facts after the di'hiy allowed by law. and after iri.icription for hearing on the merits, such jiarty will only be cuiiiifiiiiicd to such costs as are caused by his failiiir I., produce the answers within the pro- pi'i ■Iclays i and the adverse parly cannot put a-iJi- ihe proof already inaile by him and rco'iiiineiice his euquete. but can add to his pi'i'i;' if iie has other witnesses to examine. Liuih.rl \<. Diiclos, S. V. If^st;. I.'i (.}. L. R. 2n>\ "the plaintiflTs declaration in this cause tiled "are true and well t'ounded in f-^ct," will be rejected with costs, ad being no articulation of facts under the statute, and as being insutii- cient and irregular. Day ve. litrt, S. C. 1860, IC) L. C. R. 397. 4. Xo costs for articulation of facts, or for .nnswers thereto, will be allovved, when the arliciilatioii is merely general. Gucrin vs. Mathi,V. R. 1.S71, 15 L. C. J.2o3 ; Desautels et vir vs. Ethier, C. R., 1,5 L. U. .1. 301. 6. AiiT. 208 C. U. P.— .Vrticulations in the following te.'ms: — ^' N'estil pus I'rai ipte '• toates les dli'gdlionn di\ la di'cluration dii '• dcmnndcuv .toni cruies ! y'extil pas criii •' ipie loiites les allt'galions da phddoijer dcs '' di'J'endviirs sont Jaiisses .^ '' are illegal, and can be rejected on motion. Leyijal vs. Larose, 18,S7, M. L. R.,3S. C. 47. e. AiiT. 208 C. ('. P.— All articulation of facts which does not set up specific facts in the interrogatories does not comply with the rcipiiremenls of Art. 208 C. C. P., and will be rejected from the record. Williams vs. Lubine, S. C. IrfiJl, M. L. H , 7 S. C. 237. II. FORM OF. 1. .\ii articiilaiioii of facts which contains iiiiiilrr- not to be found in the pleadings, or iiiiiitti- adiiiiltcd by such jileadings, is never- iliili-< jooil. RoulciiH vs. n,ii:,jHet,S.C. 1858, > 1.. f, i{. I,VI,G R. J. R. g. 182. 2. AiiT. 208 C. C. P.— A general articula- liuii of facts will bo rejected from the record Ji< CMiiiiary to the law which rei|iiires .such urticulnlion to be clear and distinct. Midsons lUiih vs. Fallcner, S. C. 1^G2, G L. C. J. 120. 3. .VuT. 208 C. C. P.— An articulation of fact- ill the words ; "Is it not true that tiie " iillcL^aiiuiis, matters and things set forth in III. FAILURF TO PRODUCt:, 1. Costs. — A jiarty failing to produce arti- culations of facts must bear the e.xpenses of hisenquete. Atkinson vs. Xuad, S. C. 18G3, 14 L,C. R. lo'J. 2. A party failing to produce articula- tions of facts must bear the e.xpenses of his enquete if the other party demands it. Kim- ball vs. Vil;/ of Moitlrcais. C. 1887, M, L. R , 3S. C. 131. 3. Effect of. — The nonprodiiclioii of arti- culation of facts by one or other of the parties will not prevent the cause from being heard and adjiiilged. lhHanse8 pm- iliiced by him torehut theevidenceof plaintiff, wilhont heing required to file an urticniation of facts to he proved by shi;1i witnesses. M„t/iews,m vs. O'Reilhj, S.'c. 1879, 23 L. C.J. ;il;!. 4. Arlii'ulation of fuels ciiMNOt he ]irodiiced on an e\ce|itloM to liie form. iMrhdnihrr vs. Xoniiawliii, 1884, M. L. 1!., 1 S. C. 2H ; h'ce.-- vs. Mon/uii, S. C. 1878, 4 Q. 1,. K. 184. 5. Contra.— (?('7 ; J'intiaull vs. Sv»im<'.s, 7 L. N. J; llmiinn y». r.,tllemaii(l.v:u-S. l!(il) ; Morrhssaiat V». anyuirt, C. K. 1873, 4 K. I.. 541. 11. WHEN IT LIES. 1. If there be a special agreement, an act ion viikbitatiis (i'<.vuiii)>;it \\U] not lie. Jlilr/imrl,' vs. Grant, K. B. 1817, 2 Rev. de LA.l'. -0; and Fiihli'rs vs. lilacLstoiie, lb. 1818. 2. In an action of ((.v,v»Hi;),<(7 f(ir work aril labnr ilone, if it be pleaded and proved that the work was performed under a wriiiri, agreement, the plainlilT' cannot recover. .1/<- Ginnis vs. MrClosky, S. C. 1857, 1 L. C. ,1. 19.1. 3- Money ]iaid to a contractor in advanei ..n account (if the coii-i for a li(jui(late(l or acknowledged balance 'it' acc(.iunl settled between co-partners, but uniil their account is settled the action must Ke founded on the partnership agreement and lie in the form of an action to account. 7'c Larp-acc vs. Ilauini, <^ B. 1818, 1 R. de L. ir.:). 5. Wiien between co partner.s a balance ha- been struck, an action of a.ssuinpsit or 'KKt will lie for the amount ; but if no balance li.i- been .so struck, the action must lie for nw ac- counting. RoliinaoH Ts. lii/rensleiii. <^ I!. 1821, 1 R. de L. :\-,2. 6. A party has no rigiit of action in ussiiiii/, «// againet his formei' partner for debts alle.'c I to be due, or money taken oul of the parlner- ship funds, where the p.irtnersiiip ha^ I n dissolved, the pr(.iper remedy being by ;;:; action jirn socio. Thnrbur vs. Pi/on, S. I". 1859, 4 L.C.J. 37. 7. And in a later case in which the jian i , having been formerly m partnership niiiic a statement of their partnership account, by which the defendiint acknowledged hiinscli' to be indebted to the jiiain tilt' in the sum of !j2'i2, and the plaintitl brought action in a.s.fuiii/iiit for the amount.— //eW, per J.J. Mondelet .ml Berthehjt, Dis,— Mackay J., that the projier le- tiu'dy was by action pro .locio and noi hy assumpsit, which does not exist in our law 10. See h 00 U Co a (0 c, 00 i-\ ('J fx ( ') AT I .\ ASSUliANCE— ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT. mill cannot lio tolerated. Marcoux vs. Mnrriii, \ <'. I{. 1H71,3R. L. 441. ! 8- WliertMli'fcfulant refused to take delivery \ I r jrooiis iinrcliased \\\ him, on the f;round thill the jroods worp inferior to siiin|ile, and ' |iliiiiititl' lirought aetioii for jrool.s solij anil dc- I iivi red — IIcll, that the proper remedy was to , ii.ivr t'lidercd the {^unds and then 8iied fur I'lMii'h of the contract, and as the <;oods were pioveii to be iriferiiir to what they Mere repre- -I'liird to lie, the action wa.< disniisM-d. Moore '■ V-. HiiUa-s, (I 15. l.S(i8, :J0 L. C- .1. ;i2. \ 9 .\|ipeilanl sold lumber to one P. who u-r I It in ImildinL' two houses on the property 111 rr-|iiiiiilent. Respondent jiaid a|)pellaiit fur llir hiinber used in the construction of one I'f ilh' hniises, hut refused to pay for that u-ed in i ilir ciii.^tructiiin of the other, on the ground tliiii he had never authorized P to i)urchase ; liiiiilici' for tiie second house — P havinj:; built ■ ii lor his invn benelit. Appellant brouiiht < iiclioii ill iis.fiiiiipnit for the full aniounl of the IiiiiiIkm' use 1 by P — Hell, that the action in ii--uinp-it ill Buch case was wriiu;;ly brouL'ht, Mill jiid^'mcnt disniissiiiir conlirnied. Hi/ihr V-. V,ni,ili,iii, ;! L. X. 3;>l,and 1 Durion's Q. ]!. 1!. \\K Q. Ii. ISSO. 10. An aciiiin simply for work and labor uill hot lie in favor of a |ierson who has workcil lor a Company, ajr.ainst the perfou who o-lni-ilily acted for the company in employing tlic plaii.tilt', althi.iiiL'li the company had no lc;;al existence, if it appear that )ilaintitl' Uiir"' hou matters stood. Giiimonil \^. Gran- Ji,iJl H. Que. 1S81, Kam.Dij:. ]<■ (M. ASSURANCE. See InsikaXCK. ATTACHMENT. (.() HkTuIIK .IciKiMEXT. (/>) 1)V G.\RNisu.MiiNr. (p) CoNSEKVATORY. (.'I) Fon Rknt. (') Ix Hkvkxdicatiox. (.() ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDG MENT. 1- Afi-idavit. Awrndnu'iil of. I. Jurat. 2-(;. Siii/ii.ieiK-y of . 7- 17. If. III. IV. 151 l-'i. V. VI. vir VIII IX, X XI AliAlNST FoRlilOV CoRl'OBATION. By Wife. CoXTKSTATlOX. Jiurden of I'ronf. 1. Delay. 2 . Kvidencc. 3. Excejition to the Form. 1-9. rctition. 10-15. Groniidi of iiiunt be definite (iikI (•'ear, lO. When Debt not due- 17. I)aMA(U;< for Il.l.KI'.AI, ATTACn.MEM — (See under title " Damaoeh.") (jltOlXDS OF. General I'rimijiles. 1-2. Departure. 3:"). Indehleitiiess. li. Li Hands of Judicial Guardian. 7. Secretion. S-i;>. Sellini/ Property and lenrinij Countri/- 14-17. Where Debt not due. GiAKDiAX rxniiR. Power to Issn:. Hifiiir OF. Action to Jccou"', 1. lian/x .'iii'(l upon an iiltiilavil sworn licfori' till' ilcpiily prollionotarN , liul wliicli purjiorlt'il to Iju sworn liefore u coinnii-^sioner ol till' .Sujifrior Court— //(/(/, to lie null, and that till' ilcpnty prollionolary woiilil not lie prrniiiteil lo <'orrert llie error, inii-niucli ii- sucii iiul iiaviii;; ii relroarlivc itlcul iiiijllit prcjinlic'c llic int(•resI^ of I lie licfenilant, Giii/iiiiH vs. h'oHSsciiii, S. C. l-'.tJ, L. C. ]{. 4r,l'. .-. K.J. K. Q. IHT. 6. The oniis-ioM of the woi'il- " licfore u- '' in ihf jni'iil ol iin alliiiiivit for allnchnient t-uorn 10 hefore liie prolliontitarv ol the Snpirioi' Court is u fatal irreguiarilv, ami a writ i--neil on -ncli an alliJavit w II heijuasheil on iiiolion. lliiiijli xs. Rnss, l^ li. ISd-l, ,4 1.. C. J. '.)i; ; eontirinin^' S. C.. II! L. ('. 11. ;!:'. 6- .\ii adiihuit which \^a^ sinied to he Mvorn lo on the "JUth Dec. 18s:;, hefore Her lirilannic .Mnjestv'.s ronsiilGeiicral til New Vorh', is .sntlieienl. Vi'/z/c v>. Currinaii Silk Co.. S. C. lH,s-|. 7. Sufficiency of. Am. 834 C. ('. P.— An iillidavil for an altai'hiiicnt hefore jinlL'nieiit niii-l -late llie fucl,"lliat the deleinlant is all' 111 lo -ecrete hi- elleels " ah-olnlelv, or '• that the plaintill is infonned and halh jiood lea-oii 10 lielieve that the plaintill' is ahoiit lo sCLTeie his iflecls.'' Luinoiiveiix vs. Kinuiiiiij, K. li. l-i!'.», ;i Kev. deLeg. ;!(17. 8- If in ihe urtidiivii the ihpoiieiil swear-, " that he is credddv iiilorined and " verily in hi- eoiiscienee believes that ihe " defendant is iniiiieuiately ahoiil lo secrele •' his e-late, and that without llie heiietitofa '■ writ of altauhnient he may lose hi-^ debt or " -ii^iaiii damaiiv,'' it is siillieient. S/kiw vs. MrCoiuidlyS. C. If^.Vl, 4 L. C. H. I1).4R. ,1. It.Q. 02. 9. An allidavil for ntliudiineiil before inil^nuiit, in which il is said " that the depo" " nent iscedilly informed, halh every rcasori " to believe and ilolii verily in his conscienee " believe, that the ilefendani i- iuiniedialelv " about to secrete his eslaie, delil- and elleels " wilh intent lo defraud,"' is siillieient. IViir- /dc \<. Priced. C, ^L. C. 1! 21 h ILii/<'S\-s. Krlli/, S. C , 5 L. C. 11. ;i:u;, 4 R. J. U. Q. liOO i and Filzbark-v:^. Chalijoiix, S, C. 1S;J5, .") L. C, U. .'iSJ, 4 li. J. it. Q.380. 10. In another iii.se whore the words " i- credibly informeil " and " in liis con- science " were omitted— //«•/'/, to be in.sutli- cient. liaik vs. Nvhoii, S. C. l.^J5, 5 L. C. li. 210, 4 R.J.K.Q.;t4H. 11. in another case where ihe words " halh ( \(ry rea>on" and " in his coii-eience " wcie omitted, llie allidavil was iield lo be insiitlicir;;!. Minjuirt vs. lltivi-dj, S. C. Ist.'M, •> L. C. U. '2,31, 41!. .1. 11. Q. :i4',». 12. An allidavil lor a writ of attach- ineiil before Judgment, in wliiidi it is allejied '• that Ihe cleponeiil is credibly informed, lias " every reii-on to believe, and (iolli verily in '•his conscience believe, thai li.e defendani " has secreted and is uboiil lo secrele his e<- •' late, d(4il- and etlects wilh iiiienl, ei".," i- Millicient. Ldliiij vs. lirexler, S. C. Is.':.'), .') 1.. C. li. li).'., 4 li. J. K. Q. ;ir.. 13. All allidavil for nllacliiiit'iil !» lore iudgiiienl,in wliicli llie u ord '• cc/cr " iiisliiid of the word " rerclir " was used, and ihe ln'ier word was erased in the body of ibe allilavil and put in ibeiiiiirgin wilboiil reference there- to in ihe jural, was held lo be gond. Jiniinis.iii vs. Jlairs.S. C. 18J-<, s L. C. II. l:;.'i. (i II. •!. 1!. Q.lVlt. 14. .Vllidavit for allaidimeni before iiidgnieni, concluding with ihe avernieiil, ihal withonl llie beiielil ol Ihe writ ihe plaintill' will lose' hi- debt tji- -ustain ilainage, is nol bad for uiiceilaiiily, and although -iich allidavil conlains ^jiecial reasons in conformily lo ihe 4sih Seclion of the 22 Vic, idi. .J, iii-ntlicieiil in ihein-elves lo .-ii-laiii Ihc allaclinieiit, Ihe alliiluvil will be siiHicieiil if il conlains the general iivermeiits sanctioned by the lOlh Secl.ioii of llie 2.')lh (Jeo. .'!, cli. 2. Mililr v-. /iVv.v, S. ('. 1><59, 4 L. C. J. :!. 15. An allidavil for atta(di:nent before pidgiiK 111, slating 1 be iiideblcdiiess of ihe defen- dani to be •' for i;oods, wares and merchaii- di/,es, by ihe said iilaintill's then and ihere and before lliat time sold and delivered, as will iijipear by the account thereof lobe liled in Ibis cause," is iiisiitlicieiil, iiia.-mneh as it doe- not Slate that Ihe sale .ind delivc^ry was to tht (h'J'iiuhnil : and liie omission is nol cured by the declaralioii in the allidavil llint it i> lie defendant who is imleble |. liciiiijiild vs. W/iiehi; S. C. I8(i0, '. h. C. ,1,4 1, 16. An atfidavit for attachment before jiidgnieiit not alleging Ihal the worlc was done " al the rfipiestof ihe dc'fendani,"' but allegiiu an acknowledgmenl of ihe debt by promissory note, is Mifficienl. Miiiiidmura \s. Mcoijlur, S, C. ISCO.o L.C.J. 411. lA- II, 1-1 '. III. »a- ,' ~utli •ave liinviT Ciiimda, or that about II 18. In III c ca^f of an ail iiohinciit Ih'IoI'c have till' 1' rovincf with intfiit to iJclVaud hi- .jildglhi nt, till' words ' remedy and uuii/ lo>e ' indij lie ijeprivt dof I IIS ei'c, lilor- without stutiii>» lliat he hia tielit (iii'l xnnliiin leave the heretofnre Pn if L- iliiiiiii,;' " in the allidav it, are not siillieient to uith ^iieli intent. JSeiliiHe c. c. isr.T. 17 L. c. H. uu;. i- aliiiul I.I ver Cuna la LinlJ'it"; in^lilv llie issuing' oi the wril. Firee.-i vs. h'lilhcrforil, S. C. lS(i4. 'J I,. U. ,1. 1()2. 19 Contra. — On a niotion tii.iuasl 28. Ill an allidiuil for atlaehliieiil. the as-ertimi "thai the de|ionenl is eredil'.v uf attaelinieiit, on the gnmnd iIpU the i,|f,,n,|,.d ,,|id hath I'verv rea-mi In lielie\ e, an I ion in the allidavit was " that nithmit lieiieOt of Mich u writ the iilaiiii tN ill \erilv aii'l in liis enii-cieliiT I.I Ih: Iv-e iheir .said del. I "—Held, that the use of ti,.- iiiijierativi' was unnecos^ary, and that the altiliiVii a.- it sloi. I was siillieient. S/tur/ilcn ,|, '"".'/ deleii lani i< -erivlin.', ele. if lii'lief. i- MillieienI, and the with the L'r..iiiiil- iiiii<-ion iif the vrilv ' 111 llie iliolll-liill iif the a 111- S. C. I'^iiT, 17 h. (J. I{ 111. In ail atti lav it for alliichliient I \' 1 1 w n il fatal. Clement \'. Mnuri. S. (' lsr,'i. l:{ I.. C. ,J. 111:!. 20. Ii.le judjjllient, the vmU'i it ur -iislain .laiiia.'e " lie > •' may l.i. 23. And 'here sueii allidavit eiiihraces -rMiiil causi • of aetiiin.and one of them is ■ lehjetively -ialed, il vitiate- the whole alVpla- VI. ( III') 24- III ihe ea-c of an atlaehmenl hi lore jud.meiit, en main tierce, the oiiiifsion III -late in the atli. lavil, that the defend. iiit wa.s ■■ |irr-iinally " in.lel.lt'.l to the plaiiitiil, and to -:ii'i iilso thi' eaii-e of debt, and iliat the 'Irleii.janl hath or had an iiilent to defraud h s eiedilor- and the jilaiiitill in parlieiilar, is lii'al.aiid ihe iittaehnieiit in -iieli ease will be 'l^iii-iieil on motion. ],>ineh vs. Elliee, S. C. I— M2L. C..T. 20',K 25. On a moiinii by the detViidant to ie,:i-li a writ "l iiuaili ineiit before judgment ill the alH.lavit that the .lefeiidanl "is -'.'crei n^- ,,r 1- iibiiiit to secrete his estate, debt- ai I elleel-" is fatal. MrSeren vs. McAlldrne, S. C, H7;{. IS L. C.J. 70. 29. The atli, lavil wlieii t'oiuideil ,,n a note not yet .liU' mu-t alU'-je, I.e-i.les the ordinary alle.;aliiin, the insolvency nf the ih.btnr." Trewin- vs. Vi.lal, C. C. 1S74,,-, H. I.. ."(.".'J. 30. The oiiiis. 31. Ciinfo! ably In the jiel-nieni ,if the Cmirt of Apin-al-, in Hnrtnbine v-. Iltiurril. 2:i L. C. J., p. 130, in an allidavit for an ultaehineiit, it is not iieee-sary to state the date of the debt, nor the place at which it was contracted. L'Uenreux vs. Mnrtineitn, C. .S. 1 ii! ■ 1.-4 ATrACHMKNT BEFOIJE .TUDGMKNT, I'^MO, 6 g. L U.27,'. ; Liiiiktree \.-^. Gn'y, C It. H!»l . M. 1,. !{., 7 S. C. 453 ; Ryle vh. Corrinum Si/k Afi//.,;^. ('. I8HI. 32. Co;]fiiriii!ilply Id tlic jiiilu'iiii'iit of llic Millie rcplirl ill Villlilllff v. Ih-iidki (!) Kcv. JiCf.'., |i. (i5"), the allpjriiliHiis in nn ftffi- 'luvil fur nil iiiiiicliiiii.nt iimliT s:i.t C. I'., a-" to llii' ;.'n,iiNpN of llif iilniiilill"^ l.clicf lliiil the 'li'ri'M.liiiii is iiiiiiicdiiilciv al"iul 1. 1 spcnlc lii- prnjicrlv, dr., v\v., iiiiiy lie siatc.l iicc.inliiisr 1" t'oriii .1.') 1,1' the ('. 1*., iiltlioii^'li (lull InriM is ;;nfii in ciiiiMi'i'tiiiii with niiotliPi' arlii'Ii', iiMiiic|y,.\il. 812. L'l/i'Hii'iix VM. Miiriiiiedii, S. C. 1M80, (i Q. I,. |{. 27,-,. 33- All artiilnvil in w hii'li tlic pluiiiliU' -wiiirn iliai the ,|c|',.ii.|iiiit is sccitIiii ' or h iiImiik I,, srcrcic liis csiiilc, ilrliN iiml , ilecl-, "illi intern In ili^friiuil liis cmlitors, nr llu- plaintiir in |arliriiiiir, is iiiHilllciciil. Plnnlr vs. Ciin-lcr, ,S. C. I87y, 5 Q. I.. It. :!,'iO. 34. Since Ihe Aet .1') Vie., cli. 0, Rcc. '■^, iiiiipiiiiin- Art. S;M C (". 1'., ii i< Millicient 'oiille;re Hull (lie .lefeii,|;ii,| liiis iilieliiiteii his lii'0|icrly iviiji till' inlenlinii of (iefraii.lin^' liis iTe.lilor-^ in i;oiieral nr ihc |ilainlill' in |iiirti- ciilar. Armiid \<. F/aii(i;/iiii. ('. Ct. IH-^O, 7 Q- L. R. '2:,C, ; Mra„w':'o..\i. J.. R.,,; s. con. 35. Contra. -Mm heM fimtra hy M!ilhieii.J.,ihat theiitiuve anieiMlnieiil alhuvs ''"■ liliiiut;!)' Iheallcrnalive of aMeiriiiir either ^^iK' or III,- niher of ihe aliove iiileiili.ni-. "o raiinot alle^'e liodi. Viiiel.en/ \^. llai- '■"Wifr/i, S. C. 1884, 12 R L. 1)48. 'I'luiilc vs. C'lnur, sii|,;a Xo. 31!. 30- ■ The alliilavit set (lilt in this rase funtaiiicl nil the fssenlial allevaiimis bihI is \aliil. Giojnuu vs. Hall, C, Ct. 1S84, 8 L. N. 71. 37. Where the nfliilavit for an attach- ' luent liefore juil;;i,ienl is niaile liy one of thu j . |ilaiiitilis, it is not necessary to state that the ilepoiirnt is aiilh.irizeii. Doui/ull vs. Jinin '• S. C. 1884, 12H. L. (114. ' '! 38. Ami the fact that the affi.lavit \ allcL'es in tlie 8inj:iilar that the plainlitl' will , lose his (lelit, etc, when there are several i plaintill's, is not an irregularity siifticieiit to ! annul the seizure. (III.) ^^ ■ ^'or is the (iejionent liounil to give j Ins reasons for the slateinem that the defen- i dant is notoriously insolvent. (Fl>.) I 40. An aflidavit which alleges that i ilie defendant has secreted or is ahoiit to secrete a jiart of his goods and cttects is I Millii'iciii, and it i- not neecHsarT to allege that lie is nhoul to secrete IiIh jjooils and efleclH generally. Sr/iwnli v>, Brrlraiid di' St. Ail/nan, S. C. 1887, I o R. L. 328. 41. It is not neces-ary that the afli- davit rill Ml Id he given Ky the plaint ifV liiiii>elf ; it may he gi\eii hy his Imokkci per. I'liliil vs. O'Rrirn, S. (". 188!*, 18 R. 1,. 5G8. ;!:) L. C.J. 2111. 42. The allegation that the ulll- cienl. (III.) 43. It IS not siitlicient to allege that the defendant i- a cnntriictor, and has cea'ed his jiHyinents ; in ^iicli i-ase the word "trader'" must he ii-icd. (//).) 44. The allegation- in an aflidavit I'lr atlachinent liefore judgiufnt llmt the defen- dant i-' a trader is nulurioiisly iiisulvent. iind I \\\\* Vi'U\'>'A to ahandon hi-^ property for the henelil of his creditors, is .-utlicient. MfCull vs. Slnniions. .*<. C. 18!1(», 211 R. L. .'U.'!. 45. ' "allegations, in an ailidin it fur ! siinjile ailaidinieiil, of lui inleiit oii the ]>Mrl nt . the defendant " In defraud his creditors or I'le plaiiititl' in |iai'ticiilai'.°' and tint the plaintu) ! will "sustain damage or lose liis debt,'" iiic ' not uncerliiin or incompatilile. McGinrmi \<. j (.'iiii;/. i.s',10, M. 1.. It., c. s. c. y:!. 46. The allegation that the defen Inut "isseereling or is ulioul to secrete his [hm- perty," is iincerlaiii and iiicoiiipalilile, iinl i therefore iii-iiflicient to jiisiify thp i-suc n; n writ of simple atlachinent. (/'/.) 47. The allegation " that the dd. u dant aliscoi;ds " is siillicient to jiistifv (lie i.ssue of 11 writ of attachment. (///.) 48. 'When necessary.— No aUacliim m for (lelil can he olitained hefnre judgiiii nt without an allidavit, except in cases of sei/me torrent and (he ca-e of the dernier i^ijiiijimr. rifanii vs. Dcrliiuj, K. H. 1810,3 Rev. de l.c^r, 304; ihibrmiH vs. noberl.son, Q. Ct. I8(;i.s ]..C. ,1.334. 49. But J/cld, in an action forwii;]< and laliordoneas a rigger and dernier t'quijii h, on lioard the '■ Miranda," while the dcfei, Imit was master thereof in the luiriior of Quelici', that whether the person duim ijie last r.||.M rs to a shi|) he t\ie dernier i-iimjienr or ii. i, iu> cannot olilain process of attachment lielme judgment without allidavit. I'lanle v.. Clurh,- C. C. IStiC, 17 L. C. R. 7.5. IV )-iie, heciinl ATTACHMENT I5KK0KK .TUDGMENT. 155 II. AGAINST FOKKION CORPORATION. 1. Appilliiiit^, liciiif; iinlflilcd to rcHjum- (leiit tor money cxiM'ndri] upon crrtain (lump- iriv' ciirM lirKI liy liini iiMilcr lou^f fri)tu tlicin, inU'lc nil u-iKiL'iiincni in inrtnlvcncy, iiinlt'i' tlir Iinv-i nCOiiliirio, aiiil tlioir iis.-ij.'iiii' cold llic ours to one IticiiiiT, wlicriMijKin rfspniiiltiit Hciziii tlicMi liy a lon'i'rvatory alltudiiuctit allcf^iiig lii.-" ilclii. frHinl anil Hcrt'lion on ilic part ot'n|i|icl- laiil-,aMi| iliat said cars were llic only iivopcrty tlicy piisacasc I in liir provincf of Quel , Ap- pellants petitioned to (pia-li— //(.7i/, that tlic I'liets diselosfd did not cnnstitutc a fraiidMlenI -lenlioti, and were not sntlieient to jiistitV ill" iittaclinient, ami that resp>>ni|ent, iiy liis proceedings, liavin;; acknowled;.'ed the legal (■\i-leMce of apprllantf, ihoy liiul -nttieipnt inlerist to ciintesl the uttaidiinent. Onturia r,n- Co. vs. Jl,„inii, Q. H. 1SS7. i:! Q. I,. U. .;;■->, HI l{. !,. iiti. y. KespiindenI hii\ in;:; answered the petition to ipiasli liv a L'eneral denial only, would tliereal'ter I'e restrii^ted to iju' precise matter set up in his (if/i'iliiril, and could not avail hiMLoi'lr lifotiior proof in the record which might show him to he entitled tollie renieily snuglit to li<' eiiCor.'cd. (//<.) III. liY WIF H. AltT. 204 C. C— A writ of a'lachinent hi'fore judgment in an actidii forseparalion tVoiii I 'cd and hoard issui'd I pu the petition of the plain - tilt, which alleged tlmt she was credihly in- fniined and verily ludieved that the defendant to f]-n-trate hiT action and her right.s intendeii to di>p(ise (if and maki' away with iiis property and elhcts, llic said writ heing so is.iiu'd liy order of a judge in chamhers In fjcize and attach all the propei'lyand etlects nf the defendiint wher- e\iT the same may he fmind within thi' district — l/rlil, to lie trood and valid. Idler vs. n„i-kr, S. C. IStiO, 11 L. C. 11.41)0, IV. CONTESTATION. (See also under title " C.MM.\s.") 1. Burden of Proof. — An attachment i--iud for recovery of a debt not due, but whicli heeame due (i\iring iiendency of suit, is pro- jiorly cicclared good and valid by the linal judgment in the case; and the truth of the contents of tlie atlidavit, in virtue of which the writ issued, cannot in any way be attacked ill such suit. I'fi'fontainc vs. Privost, (1) Q.B. IHoV, 1 L. C. J. 104, 5 H. J. K Q. 454. ll> In n ncito at torminatioii of oiisc of Leslie vs. Mohnii's ll(i>il.\ 8 I,. ('. .1., at |i. 7. it is remarlteil tliat, '• at tlie argument it was stated by one of tlae juilges 2. Delay. — In the ccmtestation by jietition ff an altatdiineni before judgment the usual delays of procedure are applicable, and sucli procedure is not .summary except in the t:ases of Arts. 820 ami HT.i C. C. I', (irreir y. inirjiiiH, S. C. 1>J',)0. 21) 11. L. 204. 3. Evidence.— Costs.— In conteslatiMn of an attaidiinent before judgment, when the Cdiite.'-tant in hisanswers luarticulalions of facts has, to avoid costs, admitted thai he owes the |ilaintilV more than ?."), the plaintitl may nevertheless make jiroofof bis chiini. Mul Irilr vs. Elhier, S. C. IH-^S, M. L. R.. ('. S. ('. a8;t, 20 R. L. 2(;2. 4. Exception to the Form. (2) Anrs. >ii;) el seq. AND s,"il C. I*. C. — An irregularity in an atlidavit to uttaidi property ca'miil be taken advantage of by an exception to the form. (2) Jliifuei/ vs. Ifiirriii. K. li. Is^U ; Stuart's lb p. .'■|2. 5. Where atlidavit for an attaolimeni b(>fore judgment was attacked by exception lo the form, on the ground that the allegaii'iis of the ailida\it uere false, and asking thai I lie altaidiment be ipiashed, and the plaiiitilis de- murred on the ground that the illlegalioii- of tlie affldavii muld not be put in issue liv an e,xception to the form, the exception was main- tained and the demurrer dismisseil. fjisllr vs. Tlf M„lsui,.-< Bank, (j. P. IBiH, (2) 8 L. C. J. 1, and 12 L. C, K. 2);."). 6. .\nd again where the nflidavii -et U]i that " the defendant was concealing his property with intent to drfrnud his (U'ciliti'i's, etc.,"' and the defendant contested the truth of the atlidavit by exception to the form — Ilihl, that the exce))tion was properly brought, ami heinir proved was maintained with co-|s, Jlirolon, vs. Micl, (2) C. C. 1802, (1 L. C. .1. IfiS; and ( '/itijimmi vs. A'//»wo. S C. ISG.'!, 8 L. C. J. 42, and 14 L. C. H. 103. 7. Jfelil. notwithstanding above deci- sions, that the tacts set forth in the atlidavit and sworn to there could not be traver.-ed Ijy exception to the form. AMiliiiy?. A'('w/),(2) C. C. 1804. loL. C. R. 191. 8. But Held, in Superior Court, the same year, that the atlidavit for a writ of attachment before judgment and the writ itself may be iittacked by excejilion to the fovm. tliiit tlio report of the case ef l'n\fn>ilnh)f vs. /')■.. vnsi, 1 I., ('. .T KM, (iocs net eorrfctly ('(iiivev tlio vi('\v8 of llio iiulges ill lespt'ct of tlie poUit {nider disciLssioii." (2) 'I'lie uiiivers.al jirne ice now is to contPs: tlio validity of tlie attaclinieiit before .iudgiiient by peii- tioii. 'fin.'ty iiifi-ii '• Contestation of,— retitioii." 1. t ' ; ! i4 *.. 15(; ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT. i.'liiioM. wlicii tlic ik'lit is not iluc. Mclris.fe v«. Brihr, S. C. 1S71, 15 L. C. J. -251). DAMAGES FOR ILLEGAL ATTACH- MENT— (Skk D.VMACKS). Girouxw^.Oar,ai,,(l) S. C. ISO), 14 L. C. U. I jmlgnKMit caiiuot be attacked by vaj^\ cdinv. an.i llie ^KH to defcn-lant, as assignee of an insolvent lKTtiun..rcan invoke tlii'i-fiiyiin-.un'' defence- estnio. Defendant iia.l miide freiiuent applica- as iiio>e raided hy him in hi:- exce|iiion to tiie lions fur payment. and piaintitf had consiantly form. Mi,r;i. C. l^'i'if, pnimi-^ed to j.ay, Iml had failed to do .-o. ,")Q. L. H. 212. ! Defendanl. seeing the plaintitl's advertisement caused an attaidimeni to issue, wiiicli was coniesteil hy plainiill'. It \va- shown that there h-en tiled a-aln-l the atlaclnnent.andsul.se- I was no intention to secrete on the part of tlie ^uent t..llie lilin-of the ex.^eptinn a petition | defeniant and a- a consequence the Court held had Ih,.;, produced euntestin- the validitv ,,f I '''■" ''"' proi^ess of atta.-hmef.t l,.'foiv judg- the seizure, in the manner pmvided for the | ""-"t ^iould n.,t he made use of as- a means ,,f compelling dilatory debtors to f ay doubtful ilebts, that proci'ss lieing allowed by law oidy 13. In the ca of ed/y/a.s', the proof ofthe ]'et]|).i:iei' nil 'he |ietition mav he jiroeeedtd with ind. pendent „f the contest-iiion ..n the e.xcep. ' against debtor- -uilty of tVau.! ; that the plain tion to the form. Q>«l,u- Baiil.- v-. S/cers,». ' ''"''■';' 'li-piwed the charge of fraudulent C. H(l-, 12 L. ('. J. 227. ! secreting, and bada riirht of action; hulas the ilefendant had acted as a public v ^gp, j,^^^^.^,^ ^,,_ r,a,r.on, S. C. 1878, 4 g. «l,ou!d Ir an ,n'^"1">"1 "^ ""' ■'^""'■'■- DeMmsounnwc the act .„. without re.anl to the defeiidanf- ! ^•■'- ^''""'^- ^'- '''■'^•' ^^- '^' ''■' ^ ^- ^- ^'^^^ jietitioii. McHiiijI, vs. Walker, C. U. I8;i2, 2 j 3. Departure —Where a debtor about to Q'"'. 158. ; leave the ju'ovinee a Ivised lii> creditor ofthe 16. Grounds of must be definite and ; fact, and the latter made no obiection theni^, clear.— All allidavil t'or an atachmeiil before , lie will not lie con-iilered as acting fraudiilenily I .'fo as to subject him to an attaidimeiit before (liTlu. universal i.raotiee now i, t mtest tlie \ jirlgmelil. ' Riouel > s. Arnin, C. Ct. 1872, I viili'lily ot tlie i.ttai'Iiiiieiii iiffore ,iiicl;'nii'nt liy peli- ; ,, , .,_„ '^ ' T\v Hi. 11 v.ilile dit(.r-| tauie.i liielit tii.n. See i/uV'K " I'oiites liitioii "t.— i'eiiti'.ii.' R. L. 270. ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT. I-' 4. Departure after making Assign- j knouledjie or coii>eiit of tlip liank ; sucli act ment — Insolvent Ti'ader. — The fact tliat an (even in oonnection witli (viilence that iheacts insolvent trader lias made ii voluntary assign- ] of parliiersliii) a« rpgardcii tliebank were from liient of lii.« I'statedoos not iu-iifv liis dciiarturi' i first to last akin to fraud > did nut amount to fmni llio ccpuntrv witliout (he consent uf his ; secretion with an intent to defrainl, sullicieiit creditors. It is his ijuty to 1 e present, in order to sustain an altaciinient before juiii:rnent. loirivesuch information a> ma} he re(|uircd ! Qnijbcc ]iinik \> >^tec,s', Q, B. 1870, l,"il..("..l. fjr the reiili/ation ot his asset?, and his depar- i \')0, conMrmiiij: v'. R,, II! L. ('. .1. T.'>. lui-e without explanation is irroumi for the ' -m •v\ i i .• .i c i .■ i . ' " 10. llie head ot the nrm deleudani-^, i->ue of iin attachment i.efore indirmeiit. „ .. ■ • i . i> ■ i- „ ,^ „ ,■' ,'" ; a torei^rner re.-idiDu' at Kremeii, ;n (jeiioiinv, ilriinemaii \ -. Hants, Q. B. 18^0 M. L. R , 2 i , i , . ,• ■ • , . , ■' ,, ' *■ ' ' had for some time been insolvent, and. Hi coi - '■ • ''• se(|uence, the defendants B. M. A: P., at Qiu • 5. Departure. — Departure froin the pro- hec, we-e in Tcpiidat ion, and had, from time ;o \inee, unaccompanied by any circumstance to time, made remittance'' from the fund- ol liie indicate fraud, d.ies not :jive rise to the right tirm so in lii|uidatioi; to B. in Gerinanv. of iillachmeiit iief jre jiiilL'nieiit. Laiihircc vs. Gm/, C. R., 18'.»1, M. 1„ R., 7 S. C. 453; Lagacc vs. Ai/o/lr, Q. B. isso, C, Q. ],. R. ss. Conliniiing C. R., 18811, ,')Q. I., li., 2J0. 6. Indebtedness.— Wheie the aihduvii \Vhil>t the husines< ol the lirii. \va- >o liei!_' wjund up, the defendants, and specially 1!., refused to payor to make any oiler ''luarcis the jiayment of the plaintill,-" debt, a, id at ti e s one time were can sjio' the assets c t t'he tiini lor an attaciimenl bet'ore judj;meiit stated that to be |ilace 1 beyond llie reaidi of ilie (rliimirs the «uin of mo'iey due wa~ for the price of the ami their other creditors, and bexcud tlie iininoveable property whi(di tile plaintitl |iio- jurisdiction of the Court — //cW, thai sucii iiiised to -ell and the defendant pr(jmised to proceedings on the par; of tic defendants pui'ciia- -Ilelil, to be Milticieiit. Sliaii.' vs. were, in law and in etiect, a fra'-.duleiii MrCniiii' II, .S. C. 18,VI, 1 1.. C. R. 4'J, t R. J, secreting of their ]iropei't_\-, sutVicient !•.. war- R. IJ. 02. ' rant the is.sue of a writ of allachiueut 1 sfore 7. lu Hands of Judicial Guardian.- .i">i>:'i'ei"- ^I'l's v<. J/f/.r, Q. B. 1-7'.'. .". (i. The seizure of the goods,, fa defendant by pp.. ^- ^^ -"-*> allirmmg .S. C, .J g. I.. 11. 1.',.;. ce- of atlacdiment before judgment in the H. 'J'l,e refusal to pay. aee,,i,, paired haiMN of the judicial L'uardiaii in who-e custody |,y m,c1, a di-posal of the property or y\:\ k' ih.v are i-^ valid. .Ven-/i,int.s- Bunk v.-. Mon- i the properly of the debior as shall pla-.- :t out lrr,il, l>„yllan L. \. 22',b jurisiiictiou of the Court of the place \'. here 8. Secretion.— d'he plaimiir tiled a p-ii- the debt wa.s contracted ami where the bu-iness ti-ii lovatlachmeiii lunhw the pro\ i-ion- of 12 ; of the debtor uas carried on, is to all ::, tents Vie., rap. ■12,-ec'. S.alle'jlii.;lhattlin mentioned in .\rt. 8.11 C. C, V a lar'.'e portion of his property exceediii- in nieaii-^ that ihe liefcndani i-^ secretins :\! tiie Mdue -L'2.u(in, with intent to defraud their ere- time of making "he alH lavit, or tiia: iie is ditoi'- — /A /'/, oil demurrer, that the petitiou about t,) -eerele. Ili.rimi vs. />*•/,■;..,'. 1 --7. \\;i- Millieu'iit and \\\)iild not be di-mis,-ed. M. L. H.. ■"> Q. B. lo.'i. sir ]>n Wli s. c. is.-, ere a trailing I., c. K. i; la. — Til e tact that a eljt deljtCI' 1'. a-|H< lart tiier-hip ub- nioiuy in dis-ipalion iloes not estabii-h aoi- i f ■dah \ances ironi a hank, niiiler an a.'ree- secret:oii tt i]iortgai;e duly registered upon a fiirm, which he had purchased at sherilfs .-ale for ,$1,320. The evidence showed that the farm so pur- chaseil had somewhat decreased in value, but even the plumtiirs witnesses acknowledged that It wa-! worth nini'e than live limes the amount of the plaintilfs claim. The defendant owed ;uiolher sum of i^;i75, for which he sold his farm with righl of redemption, which had e.Npired by lapse of time, and he further owed j a C'luplc iif small debts amounling together to ' §11. The defendant having a large family, it uas decided that the father and four daughters should go to the Stales and try to eai'ii money benefit of an attachment before judgment, he will sutler damage and lose his debt; h« is nut l)ound lo add that the defendant is insolj vent, the insolvency being sufhciently imiii'iit cd in the frauil and concealment alleged, lilais vs. lirunct, S. C. 1881), 20 K. L. 144. VIl. GUARDIAN UXDliK. In a case of attachment before judgment — llild. that the appion thiit the tenant is UMrihle.sr' and that the moveables insured and ih-troyed by the tire were hypotheented or iiileeted for the landlord's cluiin. lielangtr vs. MrCarthy, S. C. 187 I, 18 L.C .). i;i8. 6. Timber upon which Advances have boon made. Aurs. 1472, 1493 and 1970 ('. C. — The respondent, plaiiititf in the court l.rkiw, iiltacheti a i|uantity of timber got ou |iv ihe defendant, but upon which advances in ;;.ii«ls iuid merchandise had bi'cn made by the re-|iondent under a writttn agreement between him and the defendant, by which the limber ;i- ,-K.ii)n as c!res>ed should be considered to liiluii;; to the uppellant, but conveyed to mar- kil iit tlie risk and expense of the defendant, an I iil-o tliat the plaintiit should have the sale ,,| llir timlier. and account to the defendant ft']' any balance remainini; after deluction of ili-liurscmeiits ami advances, inchuiing ten |iir cent, upon the latter with a commission of t.v I and a half per cent, upon the sale — llchJ, llial after delivery to appellant before it ifuclieil market, without fraud or colbiriioii with difen lant, the timber couM not be at- tuilied by (lefendiinl's cf ditors, but the Ip.ihiiice, if any, after tk tii-j by Ihe (tlaintill could be attached in his hand-^. Vaiikoufi'i 'I v-^. Mdillaud, K. B. Is'Jl), Stuart's Itep. 357, I K. ,1. K. Q. ;!0I. 7. Vessels.— Art. 834 I '. V. Hthl, that a \(-isel laden and ready b. -ea could be at- tached for a civil debt uiu'o ected with the -hip. Parunt \-». Grenicr, K. . . 1S31, Stuart's Kep. 4J3, 1 R.J. l{. Q. 352. X. .SALE OF PERISHABLE GOODS. Perishable floods seized under attaciiment Irli.re judgment cannot he ordered by the t'ourl to besold, wiiile awaitiufjik tiiuil iie<'ision "I the case. Larochelle v», Pichi, S 0. 1857, 1 L C. J, IS-*. .\I. WHIT OF.— Akt. 837 C. (' P, It is not necessary to emlorse on the writ the iiBiiieof the person wlio made the atlidiivit. /{/.//.> Si. Brunet, S. C 181*9, 20 K. L. 144. {!>) ATTACHMENT BY GARNISH - MENT. I. Al'l'E.AI., EFFEflT OF. IL Al'l'KAIl.\NCK OK G.VP.NISHEK. III. CoNTK.ST.\TIO\ OF G.VRMSHEk's Ue- CI..»K.\TIOX. Allegations af Cantestaiil. 1-2. Contcstution hij oni- Act of three VeclaTittions of Joint Dctjtors. 3. Costs. 4 . Bij Defendant. 5(i. Defensi's of Gitrni.fhee. 7-8. Delay tn content. !)-l(i. Discontinitanre of — Co.tt.i. 17. Failure of Garnishee to an.swtr Contestation. 18. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court. 19- 2(;. I'leadini/ — .S''(/e //( Fraud of Cre- ditor'. 27. When necessary. 2S-31. IV. DkiI,.*UATI()N' of G.\RNISIIKi;. Cannot be diride(l. 1 . Concerninij War/es. 2. Delay to transmit. '.). Donunentary Eridence. 4. Xew Declaration. 5-11). Notice of. 11-12. Monthly Declaration. 13. Notes not yet due. 14. Of Company. 13. Partners:. ip Interest. 10-17. liefusal to declare certain Thinyf. 18-19. Tax. 20. Other Cases. 21-22. V. Hfffct or. Defendant condemned as Garnish indebted lotlie det'endaiit, without iudiciitiiig the reasons of the indehtedness, it will he disniisi^ed on deiniiri'er. Stiiiilei/ vs. WeLftti; S. C. ISW, 21) |{. L. 12!». 3 . Contestation by one Act of three Declarations of Joint Debtors — Un the lieaiinj; of eontestalii.ni of the declarat imi of tlie garnijliee in an atlachiii?iit in ;:urnishiuent against lliree garnisjiees — 7/(77, that as the garnishee inusi he c()n>idcre.i a jiiirty in the cause and nut a witnes-, liiul the iiatiiie of (lie debt due by several garni^ll• ees ninst determine the nature and form ot the enntestation of their respective declaration-, and that a eontestaticiu by one act oi' tliree separate but similar deelaralidiis of garnisliee- uho are joint debtors of the defendant is good and \alid. Miirfuvhini- vs. Wliitifnril. Q. 1!. b-^57, I L. C. J.' -lit, and T L, C. li. :!!>, o It. J. ]{. Q. 'JiU. 4- Costs. — Where the dechiration ol a irar- iiishee does not fully disclose the facts of the case, the Liarnislu'e must pay the costs of con le.-tatiun. .V' I'dhiin vs. Jhlit^hj, IS.V.i, :! I,. c. .1. i(;:i 5. By Defendant.— The declaration m a garnishee ca nil Ml becnntested bv- a defeiid.nil .fi the ground that ihegooils of the garni-hcc ao under seizure lor the amount admitted I'v him in bis declaration to lie due to the defendant, 'lie An attachment by garnishment i-: not dis- deliinlant having no interest in rai.-iiig -ndj u solved by an apl eal fi'iau thejudgnie'il under contestation; an I such a lontcslaiion wililr wliiidi the attachment is made. Ih sjiirdiii^ \-. dimistalion oi a ;:ariii-liee's declai- an aiijiearaiice lylcd iiinier such circcm-^tance- alioii made in obedience to such writ, il he lia« will he rejected on motion. Fnvli' s \<. L, irh, an intcii -t in the iiiatler.s rai>ed byiiiec.i!,- S. C. 1874, Is L. C. J. 71. tcMaiioii. Kiiii/.'dnii vs. Tnrraiirr, .S. C. lsr,|. 9 ].. (■.,!. 2ii. in. CONTESTATION- OF (J.MtXISil i:i:s 7 Defenses of Garnishoe— A garni. i)l''''L \P \Tl<)\ " ho-e d( claratioii IS contc-ied cannot a'lack lheva'idil\ of tic judginen: oi'tbc i-c^ulariu 1. Allegations of Contestant. — A plain- ol -ervic, ,,| the writ of atla. hment, such .,1, till in hi- contestation of the decluralion of .icctioii- liii'ig pci-sonai lo the defeii lant, an I a L'arni>hee eaniioi alle^ie him.-ilt to beinc more"\cr u ai vc,| by lb.- ;riirn;-lK'e, bv I hi' l.i' i |ir..prietor of .•eriain etleet« in the po— , --Jun of his declann-. T'naii/nniil \~. T'iisi;/,i'iii/, of the garnishee, and a-k that tiie -amp S, ( '. Iss,-,^ ] [ (^. J^, |;. •j(;;i. IX. MaI.vI.KVKK I'KXDl.VO HKVlt« — Dki'- OSIT. X. Of SAi..utv. XI. Ok Ekkkcts skizkd Coiti'oitE.ii.i.v. 1-2. XII. I'owKus OK CoriiT. 1-2. (.See al-o /»/)•» No. XIII. — 11.) XIII. RlOIlT OK. Anidiiii/ for u-hirh Dc'itor /.< ruUo- rated. 1. Concurri'iit G'trnislimcnt. 2. Ciinitfir lo liilcnUrtril I'rrsnii- '^■ DiJil not i/et iliH- 4. Delaij to Garnishee to pity Ihlit. .">. Gooilfof Dclitor ill Jlaiids <;/ T/u'ril Party. I'> Xotc in JIaiiil.t of hrairrr. 7. I'arlnershiji Axsetx. S-'.l. Preiiiiinn Note. 10. Tutor to Minora. 11. lVai/(s. 12-Ul. (See tindci' title "E.XKCtTION — EXKMI'TIOX KIIO.M.") War DepaiiiKcnt. 17. Who ure Third Partits within Mianinij .// (112 C. C. P. lS-19. XIV. KmilTS OK UkKKMUNT INtlKll. XV. SiMivin;. 1-2. XVI. WllKN V.UIl. XVII. WtllT OK. l-.l. See aho Exki ttion — ExKMi'Ttox khom. •' (JAMIXO CoxriiACT. ]. Al'l'i:.\L-KFEECT OF. II. APl'EAKAXCK OF CAIJNISHKF. iiecaii-e the pert 111 tde ed. /;, sh-Koi;. 12. cannot I hill sikIiI ATTACHMENT BY GARNISHMENT. IGl 8. — — His ileclarinji will be construed a^' a uai\er of suuli olijectioii-:, even when he !ilieL'i'3 that he niinle his dccliiratioii mi another ili-irii't, and that tlie proceedings in the case di'i not come to his knowledge until long after hiliiil male it. The facility atfordi'd him liy law v( making his declaration in his own dis- tiicii and having it transniilteil, does not pre- Mil! liis heing a party to the suit in the dis- trict niiore the judgniont was obtained, ami he is huuiid to take cogni/.ancc of the proceedings IJKMV. ilb.) 9. Delay to Contest.— A itr. iVH) (". I'. ('• Til li(' admitted to contest declaration of a jiariii-hop after the expiration of eight days lixmi tlie tiling thereof, it is necessary to shew MilHciunt canse why the contestation was not llird within the |)re*crilied delay. LtjHck vs. MrL.iiihiii, 3 L. C. .1. 111. 10. — ^ Declaration >A garnishee cannot he ci-i!ite>ted afier the expiration 'if eight days tiMiii the tiling thcrenf, unless by express per- mission of thecoiirt. liranrjia vs. Charlchoiti, g. 1!.. \ts. Ihmnell vs. ^rilkr, S. C. 18GG, 1 L. C. L. J. 122. 18 Failure of a Garnishee to answer Contestation. — Where a garnishee, whose deidaration is contested, fails to answer the contestation, the allegations of such contesta- tion are not held to b? admitted, but proof must be a Idiieed in support of such contesta- tion. Miilthison vs. Cadieux, Q. B. 1880, 2'> L.C.J. 255. 19. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court.— The contestation of a garnishee's declaratioQ forms a separate and distinct issue from that of the oriLriiial action, and if the amount in- volved in such contestation by the addition of interest and costs to the original amount sued for, exceeds the jurisdiction of the Cin'uit Court, it will be sent to the Superior Court. Wiii/ht vs. Corp. of SfoiU'/itdii, S. C. 18-1, 7 Q. L. R. i:!3. 20. The defendant, a merchant, res- iding at Ste. Genevieve de Batiscan, lieeame financially embarrassed ; on the 2.'!rd Septem- ber, 1882, at Montreal, ho made a voliuitiiry notarial assignment of all his estate to the two garnishees. The garnishees entered into pos- se-sion of his as-els, ami realized, fi'om the sale of siieh assets, .§2,2011.71. The defen- dant's preten-^ions are that they saeritice.! hi» ii-8ets ; he claims that they sold to i.me Alpbon-e TuiTottc, for $1,G'J0, bis stindc in trade, whieh was worth $2,825.42; and that, to the same iierson, they sold for $50(1, a biiil.l- iiig lot with a dwelling an I a •'tore upon it ; a hyp itheeary delit for $182; promissory notes. i'»f, 11 t*f ! ■ 162 ATTACHMENT BY GARNISHMENT. fl \'*-M to the amount of $718.20. Tlie plainiiir m tliis Cftsf, 11 creditor of the (Icfeniliiut inv $1S'., becatiif (lissatir'fieil with tlic trii^tccs' iiiariii;.'e- ineiit of tlicilclViiilaiilV estate, Micii the (iefen- y jrarnichment in liie hand.-- of tiie trustees. Tliepiniishees separate l_v, on iialh, iiiade declaration-, identical in their terms; the plaintitt in tiiis ease contested the (ieclaralinn of each of the jrarnishees. Issue having heen juined on the cnntestatioiis, the liarties proceeded to pi f and hearln;! : and, \ipoii tiie 8th Fehrnary, 188H, the Circuit Court dismissed the present plaintitl's contes- tations of those declarations, and adjudjrcd thai tiie trustees, as vi'mishees, haii rendered a 8alisfact(iry judicial aci I of their nianajre- inent of the defendant's estate. In the Court of llevicw, it wn^—IIchL that the Cir>;uit Court had no jurisdiction in the suhject matter of the litiiratioii, since it in- volved an amount exeedini; $200 ; and that, on that ground, the judjimenf f-honld be re- versed. GuilM vs. L'llcureHX, C. K. 188.!, 9 1.. N. 371. 21. The plaintitf, having selecteil a tribunal without jurisdiction to try such con- testations of the garnisliees' ileclarations, in- volving an amount exceeding $200, sliouM he condemned to pay the costs of such contesta- tion^. (//'.) 22. Since the garnishees had not in- voked, either in the Circuit Court or in Ueview, thei|uestion of jurisdiction, each jiarly should he condemned to p:iy his own costs in review. 23. The Circiiit Court has no juris- diction to pronoimce on the merits of a con testation of a garnishee' s declaration, concci n- ing the revocation of the transfer of a delit of $1,160 on account of fraud. JAip'ihite vs. BdhnKjer, C. II. 1881 7 Q. L. R. DIG. 24. The Circuit Court <'annot decide iijion the contestation of a garnishee's declar- ation, demanding that n sale hy defendant to the garnishee for a price exceeding $200 should lie deeliircd null ; and if the Cir<'uit Court should decide such contestation a writ of prohiliition would lie, ordering the ('onrt to suspend all proceeding- thereon Duluflij vs. La Cdiir l hini in tlie hands nt his eniplnyi'r. J. (i. S. appeared, liut declined in answer .|iiestiiins liinrhinir the tei'ms of K.'s enj;a;:e- nienl, claimin;; that wajres nnl due enuld nut he seized. I'piin miitinn of |ilaintitt to nml\e the garni.'iliee answer — llehl, that lie was hound to answer under Art. 019 C. C. P. Sliiiw vs. liatemiiii, U. C ISSJ, 7 L. N. .'itiS. 3. Delay to Transmit. Auts. (517-021 C. C. 1'. — Where a L'arni, C. Ct. 1880,0 q. L. K. I7;i. 10. Where the contestation by inter- veiiaiits of a ,<;arnisliee's declaration has been dismissed, and the judgment dismissing it iia< been appealed from, the Court of Ajipeal will not enterlaiii an application by the Lrarnishee to be permitted to set aside the former declara- tion and make a new one. Fuirhanks- vs. O'llallorwi isss, ,m. L. U., 4 Q. B. Id:!, :!2 L- C. .1. 42. 11. Notice of Declaiation.— Motion by ilefendaiits to itject the inscrijition for judi:- meiit on the declaration of the garnisliee. .m the ground that they were not notilied of the time when he would muke his supplementarv declaration, and that in consecpu'iice thevwere prevented from cross-examining him, which they had a right to do. Pir riirimn. Uiiihr Art. 010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintill has a riiriit to be present when a garnishee makes his deidarntion, and tri (pies- lion him ; but there is no law which oblii.'es a garnishee to notify the defendant of (he limi' when he will make his declaration. liesid,.,- dl But sec now Art. fi24 as ainfii.leil liv .-.;i \\q ..j, u'J, sei*. *J. • ■. . f| 'kH"^ u >x 1 i . i> .1' ^H U it!' 10-4 ATTACHMENT BY GAENISHMENT. llic iIiIVihIuIiIs' fltlnlTiCV rcccivc'l il -li'ill iH.iiccnr tlic lime ^miniiuiH'il In ilcclim' .'. Iki: l.r M\\es III il liil>onr i^ imi IhhhhI in :n.' 1,1.1 fK' i.f his (li'cliinilicii tiicli iimrilli iiii.lcr Art. (128 C. C. P. /."/■//-■ v..=. Ih^lleaii, 'C. C. ISSI), 11) K. L. (il2. 13. Monthly Declaration.— I5iii iln- .liciariUinii niu.-t in nil rii-(> !..■ niii.li' iiiMlcr |,llill nf pilVlllClll nf tllfdl'lit liv ihr j;iirMi.-lll'<'. Pnifrrhi vs. Leil,„i.r, C. Cl. 1in|iellcd In state wiiat was the capital ( t' their linn in which the del'cnJaiit is one of the partners, at the tiiiu- the attachment was -ervcd. Lafraiiihoi.se \s. liollawh S. C. 188."), M. L. W., 1 S. C.StlG. 17. In the case ol'a sei/.ure hy L'aridsh- iiuni in tiie hands of j ersoiis associated in jiarinership, Imt not incor]inrated a> a joint- sldck cnin]iany.the iiriii caiiimt lie re|iresenteil hv all alkirney, hut nne(. of a seizure hy ganiish- incnt nf ninnies due In a dtfendant, sued as a universal usufnieluary leL'alee, Iml 'niidemned a- .such persniially tn )iay the jilaintiir's lU'liI, ihe garnishee caniinl refuse in declare what In. owes the dtfendanl persnnally as well a- in her i|UaIily nf iisufriicluary legatee. Jlinloii vs. Niranl, il B. 1871), 21 L. C. J. 2G8, 3 I,. N. 111. ' 19. A Jlldtre is liouilil tn revise at 111 linal lieariiiL' a decision niainlaiiiini.' an nhji., ■ lion made hy a jiarnishee In aiiswi.r a i|Ue>lini siiliiiiilled In iiim. ( //'.) 20. Tax. Art. 620 C.C.I'.— Main levee. — A ;:ariiis|ice, when verlally iiifnrtucd hy lle> plainlitrihat he will tint le rccjiiircd lpvnved. Smilli v^. lioiiriie, K. 1!. 180'.'..; Rev. de Le-. ;iO I. 22. ()27 C.C. P.— Anan>weroftlie ■^-.r:- nisliee vv liicli wniild he im answer In u deiniiii.l hy lii> credilnrs is un answer tn iheatlMchii _ creditnr. Urehaut v-. Lowipre cl al , K. 11. 1812, ;^ Hev. deLe,-. ;',0,'5. V. KFFKCT OF. 1. Defendant Condemned as Garnishee in Another Case. Am. ('i2.") (". C. 1'.— In i.n aclinii fnr wnrk and lalmr done and material- furnished, where ihe defmdanl pleaded pav- meiil, and also ihat he had lieeii cniideiiiin i «s ^.'aniishee in an action a^'ainst the i)laiiitiil for a lar;;er sum than that claimed hy ihe plan.- lilt'— 7/('/(/, ihat a cieditor ciinnot reeovc" ajiainsi hi- delilor if ihe lalter ha\o I eeii evi,- demiied as uarnishee in another case in whieii the cii'ditnr is ilet'eiiilanf, anil that innre e-pi • eially w hen he has commenced lo .-atisfy tl.e judj;ineiit rendereil against him • • snidi :;:iv- nisliee. Fareiil vs. 'Jalbot, C C. 18G.S, 1 I I.. C. K.127. 2. Dilatory Exception. Aut. IJn C. C. p. --Action for $25,000, Plea, hy dila- tnry e.\ceplioii, that an atlachinent had bee: IniL'oil in the hanils nf ilefeiidaiit l"or the >ani.. sum, to w hich attaclinicnl plaintill was a parn . and defendant prayed that all iiroeeeiliiiv'-' '■ stayed until a decisinn was obtained on ilic merits of the ailachmf-nl — Ile/d, niainlainini the e.xception. OTlalloranvi^. Ihirloii; S. <\ isso,:\ L.N. 171. 3. Insolvency of Defendant. Ains. i;n2- 025 C. C. P.— Attachment after judjrmeir. when dcelai'ed valid, and the f^arnishcc ordere 1 In pay the plaintifl', operates as a legal tran.-ler. and ve.-t- ihe delit due hy the garnishee ii the pilainlitr, lo the exclusinn of tiie ereditov- nf ihe del'endani, e\cii allhnuj;h he be iiisolvei;!. Chapmnn \<. Clark, S. C. 1859, .'5 L. C'. 159 ; Clioall vs. The Merrhauls Assuraiue (.' ■ S. C. 1850, OL.C. 11. 109. nil', 111 Coiirl daiit's , ('. i;. !■ 1111^ .•I claim iMiirt. SIM.. ;; 8. Rifeb civijilor' « I iii-luneiil iMlmtliv,;) a;.'ain-t hi will iinler i tlje p'aih' I'eliri. it- (., 'le Fer C. C. p.— Tlie -ci-vlcc cf ill. writ (iriitluchnii'iU oil llic ilcleiidiint ninl tlie ,'a: iiisiii'C does tiol o|ii'riitt' ii Iniii-'tercil' tlii'ik'lit .|ii" I'V (lie lallci- In till' loi'm(T,anil,con-^ei|iU'iil- '.\ . ;i writ ol iitlncliiiiCMt umler tlie Ill-Solvent Ai't .if l«7'i, Miod (lilt mid rpturiidl prior to l!io rcii- Ji I iii^ of liny jiidi-'iiieiit nii the attucliiiient, lias ilii itlcrl (.rve.-liiij; siiitl debt nlir^i'lulrly in th^ ii--i.'iirc 111 vvliOMi f^iiid ui'it i-j addressfl. Mm s, III ilit Lipirrre \<. 7Vs.v/(/', S. C. \x''.), ■2) I.. ('. J. 214. 5, Ains. i;il2 ri2.") C. C. i\— Jud-iucni ,iii ilic ilrcliiiiuiiin iif a jranrHlice o|lerale^ a i'liliiiai a--i;:!itiiciil 111 till' |)laintill-, and an .,|i|i isiimn ■^iili-eipirntly (i k'd liv annlln'i' crc- ijit"!', alli"_'in,-r iii.^iilvency of llic drlcn laiit Cas ..| ilair ol' (i|i|)i)sitiiin), and U'^kin.: that the iipi'iH\ 111' |«ii.| iiilii Ciiiirt, is in-iit1ii'ieiil, and will I'l' rrii'Cli'd (HI niotiiui. 'I'liijlnr \-. Uroirn, S. f. 1S-hee"s dcclariilinn emi leiiiniiiLr him III |iu\ liver till' ainoiint will imt li'aii.sfer the ililiMn llie pliiintill' Si) aiiachiiiL' a'ld eniitesi- iiiL'. hill should iirdcr Ihe sum In he paid into Conn In he dislrdmled umniiL' llie de'Vn- ilaiil's creditors. LitcnnrsHre v-. L'/ibrrt-, V. U. !S',)I), H; Q. L. H. 21.-). 7. Bight of Action. Akt. t'i2.') V. C. P. — A:i iilll-ildi' credilnr llll< lin ri.L'llI nf llClinli nil a ilaiiii iraij-lirred hy a i:ariiishee nrder nf a eiiiirt. T/ii'heri/r vs. Fniinii'r, Q. U. HTti, S 1!. 1.. ;i',iO. 8. Rights ofCrcditorof Garnishee-— A rrclilor w hn.-e elaim has tieeii attached in L'ar- i]i-liiiieiit liy iJiie In u linm he nwes money may, iiniuitli-ianiliii^, sue and nlilaiu iudjimeiit agaiii~t his deli'nr, hul in si](di ca-e llie Court will iirder lliat the judjiiiieiit ho served iipnn llie p'aiii'iiraiid (in ilie piriiishee lifteen davs hif ire il- e\-eiilii)ii. di'ljds.id \>. Cie. ilii C'/ic. Drove that the ;rarnishee is in possession of gnn Is lielnii..;iii;.' In the defendaiil, and have him enndi'miicd in deliver sindi '.'oods in the hailill', hearer nf a writ (if n'iiiUtii)ul expnnns. Jlerlranil vs. Men iiiei; C. Ci. Hss, lo II. L. 200. 10. Sale of Immoveable, Hent of which is Attached. Art. 02.") G. C. P.- My virtue of An. 02.') C. C. P., the sale In a third jiarty nf an immnveahle, the rents of whiidi have heen allached, an i whiidi atliKdimeiil has Mib-e- (pleiit In llie siile lieen declared valid, ha- le.-- (■Meet on llie ;;arnisliiuent even in rei:ard li ■ real lint yel due, where liiere is no iille^'atinij nf Iraiid nr in-nUeiicy. JJiit as toreiit liec(jm iii>.' line iifler Ihe service nf the writ of aitai'i nieiil. the allar'niient cm only he d'chire t Imiiiiii,. Drpiilir vs. nmir, (}. B. H'.)l, r Que. 2112. ivver-ih;.' .S. C. ls:'J|, .') tine, l.'il. VI. KFFKCT OV .ll'DGMHXT QLASII- IN'G A'lTACII.MlCXT. 1. 'I'hiii a Jiidsimciit ipiashin^ an alliudi- ineiit hefnre judgment in the hands ,,\; third parties ill once releasee Ihe pmperly --i/.il. and Ihe ■.'ariiishee iiiu-t hand it over tn the owner wiihniit any delay when re(piireil so n, do. I'lniir vs. t'iti/ ,1- Di.fln'rf Siiriii'js ll'^nL-, C. \{. isso, :U) L. C. J. 107. 2. A giirnishee who refuse; to deliver up article-! seized in his pos-e>-ion i. 'iiilly 'I contempt. Fi'ri/iison vs. Mill'ir, K. M. I~K!. :'> Rev. de L(''', ;!0."i. VII. IX IIAXDS OF WIFH. 1. A creditor, who liii-( olilained jiidiiiiii nt aL'ain-t ihe hushaiid, eaiinnl have ihewif.- wlo was Liiirnished coinleiiiiied upon her difaiiil In make a declaration. He miisl prove llie e.\i>teiice of the wife's indeliiediie.-s to her liu-- hand. Jii-ckuit vs. Kuni', S. C. I.-<'J2, 1 Que 254. 2. A'here a wife has heeii L'arnished fur wdiat slie may owe lo her hu-hainl, she eii'i he questioned on her declaration, iiolwilhsiandiii^ Art. 1231 C. C, w Inch declares that a hu-liand and wife cannot Hive te^limniiy for or aiain-i each other. Dciiirr.i vs. yi/'»;i'7, S. C. 1^'.M> ;-> (Jue. .".77. VIII. IN.^OLVEXCY OF DKFKXDAXT— Art. 022 C. C. P. (Sek Also " Efi-kct 0I-," No. V — :!, 4, 5. 0.) 1. When the defeii hint's iiisolveiiey is estahlished hy llie evidence, the Courl wdl order the garnishee lo deposit the money in his hands in Courl, to lie distrihuted iiiiion;: ^r' i;i ' 11 i r ' i , ■ « 'I I ^ liii '-"y::|i: i, i„J. I i: : I;, ':i t '' ll I ATTACH MKNT 15V (iAKNISHMENT. llif crcililor*- Qnvxiiil \*. It'ir.ifli, C It. I \m>. M. I,. It, 'JS. C. l:!. j 2. Wl Mcil ;,iinii.-|jic ili'cliirc.-' I>) owe. ainl it i< >li(]iii'f I" I'li.v iii'o t Cmirl ihc lllliniiiit (IckliMHlt'dt'tMl |.y liiiri In liC (iiK- ilctfiiilaiil, ill nr.lcriiiiil it iiiiiv I'C Wi'lri- Knicd iiiTiiiiliii;.' In hnv. l-'nir/niiih \>. irj/„ll„niii. ^^ )!. I.i.-.'^, :t2 I,. I'. .1. l-i. l.\. MAINLKVHK PKN-niNO IIKVIKW- DKl'Usn. Sliorlly iifloi- -crvici' I.I -ci/.iiic in iianils ul' y:ariiisl.ei. tlio (IflViiiliiiil in-ciilK-il in llcvifw from a Ju Ijiinciit (iisiiii>.-iML,' liis |iclilloM in rc'voi'iilinii of (lie Jiiil;^!!!' nl ii^'Siinst iiim. iiml pelilioncil lliiil lie iiii;.'lil lic pel iiiill"'! In (!c- jio.'it ill Cuiirt llicaiiiniinl c.f liu' (iriL'imil jmlf:- iiieni ill priiK i| III, intcresl luul ciots, logctlier willi 11 fiirllifi- SHIM (or cost- f.f sei/.iin', (lie Wiln'f to llllilll' lIlC .Icci-ioll ill ilfvii'w ; iunl liiat n|iiiii iluiiii: f-ii ///(///i-/t'/'('r (it' said K'i/.iiic lie ;;ranlnl liiin. I'ptilinii L'lantt'd. Ldioun-inii \>^ llcinl, S. C. IS'^'J, ") L. N. :!:i.'i. I X. OF SALARY. A iliril l.y wiiicli an i'iii|)lo/cc tiaii.'tVrN in j advaimc lo trii>lep.s of ins clmice scver.ii I inuntlis" salary, u iilinut llif cuiiseiit of liis creiliiiii-Sj rtill lie null ami void as against any ] credilnr roinplainiii:: of it. Keiiirocif vs. RuiUlni.V- C. l.v^O, I.') R. L. 710. '■' -,' iia .\I. OF EFFECT.S .SEIZED CORl'OK EALLY. 1. Wlirrc tlip p'aintill raused a niianli'v nf liiiil'i'r to lit' allaclicd ill llif liainlsul'a third pariy uliu was not rcspmi-iKle for llic delit, Jill as a iiicans of FcciiriiiL' liiiii (tlio plHinlifl) — Hdd, in appeal, tliat siud> an aliaclinicnt, wlicicliy any oilier ]i(.r.son tliaii tlic lU'lcndaiit was ilivpslcd of the iios-K'ssion of propcrti-, would not lie. ]Vooil\?. (?«/«, K. B. l,'*;!;!. Stuart's Hep. .Wli, 1 R. ,1. I,'. Q. :i!)7. 2. AltlioiiL'ha .seizure enrpormlly etlecied of iiropcity in tlie hands of a L'arnishee lie i'ull,aii iiiterveniiij; party caimol, ly iiiulion made iinmedialely afur he is allowed to inter- venc, at d before any issue is joined on llie intcrveniion, ask for the (luii-liin;: of tlie seizure. F/ccA-vs. livown, (}. \\. IsG"), ],. C. ,1. 21tJ and 15 E. ('. R. -UG, and 1 L. C. L. J. .■!2. XII. POWERS OF COURT 1N-(Skk '• RlllllT ol- — 'riTolls ri> MiNollS," No. XIII— 11.) 1 On (lie conlestalioii of a (:arnislice's deelar iiiioii — lid'}, iliat ilie court could not look into iicconnis lietween the ^'iirnishee and a party not in (lie record in order to determine what inav he due liv the irnrni-hee lo ihcdefiii- diinl. frehiiil vs. Grconn/, S. C. l.'-oil, 2 h. C. L. .1. i:t2. 2. The Ci iirl will not, under i fdinary rir- cutii-tunces. order a {.'iiriiishee to deposit in eoiirl lh(. aiMoiint wliieh he hiir deidareil thai lie owes. Aiintl vs. lAirote, S. ('. ;8Hj', M. E. R., -1 S. C. 12.;. XIII. liUillT OF. 1. Amount for which Debtor is Col.'o cated. — A cieditor may ntlaeli \<\ ;j:airii-h inenl a sum ol' money tor wliieh his di.hlor - colloealed, tlioiiirh such .sum may have heeii illegally transferred to the dehtor. Scin'm/ \-. Kxr/l(llli/e lldllknl ('(IIKIildyS. ('. ISSti, M. E. R,2 S. C. Kl.s. 2. Concurrent Garnishments.— Win n n ilefeiidaiil riime in and eoiilestcil u writ ol allaidiiiieni hy i;aniishiiienl, issued hy plaiiitill, on I he Lrriiiiiid that writ.s of ntlii(diiiient had hei'ii siived on him hy creditor- nflhepliiin titi — IIcl I, that this wa* no rea-on why plain- titl'should not is uie his writ, an i the eontestii tioii was di-iiiissed. Cadieiix vs. CaiiuJimi Mi'liKil Fire IiisuriDicr ('<, 1 E. N. ;MU ; Miichn/ vs. h'outh .V HiiiiL i,f Mniilrr.il. S. C. HTS. 1 E. N. IGI. 22 E. C. d.22, con tlrmed in lo'vic.w 1 E. X. 2iil) ; and see Ihi reniai/ vs. DfssaiiHes, 4 E. C. R 112. 3. Curator to Interdicted Person.— All atlaidiiiii.nl hy ;:ariiishm(iit will lie iiiraiii-l a curator to an inlinlicted jiersou under a judgiicnt rendered against the iiilerdirleil person and llie curator in his (piality us (.iii'a tor. Crehtissii \s. Faiirtjidn, C C. l>'ii'.), .'! R. E. .-.7. 4. Debt not yet Due. —An atiaihmeni in hands ofa third parly altaehes a deht which did no' exist at the service of llieuril,liut whi'li 111 i-aiiie one hefore the (leclarutioii ol' the gar- nishee was mailc. ^f(>I.1(lll'.■' Jiaiik \>. Linnai.^. Q. B. 1:-81, 5 E. N. 252, 27 E. C. J. 40, 2 Dorion's Re|i. 17t;, ivvrrsing C. R., 21 E. C. .1, KG. 8 E. N. 11(1. 5. Delay to Garnishee to Pay Debt. — On attachiueiil hy frariiishineiil of monies ot the defendant in the hiiiids of the garnishee-. Jililgiiieiit of tin. Court helow rever.sed. Tin' Ji p. r- I'i- pan.M dri.l Jl,n,.[- li. 1. 9. ill a garnis tonal JiaMi,, lipni, |s-.-i, 2;i E. (■ 2S. C. 10. Ill-;' ihi l.y <'l :'i at ot nne •Vf/// \. S. C. 1^ atlarlii, ATTACHMENT BY GARNISHMENT. 167 <'iiiirl were of upiriioii tliiit tlu' dclav 'i|,ii I iiiN 1 in tavor of the guriiisliees, tlmt ilicy I -li.iulil rjdt lie licid t(i |.iy wimt tlifV uvvcil to (In rc-|ioinlctit until iiftcr six rininili.s' ii(p|i<'(' )i,i i lii'in L'iviii til tliciii, could ihit iitlt'<'l llic njlit- "I ihc ii'-iiiiiiidrMt's crt'diturs, ulin were (iiMli'd, niidi'i' tlicir JiuJL'im'iit, III nitiicli all tlirdi'lii- ami |iru|)crty of iln-ir dclitui-, Ikiw- (Ml' held, Drill whatt'vi'.' inaiiiu'i' diif. Thai hi IT the nmncy in the hands cil' the garnishees u:'- adilil they (iwcd In llic rr-|ioMdfnt, ihc' iiiiliilT nf which Cdiild lint he \urii'd liy llie lie l;iy :i'U3«ei| I'm- liie |iaynienl of it; and us all iliiit till' gnrnisliee.s cmild deiiiaiid was a si\ lll■l|llh^' imlice heliire they were huiind |m |iay, ihc a]i|)i'llaiils licre were entitled ti> ■ liaiii the iniini'y mi ;.'ivin;; thai notiee. Jn ihi- lliri'O could he iio iiijusiiei — a cniitrary |pniK:i|ilc ini;rlit lead to it. l''io'it \ s. Caiiierun, g. 1!. I,s30, ;! II. L. 4:)7. a. Goods of Debtor's Debtor in Hands of Third Party.— A creditor cMinint seize liy iilliuliMient lietore jndjrMieiil the ;: is of Ids del'i'i"- delitor which are in the hands of a thill |.arty. S/arr vs. I'hUlipa, C. U. 1H92, 1 Que. ;;i5. 7. Note in Hands of Drawer. Aura. oi;.'. und (;12 C. C. p.— The aiijouiil of a note liiiy;il.le lo (irder cannot he attached in the liai! i> of the drawer as jrarnislae. TlKnr \-. //o///, \i. D. 18l;!, W Itev.'de l.e;:- '•'•^^■>- 8. Pdrtnerf.hip Assets.— The crediiorof a |.' v-iHi foi'miiiL' part of a |iavtiiershi|p has li.e ri:: ;; I'l -eize hy ;.'arMishnieiit the assets of the puniH i--hi|i, aci'iinliii;; to llie .-hare of the ilei.i.rr ill the thiiiL' seized. Ka.ft'rn Toirim/iips lln:'; \<. J'urler, Coiiit of ItcMi w lyS2, 11 H. J- ,ys7. 9. The share or intere.-t of a |iartnei' ill ii ' iiiiiiiercial lirni may he attached l.\ jfariiislinient. and the partners will he per- son;iily liahle I'.. I any Minis jiaid to their co- paiiMi, i|.'fendai,i. al'ler ser\ He of the writ niii'ii Miciii. />'/''■ i/htiise vs. liolhind,^. C. 1--S M. L. H., 1 S. C. ;iG7, i;i li L. 461, 2!" L. C. J. 184, 1 versed in Ueview, M. L. K.. 2 .'^. C. 7.'), hilt on other gn 'ids, 10. Premium Note.— The amonnt of a 'I' '" due '" a Miiiiial Insuranci Company for 111. |inniiiim on a policy may he the snhject ot ill aiiachment by '.'arnishnient on the part -Meh det lara- lion cannot Ically lie conlesli d iiiider the aitachnienl but only by a direct contestation v(iih lilt parlie.s imerested. horinn \'j. /'»(• mniit, g. 15. 1S70,:{ II. I-. GO. 12. Wages. Abt. ;)58 C. C. P. As amended by K, S. Q., Art. 5!)lH. (See under title, " KxKciviox, E.KEMi'Tiox From.")— Wages or salary not yet due or ;;ained only on thedav of service of attaidiment are iioi seiz- ahle. (1) Sternbirg \-. Uren.'7. r?cma(/i, Mai:. Ct. 18!KI, 13 L. N. 340. 16. Aar. 558, § j, C. C.P., exemptiiii^ tVoin seizure" wa;;esaTiil salaries notyet due," refers to salary not earmd at thelime of seizure, and does not exempt such pnrtioiiof themonlb's or week- salary a- lia^ been actually earned at the lime the aiiachment is served, thoiiL'li not exigible by the ileteiidanl from the garnishee until the end of the month or week. Ken- woo.l vs. nn.hlcii. C. Ct. ISXG, L. N. 222. 17. War Department.- Moneys jpayable on account ot a )ien(liiig contrf:ct with the War Department for the erection of t'ortitica- lions in this Province are not liable to altacdi- ment. Fitt.s- vs. I'i/on, S. C. 18li9, 13 L. C. J. IG5. 18. Who are Third Parties within Meaning of 612 C. C. P.— A clerk or emjiloyee is not a "third |iarly " within the ineaningof Art. 612 C. <.'. P. His possession of his employer's moneys is not distinct from (1) Hut note MoImu'ii Ilniikys, Lionain, fiipra No. 4, " Dflit not Uue." F5ll ^iilf ■> u M 1 ' 'fit 1 1 11 1 1 V 1 9 in n r IP ff^ f f * ■ 11''.^ :1 ■s t ' 108 ATTACHMENT, CONSKIfVATOltV. tiiiil of his iniisli r, ftiid Micli uioiicvs ciiiiriHi l.c ccizcil in the hiuiilsol' tiiecicik liv jriiitiifhiiient. Till' I'liL't thiit the clerk iiiftv hiivc ilc|iii-ilMl t-llcll lnOlltVl4 ill II hllllii ill hiH UWM llllllll' " il) Iruft " (Inc- iiipt iillicl ilic co-r. Oiilurid Cur Co. ^'. Qw . Cnilrid lly. Co., V. H. IHHO, M. L. Ii., iS. (,'.2-7,.-..ii(iniiiii^'S. ('. 1S!^(1, 'JL. N. :i. 19. 'J'lic l•('-f"l||||l'lll^, JihIl'IIiCIiI iTf- ilitiifH iif ilclc'iiihliil (niic C), Inok a ri/iiic |.y ^'ariii^liiiiCiil inlhi' IniinU ut'a|i|>('lltitil, :i|iiil|ii'iii'i'(l iliitt a|i|irlliirit wu.m hcni'ci', as Rocnt 111' attOI'tl('\ iif llic ii(il> I), (if rcl'liiili lirliiii- tiii't'S, jiiivahli- III liciin r, mi uliirh iinciirH <•( interest witc diif : that ii iliv iijciij mi m ruiint of siicii arrears hiel i'eeii ileclareil ami wa- jiiiy- able at the tiiiii> nf ;r;ii'|jishee's ileelanitinn, iinil was actually ilieiealier paiil hy him ; that dcfeii- (lant wasiiuiier, to a|ipp|laMt'- kiiowk'il^^o. of oneliiilf sueh arrears l.y tian-fer fnini cerlain iifthe heirs. |( further a|i|ieiiri(l that ilefeii- (laiit was iiiilehted to the In irs I), in a li>r;rer sum nf iiii.ncy, uhieli n|i[iellaiit set up in enm- jiensiiliipn ii;:ain=t any sum he nii;:lil, as their njrent, have received (nr defen iant — Hibl, that thc' attachment so made of defendant's monies in the hands of appellant was gnnd and \alid, ap]iel!ant oecnpyin;:, ijuouil defeiidani, the jiositioiiofa third ]iarty, within the mean- ing of Art. (il'i C. C. P., in whose hands an nttaidiment could legally he elleeted. And that the eompen-atioii set up hy appellant was a right whieh could In' urged only hy the heirs themselves, and not hy their agent or attorney. Marcotix vs. Merrlnmlif' Jitiiih\ Q. B. 18i)ii, if, Q. L. II. 2110. 2. Ill e\ cry cose nf i^ci/iire by (.'ttrnishmenl the defeiidaiii must he siiminoncil to appear. If tliis service is not maile, no ecUHlemnaliori cati be had u^'ainst the garnichee even ei/i I to abide the iudgment of the court; and if it ap|K'ar in the declaration tiiat the (b'bt -\\nin to has bt'cn cancelled, liicluirihoit \-. I/m/- sou,K. ]i. l>-2',>, Siuart'.s Kep. ;!7li, 1 I'. ,1. Ii. Q. SIIT. XIV. RIGilLS OF DEFENDANT UNDER. Wlien a jilaintitl' who has ulitained jiidginenl against a L'arnishee neglects ni' refuses to enforce payment from the garnishee, the defendant will be empowei'ed to cau>o the issue of a writ i of execution fnr the levy of the aninunt due iiy tile earnisliee, which amount will be held by the sheriff fiubjeet to the order of tiie plaintilF. Queher Bank vs. Sludrl, S. C. 18(iS, It L. C. R. 101. XVII. WIMT OF.- Ain.s. a-.o-Cil) C. C. IV 1. JIclil that the writ of atlaclinient b\ -ar- iiislimcnl cnnstitnleH u new proeeedin:;. an 1 ought to be delinite and complete In itself when issued. Vi'ziiHi vs. TousiiiiKiiit, C. Ii. \'>\K\, \\ Que. IT. 2. An. i\\\ C. C. I'., which provide- ihai the writ mii.-i mention the amount of the iu.iL'. meat foi' the satisfaction ot' whiidi it i-.-iies. is to be construed a- meaning tbeamoiml reman- ing un-aii-tiedon ^iich JudLiiiuiit. ( Ih ) 3. ..irt. .'"I'l.") applies to the writ if //.;■/ /((cw.f and not to that of seizure by garni-b- ment, between which two writs there is an essential ditlereiu'e. (Ih.) XV. SERVICE. 1. The want of .service of the writ of attach- ment upon the defendant may be covered bv his ajipearance by attorney nd litem upon the plaintiff's conteslaiioii of thedeclaratioii of the garnishee. Touaigiiant vs. Tousignunt, S. C. 1885, 11 Q. L. R. 269. (e)ATTACHMENT CONSERVATORY. I. Ai-Fiin\ir. II. ('oNTi:ST.\TlllN OK. 1-1. III. Dki,.\y in ai ti.m: IJ'OX. I\'. I';.\K(lTION. V. IsSdl.VKMY OK DkKKXII.WT — Pltooh iir. \'I. Possession ok Goods sKiziiii. \\\. RlOlIT TO. Gcnei-iiJhj. 1-G. Bank Shares. 7. Contract to Raft Timber— Lien. 8-9. Cost.i. 10. Donation. 11. Holder of Railwa;! Bond.t. 12. Is'Ts 3. .\I, ineiiced diiiit me form wl in'ide iu' alliilavit. oil tiie more e.\i '■\eeption iiothiiig 'lie appea I. X. 202 4. A tested by aiiachme ^"««, Q. v-. liran, Kr/„„, C. , (I) .Ml tills c-ase. , '-') Uvi-_ J- ■»« i Jli, ATTACHMENT, CONSEUVATOIIY, 109 Identilji ami h'lilirely of' Goaih Fciz'il. l.'l 14. Mortijti;/ee nf Imnmreahli.i — S'c/z- lire ill llaiiiln «/' Purtlmser in Good Faith, 15. I'liiiiici.f. U>. Prifihiji on MoiJ. lV,ri ,,r Morilmil, ilic ('i>mi-i ran luitlM.-i' 20. Wood .■'iipjilied J'lir liiiildini/ I'm- fill. L'l. III. 1)E!-.\Y IN ACTING IPON. A -"iM/iire, Hiilli'feil i>i ri'tmiiii mmcioil on lor mure llinii Irtu tiionlli-'j ccH-'f- Id omji. .SV/(.,/,7(,7'/ v-. Itnddin, 8. C. |Hi;i,,-, i„ C. .1. ;t;t2. Sec Alt. 172 Ciii-toiii ,,r I'lifis. IV. K.XKCniOX. Ill ilio cu<(' III' a cciiiscrviitni V iitiurlm.ftit iiii'lfi' Art. 17ii iif The ("iisinm ,,|- V-m\^. of ii .|imiitiiy of « Ileal oil l.nani a vo-cl in ilii- the rciiioviil liv till' slinlil (if tloiir ^lowdl al'ovi' the wheat, to such an cxleiil as to aliiiil of the liroper .«ei/uii' ot tin- wlieiil. Ihirhfsiiai/ v. Walt, a. C. lSi;i,8 I,. C. ,(. 1119. I. AI'FIDAVIT. r(ni-er\nlor_v ailai'hinoiil hy the veiulor ipf u'ooils may valiilly is-iie, wilhoiu tiic .Tlli hivil re(|iiii'C(| for the i.isiie of ihi' iijiuiar wi'il of se'i/.iire hcforc jiiil^iiieut. Leiinc v,-, T">irli/ni/.S. C. Isi;i. ,') L.C. ,1. 12.!, i'. I,. ('. .1. 21 ; Sinrli'ir v-. Fi'ri/nsoii, S. (', 1S')S, 2 I.. C ,1. iOI ; limn, II vs. I'liimroi/, .S. C. lsy|. 7 L. N, 1111; liliiineiithal vs. /'oieiini i; .*>. ('. ISS.'i, .'.Step. DIl'. ".'!; /-'rasi-r v.s. McTarish, S. C. I'^-T. lo n. L. 200. (1) V. INSOLVHNCV OF DKFKNDANT- I'UOOF OF. In an alla(;hiiienl nieler the 177lh Art. of ihe Ciisiorn of Paris when the insolvency ol llio ili'feii.lant is all(';.'eil. the allilaviiof the plivnlill is snflicicnt proof of such insolvency, unle-s jt, is ileniei) hy lh(> (lefeiMlanl in a special jil^a. .laikson vs. I'ai;/,.H. C. lsi;2,(; 1,. C. .1. in.'). 11. COXIHSTATIOX OF. I VI. I'OSSKSSION OF (lOUD.S Si;i/KI>. I The plainlill iias a riiiht lo ohiiiiii lielivcry I of lloiir soizeil l.y liiiii ns venilor iiniler a writ of ronservalory atluclmu'iit on ;.'iviii'_' secnrity 1. Allachnient, ler 17th Article of the that the Hour will he forlhcomin-, to ahLle the O.utnnir d< I'ari.i. cannot he tried hy motion, future order of the Court, or the value thereof 7'wY'nn-c vs. '/'/(owr/s, S. C. 1SJ7, 2 L. C. .1 . duly accounted for hy plainliir. llaldirni \^. '•'■*■ liininoic, S. C. l^lJI.V, I,. C. .J. 2'J'.i. 2. l!ut >ee U'l/all vs. Sriirnil, .">. C. I !>'>, 1 L. N. !is. I Q.L. K. 7i;. I VII. RICIIT TO. 3. .Motion for leave to appeal, .\ction com- I I. Generally.— Tiie vemlor has a | liv- iiiciiced hy a con=ervatoi'y iitlachnieDl. I>ef'en- ' ilei;!e on jroods .'roiiiid that the parly niovint: had a j their disiippearinj;. Turranci' y^. Thoinns.^.C. more expeditious mode of proceeding than hy ' 1*^58, 2 L. C. , I. 'JD ; Sini'lair v.s. F,;ri/iiS',ii, S. exception to the form, and that therefore , C. ISJS, (1) 2 L. C. ,1. 101 ; Ze(/i((' vs. J'of/r/./dy, nothiiiL.' hilt delay would result from ^'ranting j ^- ^- ^^^'i^ 'i 1^. C. ,1. 824. the appeal. Lehd vs. I'acaitd, Q. B. 1871), 2 ' 2. The rij^ht of conservatory attach- ''■ ^- ''^"-- ! iiicnt in virtue of the 177th Art. of the Cu-lom 4. A conservatory attachment may lie con- of Paris was nn„s, Q 1!. l^si;, ;!1 L. C. .1. KiH. 7. Bank Shares.— A person laying claim to hank shares, aini who ii:i> n.csoii to fe.;,r that they may di.-^iippear, can aei'ompany his demand with sci/mv hy way of conservattii'v atta.dinient. Fnisn- \-. ^fcTal■is/l. S. C. Is-<7, 15 1(. I.. 200. 8. Contract to Raft Timber— Lien.— A p.r protection of his rights, proceed iiL'ainst .such properly by an attaidiment in revendiealioii of the nature of a cinservatorv attachment. ]\'iiail vs. Sfitrrttl, S. C. 1S78, I L. X. 98, and 4 Q. L. I!. 7(;, 13. Identity and Entirety of Goods Seized. -Con-ervatoiy aitachinent hy unpaiil vendor, of goods sold on credit, to secure pay- ment by privileg' from proceeds uf sale, the jiuridiaser having heeoiiie inso'vent within 15 days of delivery. The gmids. 7,000 cigars in boxes, had been packed ami shipped in one largH wooden case, which had been opened by piiridiaser and the lio.\i> exposed for .'■ale. SiMiie of the latter weri' bi'oken. but ('i,(i75 of the cigars remained in llieir respective bo.xes, with factory mark, number aiel revenue sliim|) intact, and these only were sei/.ed — Jlelil, that the goods, to the extent seized, were entire and in the same eoiniiliepii a-^ "hen Sold, notw ithstanding the opening of the outer bale or case, and the seizure thereof declari'd go)daiid valid, d'oukl vs. G'n:<:n,(i. li. 1887, l:i Q. I.. H. io;i. 14. To support a conservatory attach- ment the unpaid vcn.ior must establish the (dear and certain iiientity of ijie object seized with the object S(dd, this being the test sanc- tioned by the jurisprudence of our Courts, and the true one to he applied as well under the artiides of the Conliiiur dc Pa).'., as of our Civil Code. (Ill ) 15. Mortgagee of Immoveables— Seiz- ure, in Hands of Purchaser in Good Faith. — A mortgagee of an immoveable on whii h was placed certain machinery which had become immovealile bv destinat cm cannot action I'UlvIl U, de, ceh-e IneMI heen 1 i;. i 20. -Tl„ "I :, h jrivi!, lli-pOM "dlli, Oi I cii. M'lil,/, T..n:,n 't,Sr, H"ii. \ tl"'.M,, ■ .\. (..)■. ATTACHMENT FOR KENT. 171 iiiiiirh -iicli tiiiicliinpi'v I'V HI) allacliiiieril in i(\ci;i|iriiiiuii v( llie iiattirc (if ii coii->.rvulory iiltacliiMenI, ill llir liiiii.ls ut' the licfMiiliint \\ii.. h;is |iiirclia-!eil tlir sanif in i:'"'! faith. F/'(iiiil:/aii k-s. Fee, S. C. ISSlt, K! I,. N. I'-^. 10. Partners. — WliiTi' a |mrtiiiT>hi|i I'lm- H-iiiiir of (u-ii pcrsiiiis was di-Hcilvcil under an aL'ii ' !hent, liv whii'li otic of them |iurchn-eil iIm' -loeli ami trade of llie |i;ii'liiei'.-hi|) fur a ei-rlu'ii sum of nioncv, foi wlreh hi' jiavc his pionii--nry nnte, and ajrreed fur liie seeiiritv of -aid miles to transfer to tiic other a erriaiii |iari of the inaehinery and ellci'ts ludoii^in^i: to liir hnsiiiess. anil aNo that he would not he eoii-ilered pro|irielor of the stork till the Holes were iiiiid, and afterwards refu-nl to carr\ out jiartof the ajrreeiiient wiiiidi referred to till' transfer of the inarhiiierv as scriiritv. lull, o'l the eonliarx. lommenefd to sdl out pari of the ns^rts— /.'(.77, that the other had a ri'.'lit to a roust ri'atorv attaehinint, noiw iih- staiidiiii: that the note- w.u'e not due. Wliili- V.-. M,iri,/,,/,ii. C. lSs2, \-> I!, L. VT. 17. Privileg3 on Moveables.— .\ ere di'or v\ho hn- a privile:;o upon movealiles can MM'iii' it I y a ronscrvalory iitiaidiHK nl . U'is,r\<. Miirpli;/. S V . \^<:.. H (,». L. I!. :Vi: ; 6'r.. ,//,,• vs. U'Hsoii, V. \l. 18',t2, 1 Que. ."ilCi. 18. Sale on credit— .Vn unpaid xendoi', I'M li under a ernlit sale, has a rij;|it to |)roteci hi- pi'i\ilrj^r l.y a eons(u\ atory attachment of till ihiiiL' sold. }[ii;/iiire \s. Jiai/e, (J. R. Is:»;!. :; Qir. 7G ; G'oi/ef v.s. Grr.ii, Q. H.. i:) ll I.. K. '0,!. 19. Unpaid Vendor. — .\in. il7i ('.<'. ail I "iji'i <.'. ('. i'._The phiiiitill hroiiL-lit an aelioii ill iTveiidieatioii nf a ipiantity of Imps liiiirliised liy him and which the >elloi' rd'u-cj to de.iver— //(7-/, that lir hid a Mj:ht to a eoii-irvatoiy attachment, hut imt to un atliirh. iM'ii 111 revi ndication, a- the -al>' had ne\<-i' hrin perlerted. Kelli/ \s. Mn-rilh\V. W. 18119, 1 i;. 1.. lOI, 20. Where Goods partly disposed of. — Till disposal hy the purchaser o|' a portion ol ,1 iiiiiiiher of article- soli and delive-'ed lioi- not cause the lo-s of the \endor's irivi'c'c on llio.se articles \\ hich icmaiii iin- ih-po-idof; and a ei)ii.er\ atory atiachmcnt Will lie to preserve those ;:ooil- CI) G'iiil>/\-. Gr.r.iK Q. B., l:! (). ].. R. l(i:i; ll/,,,,- v,-. .Vi'ijil,;,, S. r. iss:!, ',t Q. I,. I!. ;i27 : and sec T'rruiir, vri. Tlmmos, S. ('. l,s,-,.s,2 I.. ('. ,1. IMt ; 't S,c,i|,i||i,,M of Hh,1^1.-v. .t.. \V II, K,T-. i.i.C, ' ""• \. I. stc. g.C, Mr.' Ui.lierls.iii. liatmniic r uf till. MMiiireal lliir.aiiil .Mr (ici.lViii.ii.i// i, I'lie l-l.-Uito. A. I . .1. 111.).,. \- (',,,, Iiisnlveiits. C I, N. Jl. Siitildir vs. Fi-njiitiiiii, S. C. 1>.').''^, 2 !>. f. ,!. 1(11, etc. 21. Wood Supplied for Building Vessel. — The unpaid vendor of wood used in the caiiisiruction of a \essel ha-, liy \ irluc ol the last I la raj: rap! I of .Art. 2HS:{ C. C, a priviiejre on the vessel, an 1 to an action to recover the price of the wood he can join a coiiaervatory altachment. /')vw'/esryijilion ol' rriijii rl)/ L''iiyC'l. 12. De.frripfiiiii oj Gonils Scizi' /. l."i. ]}f'r/,irii!i III. Id. V!. RmiivTo. 1-2. See •' I.KssoK AMI Lksski:."' i I. I).\.\IAGKS FOR II.I.K(i.M, SKI/.!' 1!K. !)efeiidant >va- condcinned lo pay SluO damage- for iinprovidcnl ly issuinj: a writ of allachiiienl icainst a tciiaet who did not owe him any money. The eouiiilai.it wiistha' on the lIHli .lune, 1877, the ilefendatit cs- (jiuilitr as ii.-siij-nee to the estate of one Plielan caused a vu'it of altachment to issue unlawfully and with malice, caiisin'i' the | hiinlilT ilama::es to the amount of $2,0(10. 'I'lic defendant plcmlc I ; 1st. Thai the seixiire was made without hi- kiii iwledixeor authori/.a'ion, and hy error, owiiiir to the I'aiill and had faith ol' plaintiH'. 2nd. 'J'liat the action should have heeii divecle.l ajiainst the defendanl |iersiiiially, anil not icainsl liiiii in his (|iialiiy of as.tiiTnec. ;!rd. 'J'hal there « .is no malice, and therefore no action. -Itli. 'j'hal there heiii"! no malice, there was no jTroiind for exemplary damairc-. It appi'Bred from the evidence that there was an un-eltled account in January, 187", iietween the insolvent and the plainlill', wdm was li|s tenant iiiid sulitcnanl of J.,., the proprietor. The last was claiming payment of rent t'roiu the nssijiiiee, and was allowed hy llu' latur to address himself to the plainlill for payment. The plaintilV was uiiahle lo setilc with the landlord or his lawyers, and settled witli the assiL'iiee. Meanwhile the landlord, lo-in.; ,h >-cil a-^ liil:( ii t'"> liilc Striirlniii \- llic i.liiiiililV, air. Ilicii .Ave.l riotljiiiL'— //'•/'/, />^/'f/^V. S. ('. I"-:!:',, .'I Que. 4(ll . liial a< llierc \mi- iiii iiiiilcrslainliu;: iiriw in llic a-i-.iccaii.lllirlari.llonl.tliaMiHlan.r -houM IV. liF I'l';(-r OF 'I'AKIXC COiJ.A- r.i|U. ■■iiiii-il v. T('ii<:ii.r \~. (i'iiikih, >'. i'. I^'ii'i, li» snilcranci- i.a- coriliiiiiiMJ, l.iii wil lii.iii co.-i-, |,. ('. ,1. 'Jdl!. ill rr\]i-n, a- the .laiiia;_'i-- writ- i atlicf cMi'-- — .-Im. 7',. ,»/„ V-. /V//,//(.s ''■!!■ '■■"■ \'. i'lMlCKDri!!'',. I, //././, uiii'iv liir |i!aiiilill' l.a- rc.!;,l 11 •■.! II. l..\M..\(!|.;S KOi; MAMCIorS ^^.„,, ,^ ,„;,;,,,,„,,,,;,, ,„„^,/, „„| .„/./,,„,,,,„ ■'^''■''•' '''■■• lull- 'linil ilr .-llih a .^ili'sifdirr/ III lllili'll^ DaiJiaL""^ '"lIllHil I'C n'ro\ rlTil f.ir -llilrj- (illl //< vn .v. u ll ImUl |.lni|llriliu' Mil all'nla'i' l.'iu-. Iiialicii.ii-I\ , aiiil willi iiiarkril vIl".!', " in-i'r |,tv i lie .v.o'.v/i -<(C/r/. I lir alisriirr oi 1 Ip' al],'!a till- Mill v\.i-) really 'Inc. I>fiiiil\-. 'rhuinns, vil iiiciiK chial- llir iiullil v nf i he -.i'lr. <.^ 1!. |-.'i7, I !,. ('. .1. •;:! a- lc-|.e.M- ell'.cl- Ipil ;/'/;/r^- t'uV llie |Vlll. I"" .|..e-ieil allni tlie \a'iilitv .'f iLc .v,//.- ,'. ../,) III. IH'I.AV TO ATTA< 'I I .v KKCAT- ,^,,.,v. /;,,„/;,„ ,~. rinlh),.-.-, S. ('. 1-J. 'J ■j'ION.-Akt. >r:,c. c. i*. 'q,,,.. ,-,,17, e.,iiiiii,ic.| in KeMcM.:;! 0,1 . 1-;'.'. 1. Tlic il;;lil olatl.ieliliieiil ill i'eca|ili..ii iiia\ 2. Tlic l.e 1 ileal a e.i|i\ i.| ilie ilei ia -al ."h he CMlvi-,- I alle!- llie eie],! ,|ay-,a- l.eHleiMI wa - ■ |e | ...- ; I e, I f, .V I 1 e . Ir I . le la 1 1 1 at I I e | il-' ! .• '- 'lie la lei I. ir. I aiiJ lenaiil . iliiiinj I lie e\i-iciiec noinvy'- . iHic.- /e /,./ , i he -ci-x ice nl' llie n :■; .a or llic le,a-e. Moif/,/,/ \-. i;,ir.r, Q. ]i. altaehiieiil i- i ininal. ! ia'. -•■ hm.' a- He -1.".. 1 I,. C. .1. 21i\. lie- ..lliee lief.il-e llie ev |iil-\ ef 2. The li'jhl .i| allaehinehi in ice 1 1 ,1 h .n .la \ - |m1!, .v\ ;ie_' I h r\ ice cM lie wi'il . ( //■ i linn he c\erri-e,| (a- hciwieii laielh I'll aii'l ;y Si.hni.' a- llie -i-i/iil I ■llcel- uli'li leiianl) a tier I he e\|.iral ion nCi^^hl .|a\- Ir.iiii hai.- h., ii r xcl I r.aii the |,iv'ri>^e- i- nia-'e Ii"' ''■"'■ "I'll"' '■'■'iM'^'al .if L'.-iK h !,.■ pre „ ihiii cii'hl.lav- al'ici- I li.- ihiC- . .i' lli.'ir !.■ ini-i'- l.ii-"l. S.rru,;,, \-. /,,/./,;,■./,■.('.(■. va I, il i - le .1 .-- ill ia 1 I nil I h- ivnl !.■■ --i- •• 1 '-''■'• I-' ''•''■ 'I- -'>'• ii|...ii I he .1. I, 11. la HI uilhiii ....J hi .lav. i //'. ) 3. I he lijhl olallacliMiciil in i'cca|.l i. .ii iiiav /^ .\ in . ''I'l ('. ('. I'. In an a.'l "'i I'l he c.\i r.i-.-.| (-,, I';,! ;i- ih,. I,.--,.' i- c..i,ciiM-,l) |.|.,|| //, /./_ ,||.|| il,,. ^, ,.,„•,■ .V /•(/■/„(/ nT -.-. '.lie alieMh.'i\|.irali..ii ..llhe i-i.-hl .lav - Mi..-e,'.| in;- ,.,,|,|,| |„. i,.,, .^^ ||,,. ,|, ,iiii,a le ..f lli.' .l.-l-.d ,iil th. ren,..\al ..|' h;- etl'i.i-. liriiiiiliij \~. /,'ixli,,. ('. ('. Hii;, 10 I,, C. ,1, 'JO'j. 4. The lc--iii' eaiii...i, I \ an aj I'.'.'inciil vvilli allh.iiieli h, he ah-. Hi, an I 1 h U -n.'h.h t-n hril con 1. 1 I.I ■ 1. _mM\ .. Ill -I II nil. I 111.. juai'.liaM ..f I 'n' .■llcCi- -li/e.l. alel h.' c.illl|. lie. I hy (■...•r.'iM' alhii.l |."i'-.ei. .'\l.'n.| 111- |ii,\ilcLrc ..11 llic ! iiii|iri-..ninenM.. |ir.. Iii.i' ih. -aiic-. nnh-- n.- ellcct- in i he |,'i^.-e-~iiiii ..f (he h'-M.' I.J 111. .re 1 can c-lahli-li llial when ihe -ei/nre lii'-l h..'aMii' than ei^'ht ilay- IVomthe linie..|' j.avin^'the j kni.un t.. him I he . ihcl- uei-c le. hncj. i in hi- I'iKc.l |.i'cmi>i-, c\ 111 whi've -iieh .tlecl- arc i |io--e--i.iii. Miniiiy. Il'i/ti'ih/. >^. ^' ■ I-''. 1 I'le |,r,.|icitv onhe thill |.ei-..ii, hi- |,ri\ilef.'c j !,. ('. l;. ITtl.Jlv. .1. K. \>. Il'.t. l.ciiiL' ah.-.ilnlcly c.Mincl iili. r the , .^c|,il■al ion ; 5. Soi'Vice.-W le re an allachmcnl d .'■ ■ . I - i.|'ci.-ht 1I11V-. I/, in, V-. i"c;/»i(.C. Ct. |s,>^il. 1 1,^. |„.,„.,... ,,, iccapt 1..11 i- in the haii.i- .1 a iier-i.n elaiiiiiiii 1.1 have |inrclia-i'.l ihen., ami Ii Q !,. U. \K\ 5. .\ttai|inii 111 in i-eca|ition niii-i he e\ ci-ci-e.| wilhin iheciL'ht .lay- I' ilhiwiiij; tic re- in. .val iif ihc .jii.iiN. ir e,\cici-e.| al'ter that iliitc the tli/niiliin/ can ilcmaml il- niilliu. Lrnil/.-.H. C.iiilhinl, ('.('.. l-.-^i;, HIM,, j „talta.'lime,ii h.r ivn 1 he ri,.elarati..i. mn-' l.e ''•' • j -<.r\c.| on theih len.la It. The sc vice, |._\ lia\- 0. Where the cijhth .lav c.\|.ircs (in a Sun in;: a copv at lln' proi h. net. ivy"- ..Ilice |.ir llic n.il in the liami- .'I a new le--.ir, -er\ a .■ ..ii the mi.-; I'll riin-ir 1- 11 iinii'c--ary . Wihuii \-. i;,itlrr.(\. li. HT:».2 L. V '.Ml. 0, .\UT. '71 (' (". r.-Oh I n.e.-e.l Hi-, .|,iy the lc,--,,r n.ii-t excrci-c lii- rlilil I..- I'. re that ilay : an allaehiiiciit in rcca|iti.in taken ..n the ninth .lay (.\I.in.ia\ ) u ill he. lis. ilclcnlant i- irie^'iilar. (Il The ta.'l of llie ill 11 111 li> .\n, .-71 I.e. I'. IIS aiiiiii.li'il l.y U. s 1; \ li . .'.'.1; I, Mi.li -in V II'. ■ Is m.w iievniilu-U. fS ATTACHMENT IX I?EVKNDICAT[()N. i:;; III ;i niiiiil liikinj; mihI iircc|iliiii; ilir cii]i> left h'l liiiii, at llic iidii'o (if tlic |ii'ollioti()tiir\ , i- :i ",MMr iif llii' ri;.'lit 111 ill vnlii- llir iri'i'iiiihiritv ■ 'I liic ~crvicr. Lftiniiuiit/i vs. linlsxeuu, S. C. l-il, 1J(,>. L. I!. 2t:k 7. AiiT. sTI C. ('. IV III nil iu'iii.ii iM'iri' Ai'l<. ^>i7. SS> ('. C. 1'. i',,r rc-fi-.-i(Mi d' II lr:i-r nr t'liri'irullliclil, lo wlliril llir jilajli- I i! i'liii- a- iiii ud'c-vorv a ilfiiiaihl lur l.aliir.c "I iTiil ainliiii iilliK'liliirlit fur I'ciil. llii' .-ir\iir II 'l-l ir llKnlr ill tlic u-iial nialiiicr I'V .-'crviii.; a 1 "py ( r llii' ilrcliiialiiiii u i> li 1 1 ir will. All-. Mi( ami ST I (;. (', I". n,.l l.riiii; ii|.|i| iralilr Im -iirji i'a-(--. .)foi/iiir< V-. li'dlkiiis. S. (_'. l-;i(l, M. I., i;.. (i s. c'l;;:.. 8. 111 all cii^i - Hi' al larliiiu'iil I'm' rriil, '. lit I liiT III' iml tlic ilciiiiiii.l I'm- I'fiil in'iaiiii).aiiy a Iriuaiiil Cur llic rt'Si:i.-sii)ii nf llir Ica-c uv Icir I I' fi inriil , aii'l \\ lu'l her 1 lir acl iuii lie iii-l iliilcil ni'.l. r llic ••irliuli'- of llir ('ci.lc nf ( 'n il I'mcr- ■ i ill' irjalini; lo Miiiiinuiy iiialirr- m' Milirr >\i-i', llic (ilaiiilill', liy \iriiii' nf ;\rt. S" I C. ('. I' . a- aiiiciiilcil liy .'I'.iT I li. S. i)., may csiu-o llic I '|.\ ..f I 111' 1 1 eel a rati I II I In lir hi'|'\ nl ii|ii>ii ihc 'irffll lain, nr ill'pDsilcil ill lilt' |inilllnlinlal \ '.- "llicc. '.villiiii llii' llircc liays wliicli fullnw llu' ■•('i\ iw' lie riiiiiK' oil llic M'inni (lav. nr a: 111 llic rclurii, llic lU'fcinlaiil i> cnlil li'il In a-lc Inr 'Il lay lo plcail, liiil caininl a-k Inr liic ili- Illl-Sll nf llir ac linll. /»,((•/,/ \ ■^. Hainl'r. S. C. I -'.I.', r. <>>iic. 2 i:!. 9, 111 tlic cii-c nf nil allailiiiiiiit I'nr rent I 111' ml. y of llicilcclaiatioii may lie .-iniplv ilc|iu -ili'liiinl -crvi'il liy a liailitl) ill I In' nlllL'c of I hi' I'rollioiinlary nr t'lcrk, ainl it is ikiI ncccs- -iiry ihal llic licliiy lichvci'ii -iioli iic|iosit ami llic ntiii'ii (lay ol llio wn; slioiiM lie the >amc a- I'i'lwccii tlic ilay of -cr\ ii;c ami llic rctmn ■lay nl an onliiiiiry writ of sminnniis, Hr'i/i'hli \-. Il,:j.i„„il \\. IHCi.-,, 1(1 I,. C. .1. 117. 10. Return — Delay. Wlurc -cr\ a c of llic clcolaration is iiiailc In lca\iii;^a cii|.y llicrcdf for the ilcfcinlaiit al the |irollio- iinlaiv's nllii'c, llic service of the actimi is nnl cuiii|ilcie until siicli service nf llic <'o|iv lia- I'ccii mailc. Hence, m acliniis Irclwccn lc--oi' an I 'c-sce, if service lie iiiinlc al the pr itlm- ii'lai \ 's nlli.'c, liic ilela\ lA' cine clear ila ■ ic- lui CI! -' rvic.c aiiil return In u Inch I he i|(fenil,,nc IS ciiiii li'il is eniiipnlcil from -iicli service nf I he 'leclai'alinn, llilll \ s. I'iiisoniitiii// , S. ( '. I'.i;, :i i.tiie. ,"ii:;, IL Doscription of Place where Goods roiUOVCd to.— The want nf ilcsi;;nal:uu in llie writ nf the |ilace vvlicre the iromls liiivc liccii rcmnvc.l lociiiinni |,e taken U'h '.inla'.'c nf at the heariiii; or, the inerils. j;,,ili,r vs. ./„/», S.C. Is.M). -I L. ('. .1. IT). 12. Drscription of Propert.y leased.— The wrii of atlachnieiil for rent shmilil con- tain ailc-^cri|ilinn nf the prnpcriy Ica-d, aid a Lrencral reftieiicc in the will In lie properlv iiieiitlone.l ill a ilci',] aiinexcil i~ m,i -iillicienl. Rnl.ihnllr \<. Mulhllr, i}. I!, ync, I .Sept., 13. Description of Goods seized. — I'm the plainiiil' is net Imnnil i.. >pi'ciiy m the writ III' ileelarati f allachtiienl. Ihc ellcct,'* he seeks In have sci/e,| m lecaplioii. I!,:,iii/i'fii V-. I'/n/iip.s, S. C. ]><.)■>, 2 (..»iie.,-,;{7; cniiliriiicl in Ki'\ icw. :!1 Oct., |s;ij. 14. Declaration. The Ic-snr, m hhi,;: the ri;.'ht of allacliiiicnl in rccapl mii, i- Inmiil lo.lcelarc ami prn\e that 1 he 1, ->cc ha- im! Iil'l -iillicicnt fiirniiiii-c tn -cciire lie rem. y.'l.jhr V-. MitrMuluiii. g. I!, |s|,-,^ I i;,.^ ,1,. VI. ItldilT TO. 1. All allaclimeiil for rent iiia\ he hail mi the Ica-c nf a farm. Ihi niillnii v-. Cniisl,iii/i- II'. IN. K I!. |S1J, :; i;, ,1,, [, ;;ii;, 2. .\ii anachiiii'iii r,,i- lenl caniml he ha.l o- loi:- lor rent of Imnm -pace. Tuiirn/lr V.-. lairhiiu il I!. lss|). III |,.(\,|.'.>|:i. <■ I ATTACHMENT IN REVENDI- CATION. 1. .\iKiliAViT i\. 1 :!. r.Sce al.^o " Av- T Mii\ii:\r, ("iiNsKiiv Mdi;v — .\k- nil WIT . ") •' AS I'Konl' |\ IIII.: ( ' vsi:. I ,-, II. Ami:sii\ii:n I'. I II. CnNTIlMI'T Ol' Col |;T IS. IV'. I)i:i'|':mi.vnv's OerinN. 1 .1. \'. I'li'iiicr Ol' Ai'i'KAl,. \'l. I'',.\i:ci rio.s i\. \'II. l''oKM OF. \-2. \'III. LiAiiii nv III' I)i:i iMi wT. I ^' .V U I ItK Ol''. .\. I'OSSKS.SJOX ol' (jilolis 1,1 Jsi'jKvi'. \ \NT. Xl. 1'k|V|1,|:,;i.; ill' Dll'KMiANT. 1 J. .\ 1 1. I'lioi'i iui:i: i.v. Mir. lilCllT TO. All'n'i)l/i/i,i,ii/. 1-2. .\niiii':ls SI i:cc.|"iiiit }i,l I'nsaii rli,ir7o/£(( Ilursi. ;)2. '/•/7/- 7>fe./.v. :;:i. \\\ . Skkvk i; I.S-. XV. TiTi.i: 111 (iiiciDS Ski/1.11. Sre aNo S M.i:. 1- iiiliirliiiHiit lire r(iin|i!ctcly exlmii>li"l iiv ihe i-.-iif of llie u ril, aii'l are .ilrin \aln.' a- lilMuf ill llir ' il-f. ticliiil \*- I/in/erli/. ^' ''l. l-'TT, :! (^ I.. 1!. :;22. 11 .\.\IHN'I).Mi;.N'T. Tlif ii!aiiilill in ill! ariii.n of revcn.iiriu .'Hi iiiiiy.i II leave m'liiiteil li_v the Cihui. ainciiii the ile-.ri|iliiiii I r llic ;:uO(l< st'izeil, oven lifl' "e ll.i- rclirii lay, 'iii L'iviliL' i Kit ice lo tlie oilier par lir-. /,.,/,(/ v. iJii/nsin.S.C. 18S5, M. L. I!.. 1 .<, ('. :'.l.'i. ill. ('(J.NTK.MI'I OF ("Orur IN'. WheU' ill aij attaclinicnl in reveii'licalimi, liie '.'oMit has gi'aiiieil the |ilaiiititt |io>se,ssion ■■! Mie etlc.is sei/nl, ilie forcible removal of tiu'-e Clleels l.y anoil ei pany in the ease i^ a ;- tempt mI' Coui-l. Wliililir.ul \-. Ki'/I'i r.S. r. Isw.-,. M. I., i;., I S. (.'. 2S-^. IV. DKFKND.WT'.S OPTION. 1. [lis iKjt olili::!itia'y in tlie ease df an attaeh- ment in reveiniication, to Lrive llie ci<>|eM'laiii the alternalive to restore the property .-ei.'.e'l or )iay its value. U'n/zn vs. Labullf, (.'. (.'. 1^81. 2i; I.. C. .1. 1211. I. Al'FIDU'lT IN. (.See •• .\Ti.vil.\lKNT, 2. Tlieo|.i..el of altauliment in n von.lie.i'wi! ('oNsi:i!V,\TOKV — Al-'Fllnviv.'') j, („ j^.^t |„,~-,,--ioM of the ;.'0(m|s .sei/.Pil an 1 not 1. .\iiT.s. '^I'lii ami «.'U ('.('. I'.— In a caseof t,l..ir price or value. (//;.) attachment in revea.liealion hy a v,n. lor nn.ler 3 .\ .lefen.lanl who has been coii.|em.|.J his privilej,'e— /A.'/-/, that an atlila\it was not „p,,„ ,j„ ,i,iHclininit in revendication to remi necessary toohtain a writ in such ca-e. nohfrl- ^.,,,.1,1;,, nioveahlc- within lifteciiiiays of service .<«,/( I'l III. vs. Fir;/ii.--iiii, S. ('. H.'.s, s |,. (; |; ^^^. jn.ij,,,,,,,,,^ ,,r j,, ,|('faiilt lo jiay the value 'i.l'.t, (i It. .). K. Q. 227. thereof, can imt after' the expiration of the liflein 2. In another similar CiiS( — //-/'/. thai the ilavM otliu' to remit the j;ooil-^, liis ohli.:al "n alti'lavii was ,i(jt ubs(v/(/.V(///, S. C. I8j-^, 2 I.. C. .1. pay the value df the gooils in ipies;i,,;i. idl. .S7c(v/,.v vs. Amw/i.s.w), S. C. 18!':'.. 3. In an altichmi'ul in reven.lical ion — ! ;/././, that such alla.'hmeiit coiil.l not issue' ^' ■ KI'1-"H<'T OF .\iM'F.\L. iiefore jiul^iinenl with. .111 alllla\il. I'li.ilnii Whil.' I hi- r.'.'or.l is in appeal, ai' i "i; !'■ .' ■ \s. T/ioiiip.-''71 , l.'i I.. C. .1. lli"'. .'i K. 1; 12-'. a^'ain-t the .Icfi'n.l.ml. aid the ("oiiii inav con- .ieiim th.' .lefen.lant \ulhunt oiler pr...;, '* i • ''■•'^l'.''! TION IX. althoiiL'h th.'a.'li.'n he lia-e.l on a spe.iul a;,'ii .•■ Where a .1. h iclanl in a ease of atta.-lime'il .>, iiieiji whi.-h ;;i\..s to him th.' ihin;: icmu- revcu.licnli..ii i.'iuses t. ..ip.'n his.loo; sjhe Jm,!_.' ili.aled. I'l' iiji rill \~. Vrniiilhm, (\ [{. X^^'t',, niay, upon a rciiirn of th.' sei/ip.;: tiailal !• 'i . Tunjcuii, S. C. 1S";{, .^ ii. L. \t.\. 2. N(/;(/i/t',|iei-Mitckiiy .i.,tliui ,iii lut acini leiit ill revciiilicHtion u liich sets iipiui value is mill liir iiuit (if jiirisdiclioii. I'rhin' vs. I'lrkiii.s, C. K. 1-79, 2'l. N. 25(1. 2.'! L. C. .1. 250. Vlil. LI.Vlill.ITY OF nFFKNO.WT. Ilelil, revei-iiig jiiiiiriiieiil of Cimrt lielow, tlmi ilefemlaiil in iiii uttacliiiiciit ii. reveii'lica linn, even tlitiuj^li the |ii'o|)i'ietui', is aiiswi'i'- alilc if the |irii|ierly he seizcil ii|iiiii his luinl, und he fail to iiifoi'iii the plaiiitill' in the cause who the real pos-e.-sur is. A'/Ui/.v vs. (I'rdild Trank A'//. Co.. Q.I!. ISdi;. 2 L. C. L. J. li:?. I XII. PKUCKDURK IN. Ill an atlajhment in reveinlicalion— //'/>/. ihat the omission to leave uith the ilefeijJiiiit a co])y of the prorrsrerhal of sei/.ntc is not fatal, ina'imncli as the Onlonnance of li'iilT only i-e'|iiin'< that funnality in case- nf >ei/:iire in execiuiiin. Mdi.fiiii vs. Juri/i iifnn. S. (,' . IHti:!, l;i L. C. I!. M'.l'.l. IX. NATI'IM': OF. An attacliniciit in revenilicatinn is a real action, uhellier of niovealiles or iminoveahles, ami shmilil he hriuijihl in the jilace where the |ini|ierty >ei/.eil is sitiiateii. Et/iicr vs. Dun- ■ hmut'l, S. C. 1871), 2 Ii. N. 158. X. I'O.SSKSSION OF (JOOD.STO INTKK- VFXANT. The Coiiil cannot ;:ive |.n-.-, ssicn v( the ;:iiiils -li/.eil tiiiin inlervenaiil in an altachinent :ii ii . iiiliciilion. ulu-n the fii.al jnil,i;iiient inaintiiiiiiinj; the interventinii hui lieen appealeii trniii. Whifchriiil vs. Kii/I'tr, S. C. 1885. M. L. R., I .S. (■.2'*8. XI. I'lilVILKdK OF DKFFNDANT. 1. Wherein an attachment in rcvemlicatinii i! \va> prov(d that the (lefciniiint had a lien on 'he ihiiijis seized— //(■£(/, that he coiiM iiol be I'lnipelK-d tci deliver tliem iiiilil the amount of his lien was dppiisiied in Coiir'. Mil/ v. Wih,,,,, S. ('. 18,05, 5 L. C. It. 4;»1, 1 I!. .1. U. <».I7II. 2. In till ease of attachment in revetidioation iif a \M','_'iiii, liv an a'^>ii;nee under the Insnlvent .\''i "f ls(;;i, wherein det'endaiit pleaded a riL'hl "f leleiitioti for repairs, the plaiiiiill' caiiiiul 'laiiii posses-ijoii nf the \va;j;on, without pre- payment of or security for siii'ii lejiairs. .'; on tic d' ten datit's soil and no lunre, Jicil/i/ v-. I 'hnn.lli r . K. IS. 1817, 1 Rev. de Lc;:. 5U7'. 4. Bailiff. — Revendicatinn will lie aL:;iiii-t a hailitl whn under an aiithnriiy nf a ju?-i >••■ of the peace hnlds in hi.s hands L'Ond- o: I he plaintill', if the can-e of the detenticii !"■ a mattrr nver winvdi the justice ha- im jiiii-d,i'. tiiin. I'liriiud V-. liri/iii, K. r,. 1-2(1,1 Vv\ . de IaV. 507. 5. By Person charged with Felony — A per.-on (diar,L'cd with felony cannot maintain an action in revendicatinn of haiilc .-lock siippo-cd to he sinlen or taken from him when he was arrested, until the cluir>;e preteired ai:ainst him has hccn .li.-pn>ed nf. CiiHsl, V-. Snthrrlaiid. K. B. 1S21, 1 Rev, dc I.r..,5(i7. 6. Carriage — Possession. — .\iii. II t. revendieate a cair;a;;e. ntfendant deiiif i ili.'it sl c ( vi-r had pn^se-si.m, and said tlm' Ic r hushund deceased had lioiiL'ht or lea-i i tiic carriaL'e from jilaiiitill', wdm had taken . mi a revendicatinn '.i;ainst him and ha I n!':i'ind jiidL'iiienl ; that the i arria^'c was pn.t.'i if hi- snccessinii and in the leiral pos-e-- -" n,' us heir.- — lldd, that as defendant had ihe cC ■ in "f .EC iif \r- % \ . m iii ^M 176 ATTACIIiMENT IX riF.VEXDICATrON. ' ^'MM i!i'5 I'iiVr^ical |iOss{'s,«i(iri of tlio i.iirriiiL't' llmt ilmi WHS -iirtii-ic'iil. NtiiiiuniiUaii v.-. JloKi/ie, S.C. l-<0, H I.. N. i;i;i. 7. Condition Precedent in Contract of Sale. — 1/rlil, llmt till' cc'iHliiiori |ii'('ct'ilfiit i'i] xviiirh a sale was iiiiiilr nol liaviii;; licfri coiii|iliv(l wllli, tilt' vcTnlor has a rJL'lit \o lakr an ultacliinent in rcvemiication lo rn-ovcr I'ack the ninvcalili' -iiM. (,'iiJ,Ji, \ s. A'./xr.,,)/, S.C. i«-s. ::l I,, c. ,1. :iO<; M. I., li,, i S. C.:;!.".. 8. Entirety of Goods Sold (sie ali(in> (if C. ('. \'.'W, \i\\x . •1. Thtniipxini \>. Dii.ii. S. C. 1>S,'). 1 1 t,l. 1,. I!. 9. Goods in Customs— Wluie ;:itvd< wi'i'i' rriaincd lix the colU'ctor ol' I'listcuiis a> fiiif'i-itcil uii'Icr tliL' CusiiPins Act, l,ss;{. anil tlie iiii|ii>rtor -cizeil llifin in the culleitnr's liainls \,\ |ii(..(-- .if rcveiidiralioii — //','(/. tliat \\:v )ilaiiiiil! was cntitlccl tu an m.ii'r for tin' itt'liveiy thc-iTi'f, only nn inakin.: ilr|ii,>ii wnji the <.-ol'i"Ctor of a sum of iiuHu _v at hast ('(|ual ti. ihf lull valiii' of the ;;oi..is. liiinit \— Saiirh^. Q. IJ. Is-T.M. ].. K.,.l Q. \\.\\\2. 10. (JiKvic, uliclhcr, jn'iidin^ a con- lniMi->v liiuctn the iniporlcr ami the (.'iislMin- I)t'|iartniciit, an ai'tioii of rcNonilica- t;on \\ M lie t.i rrvcinlicalc ^nud.- rolaini'd Ip_v till- C'lllcctor as foffi'itc'd. (Hi.) 11. ' Sciiibli' (per ("hiirch, .).;, that if | is not cnnipt'ldit for an ini|jorti'- to adnpt thi< | proceed iiijr under the ciiTiunstam-e.-. (//<.; i 12. Grain.— 'I'lie ven.jMi-, without day o'' term. I'aii i-e\ciidiealr the L'ood- ."oM hv him, e\eii in ihe liaruisof a third paity, juircdia'^er ; aiel uherr the L'0(jds cim-ist of jirain, the lac-t ' of tin ^'lain heiii;; iiii.xed with other j;rain ni' ' th" same kiml i> no bar to the reeendication. .•<,itr.-!il \<. .1////.V. S, C. 18(10, -I L. C. .1. ;i07. 13. Grounds of. — Wlnir the .hfen.lanl tM ill) attaidiment cif llmii^s in revendieatioii ph :e'' 1 Ihat lie had no interest in the article- ,11 i,|wv>i:..ii, ami had never claimed them or '.'■:it-V'^. to deliver them lo the plnintitf, the jirein'-e- in which they were havii;;; he, n lurnierl\' ..ccupied liy tlie piaintitfand defen- dant a- ' o-partnefs, iiiul iki pvnui' was niade o\ a demand and rtfu-al to deliver, and the tliiii;:s were dili\ ered to pdaiiilitf I \ an inle- Inoiu.iiw ,,rder III the Court— //r /./. eiintirmin;: the iiidgmeni of the Cihu-i lel.iw. thai the aei;..ii \v.iiiid lipdismi-~pd with co.t-'. Jlimh. ' vs. /'«/<. Q. 15. I>i;i. II 1,. C. K. TM\ I 1 14. The appellants in tiie montii of I July liorri>wed frmn the lirm ( f 15., M. A' ('", I 2.'>,000 liusjiels of I'orn, whii h was nwarJed tu them at the rate of "(I cents jicr Imsliel, aiiiiinntin;: \>< ^l",'!!^).^"^, whiidi wa.s paid to them. It Seemed that such loans are common with ".'rain dealers, and if the corn is returned within a reasonahle time the money is paid haidi, not always at once, hul j;eiiernlly with- in three davs, as witnesses ..-ay. On the 21>t of .Inly, IST-I, appellants retiiriieil the com to lf.,.M. iV Cii., h\ ,'_'i\in;; them order.s fur it, thiii on the way n .Montreal in the " Wandu ' and •■ Milwaukee " har^es, in'n which the curii lia'l lieen Iran-hipped al Kiriiiston. T" till contract made siinie day-^ In lure, ly IS.. M. ,V Co . to deliver In 1). IS." .V Cn. 2,-,,0"nO llll^hel- nf corn. IS., .M. X Co., on the 'Jl-t and '.'•-'iid nf .Inly, lsT-(. delivered to llieiii, as part, .d" tlii- .piantity, i .it of tin " .Mil'.v aiike.' '' and •■ W in" rj,()IS ,"i:i-."iii lined and parties wen to proof, and liiially the aelmi) wa- disniiss. i -—III Id, that to entitle ihe s(dler lO reven- dicate, three tliin,L's mn-t exist: [. The -al.' must iiui have hecn made on credit. '1. The thing miisi he entire and in the -ame eond lion. H. The ihin/ must not have p:i--i',| intn the hand- i.if , ihird parly wii i has piii for it. N'niie nf ihe-i I niriitio'i- e.xisted her.. I; wa- i-aid that the re-p.indent had im inlere-'t In ui'L'e the riiihl- nf third panics. He mi.'hi have call"! Ml 15., nf !!. mii;lit have inlerv eii- ed. IJe-pnndenl. liowi'ver, had a rit'lit ! ' vindicate his lawful pn^-essinii, and the appel- lants to maintain their action -Imuld liave shown Itieir title, and il -hniild appear th.ii rispon 1 ill's riijhl nf p- --■■ssioii was n. l Mi-taiiied. Ihe lad- .-linwe.l that lie held tl;'' eoi 11 I'ni- )5 . w iin had leiially pin'chased it and paid lni- il, iVoin IJ. jV {\,,. \\lin had aciiniiil It of 15.. M. A Co.. vv ho were in a imsition \" ill -I 11, llr — IIm'i- :le ., -M. i„ di-teildll paviiei- liiir.-,." -M. i,„ -M. -nlJ I'll prii ''■ill ill 1 1 20. I -\'i ..Hi ^■-el I. Cana.lu ■il a I" >' ATTACHMENT IN EEVENDICATION. 177 -(II il. Acliuii liiid (111 this (.'i-duiid. TliP ill iL'iiiiiit was q1.«o Imscd n|i(iii want of ideiiti- li( alien. Il was necossary to decide wlietlier this was necessary in the eu-e of an article like ((.vn, when the (puintity existed witli (lie laVL'ir (|iiantity. iliidi^uienl conlirnied, be- e;iM-c ii|ippilants luid no rii'lit of action under tlic cii'ciunslances. J'xiryoiciiKtii vs. ISass, I). 1!.. istli Dec, IHTO. insolvent, and that should he run the boat to I'liper Cainida, she would in due course call nt siK'h j)(irt in the United States and lie in all ]ir(ilialiilily sci/cd there for the payment of such lial)ilities, is .-utlicient to stistain an attachnicnt in re\endicatiou of the vessel by the lessor. Hoiilli m^. M("ls aipl chattels (Hi the premises /,''/'•//,. (,). 15. 1877, 4 Q. 1.. I'i. •17, 1 I.. N. :!.'! ; and in the po>se^-inn cf the defendiint. The (////,(-)7 \-. Co/;i(/t/, <^ i>. l.<77, 1 Q. li. R. oO, defendant jilcaded thiit he had a pi-ivile^'e 1 1.. N. 12 upon the article- for llie rent of a third imrly 16. lint not if the •.'uardiuii had '" whom the |irenii-e- were \,[ — ]kld, that iiKuved a per-on acting in good faith to althoUL'h a landlord ha-^ a privilege upon the piireha-e the '_' 1- of (1( I'erdiuit without -""d- of third p irtie- found on the premises holiiyiug liiui thai they were under seizure. lei. yd he niu-t exerei-e his ngjii I ly course Ihijirn-r \s. Dumas. ('.('. Isscj, ,s Q, L. U. ol law. and a- in ihi-^ ca-e Ihe landlord had :;.;:;. not done -o. jiidgincnl niii-t go foi' ilie plaiu- ir, \ I , o 11 till. ,1'irkson V-. Ciit/ihn-f, C C. l^^.j, S 17. .' vojiiiitary -nai'dian who lia- |( 11 the (lefendani in po-se-.-ioii ol the thing- j- ■ ■ ' ■ s(i/edinay seize them by an iittaclinicnt in 22. - .\iid where a laiidloi'd lo-k' an !'( veiidicatinn, an(i it is Hdi neces-ary to allege auaehmcui in re\ (iidicalion again-t a piaiK) !ea-oM to tear that they are in danger of (lisa|e beloiigiiiL' to a third pei',-.(n after il had been |i( 1(1 111.;, aii'l th( 'lelendaiil refuse- to '.iiie tlicni reiiio\(d from ihe lioii-e of his l.nan!. but up. Il'o ' /. /■ v.-. 7>//y/(M(/, (.,1. I!. l.'^>7, l.'i K. I.. iKLih lied to J. in hi- tenant or debi' r in Ihe .".(il. conlirnied C. K. b-'^l, .M. ii. K.,1 S. ('. neiion — 7/, / /, thai ihe aclion miie-,-ion ot ve.-led wiib ibeppipiry m •belega(. as llii -I- lliiic- ; said ihat plamlill had -old them owner. H) .)/.//■/// v-. l:llir. Iv . ){, l-.'u, I ll.i 'r bii-ines- in IJeceuil" r. I>-|,an(l iilace.l |>„.. i, | ,.,, -,,i; ill! article- elaimel in I be pii--' -sioii . ,!' one M. Id be -old by him: an! meanwhile lb'' (Iclciidani- were to Iuinc ibe ti-e of them 1/ paviii:' loi' ilie keep of tin hni-i'; ibat the li(ij',-i abiays remained m po,--essioii , ,(' -.li | M. im .1 about ihe lime '' 'i . ^■'■'ure, wl,(ii -M. -old ihc horse to the per-oii aelually in I --ion wh(>ii ihe-ei/ure wa • made — Uihl, I'll proof maiiilainiiiLi the sci/uii . Os/kiico (■■il.Hi.l Co. \<. S/i,,( londilinual sale fur a nominal price, after ceitain instalments -ball have been made, e 'llow e I by delivery, coti -^1111111'- a col 111 il ion til ,- ale. and ill such a case revendiviilion wdll not lie. allliongh the deed eontained a clause iirovidin^ "herefir. I'lV/iitii vs. iMrcnUire. C Cl, H- have tU all times prior m deliviuv vi-c! Ill run lielueen Montreal and Upper ,„ „,^, ,,„,,|,,,,er been in the tictual pos^-ion funada has iiienrred liabiliti'- in lhe\fssel . at a I'liitiil Stall -I piirt,lliat he has liecnnie i il> /' .'ir< (/.■ I.'U' ab.ili-lieil li.v .\rt. -'U i . (.'mlo. 12 178 ATTORNEY CJENEKAL. M| i ! \ ■ i i- ■ i '. / 1 1 ■■ 'i f '^ '.■ ■ i [. f If [ft? Of the barge. Kellij v.=. Ilamiitoii, Q. B. ls72, IC. Jj. C. J. 320. 26. Owner of Undivided Share of Real Estate.— A proprittnr nf an iiiidiviili'l sliare of real CHiate may, if lii.t ri^^lit lie denied liy liin CO- proprietors, liiiiig an I'clidn in revendicatioii to e^talili.^li liis ri;;lit I'V a jiid}^- iiieiit, and secure puyrnent of 'lis sliare nf liie revenue; Iml a jiidgincnt cannot be rendered in cucli case so a.s to cansc tlie cicfendant to be disposse.ssed nf any part of the coiiinuin pro- perty. Jnnitagc vs. J-Jviins, C. it. Is7>, -l Q. L. I{. liOii. 27. Partnership. — Wiu'ie aiiei' liie dis- ."iiiutioii of a partiier^hi|' "WC ol' tlir partners lias partnership prupeiiv in his |Missessiun wliicli lie is aliiiiil to cnnviTt to his own use, tiiat State tlicre wa.s no such remedy as tliat of attaclinient in revendicatioii, or the privilege of amiulling the sale if the price were not paid. The Court below, ujion that a.s well as niher ground?, di.siiiissed the action. The court here was of Ojiinion to contirin the jiidgnieni, on the ^.'round that the law of l{!iode Island does not give any such right, llhoilc Inland Lurniiiii- tii-r Works vs. Sontit Jhntern L';/. Co. A}. 1!. l.'^S(;,;il r.. C. J. 8G. 32. Stolen Horse.— A right of revendica- tii'ii ixi-^ls in favor of the nwiier I'f a stolen horse, even when the pm'chaser Injught it al jiiililii- auction and in good faith, fj'iiii/erin vs. MrM;ii,ni, ». ('. isi;:,, ;) K. c. ,l. i(>.-..' 33. Title Deeds.— An action in revneii- . cation (iih be inainlaiiied lor the rccm • i\ nt' the other partner caniioi chuni liH undivided • , , i. ,, ,, i- ,, ' nili'dced-. Iirniiill \ -. /Iniis.fi ninni, Iv. !>. -hare of such proipeiu I a altailiment iii I , ,,- , ,, i i - -,,,. , . ,, . ,, , i If^l . I ''''V. de |.(M_r. , ,(!(,. revendicatioii. .il(ii/iiii< \ ■■• Jlniil/fij, (}. I!. ! \m:<. 1 K. ilcL. :;i-.7. " j 28. Property Attached.— lieveiidieuiion \ .\i\ . .SKUVICM IN'.— Ams. mi;i \ni. -(;s for plopeily iilluched iirid tor' iou. ('iirillirr, K. 1!. isr.'. 1 l;,.v. dc !.,.;. .-,il(;. 29. Property Illegally Detained — In -W. TITLK TO (;ot)I).S si:izi".i>. I .\ 'Aiii of Mllaidincnt in reveudicai ;on nn dre>sed I ■ ■• one of ihe hailill^ olonr Sn|icr.o ("ouii in the district of, et.'. " mc-i !..■ e\.-eni an action m !■-■•, endicaiio,, ,,f cenan, move- I ,.,| i,v o. r --urh lailuls hm 'he u n- n.av ables alleged i„ have l,ee,i illepilly d,.|ained i,, „,,.„.,| i„ ,,, |,,i,l,ir a,„l ,|„ .le.lara'^ -, hv', hy the defeudanl IM'I, tnal an aMio,, i,, ^|^,,,.,|,. y;,',,,,,,,,,.,/ _ Tiir,/,;,,,. S. C l-T::. reveiidiciition uoe; I !;■■ t.i r \ei- |i,i.--e--:,in - ii i !.)■. of llloveahles illegallv .-ei/.-' I Jj'lllillni.^ >■ Carpofiiliini nt 11,, WirUh ,,l >/. /,'<-, ', Sunlh, C. C. lst;:i. i:; !,. c. u, :!17. .30. Repairs to Cars. — A |n-r.-ici who i-e- Wle iv a pri--,.! i- fovdhiv de|,i-i\ed •■( 1, - pair- car-, and l lahsl'ui-in- phiMorn; lais into |.o.;,-e--i f nio\i ahli- in an aetion of r,.\,.',. p.T-'fnver cars, can hoi he i-.in>ider'd lie ouner diealion. \\>- will n^i he lieM in .-slahii-h li,- of theiii, and caiiuoi (xei c;>e an allaclnr.cnl in iille a-^ ai;ain-i lie irr-pa--er. It will he for revendicatioii in reuarl to ihoii ; and « I en dd'endanMo iii.-iif\ hi- act. Sjj\(icati:s .v.M' Av allachnieiit liiaiiL' illegal. Siii,i-,il \ -. ToiiNins. I'dtrs. l^ Ii. 1.S71. 7 K. L.liO.-^. 31. Sale by Foreign Company.— The appcllaiits, plaiiitiUs in the ("unit helow, soM to iheSoulh i'.asiern liailway Coinpaiiv two lo.oniolives. and tin pnicha-er not ha.iiMj , 1. Delegation Of Authority. — Under .T! pMid the price-, lie- '.'hode hiaiid l.ncomo'M and lii; \' ic, , . J'.l. the atloriu y -eiieial c^.M Work- to,,k .>ut a >eiziire in rcVi-ndicai j. ,,.. nol dele-.-il. to ih, Jiid-.;lnetit anddl-ci-li a-kin;_' thai the -ah I.,- ,-ri a-ide. and llial i In- , aiiolle r lie powei which the legi-latiirc ha I locomotive- he -cut I,, ihein. ■] he deelarati. nilliorizcd him |,ei--onally to v\yv. '.-■■■ alle-ed that the >ale and delu ciy of the loco- , A/,,,ihaiiis\-. Thr Qu,ui. .Siipr. me C'. 1-sl, moiivestook phi.e at I'nuid.ncc liho.je Is, | h Can. S. (M!. |(l ; y.', ,„;i,( vs. GniH(jn,(l 1!. land, aiiil it was piuved thai iindei- i he law .f 1 l^s |. ; J,. \. ■_; 17, ATTORNEY GENERAli.-l.'^ee ai-.i " (''l!oV\ N ' -'• 1,1 I I -) . I id VI-: UN 01; " \ AUCTION— AVOWAL. 171* 2. Art. 704 R. S. Q. i>ioviil.'s that " the Lie ulcnaiit-OovcniDr in Ccnincil u]i|MMiit3 I13' cn?iiMiif.-i(.ii an lifliccr ciilleil the Assisliiiil Att"riit'y-0( ncruh" This article has been iiiri'init'il \'\ 'Mi Vic. (Q.), eh. 14, niliiinf; tlie inll.ivviiiL; |iara;na|(h : " The Assistant Attorney (Iciieml has ex nf/icio powei' to re|iresent the iiit.irmy j.'en(i!il lielui'e all Courts ot' Justice in llii^ I'ruviricc. " 3. Office of, filled by Member of the Bar. — Ollice III' assisiaiil atlurney L'encral not 10 I'aUSl' ailvnciltc lijlin^r il In lo.-c Ilis (|\llllity .it' liu'lilj.cl' nf llic Hlir, ;")7 Vic.jcli. .'il. 4. Fiat. U'.tT C. ('. P.— It is within the ,|:-iii'tinn I'f the iitliinicy Lreiieral of Caiiaila to Liiilil "rwiiliJiuM 111- //'(/ fur 11 srir( /ik'/k.v. .'MK 5 POHiHtluent. — Tl i altoiiKy-f^eiicrul ol ill',' I'l 1 :iHi' iif (.Miilic 1- till' -oil ilomiiilin 111' a Mnl iii-liiiili (i I'V Iniii ill hi- nlll i:il ra|i:i. 1! 1 . u In iiul' lilt Ir !'■ a 1 1 {;i|ii| ni' nol. Al'iiillllr^i^ , a niail'l.ltiln : i i|| || | jjl .'ll |||t iiiHitiM'i' ol'^i K'liiliir I iiijirl liiiii 111 I iiiilliiiii |inii n.lih - mull r An, Wl ('. (,', I'., lo/r iir,,| I Ilaill llir ll>ll\i' o| llll' I'nilll I'l |ii|l< ijl'i iiliiiiini:; -lirli I'll iMTiJiiij-. A 111 rci'ijiiii! uiiui luy-j.'' iii'i'iil iiiMiiiii niiiii'i a ili-ciiiiii;iii mill' l',\ 111- I'li'ilii'c ■-Hi . (\>Hjirliiii . i' eliuiin .1 |iri ai'iK'Hei- I'.'l' the licafiiii: i.f i;.-i:i-. a- a |ii i\ ili .le. 'I'lii' C111111 witlmiit ii.ljiii.. atiii'j' ..ii the fi'jlil all.iVM'il the sni'ci.al (-■a-i't.. laKi |.r. .Tileiice, a- il «:i- a iiiallil' of -'laial I'lililie iiiteri -t. Allnnif'j (Iciirrnl \--. T!nj ijiiiiii'.-i lii.^iiraiiii (.'.;., Q. 1!., 11 Jiiiu'. 1-" 8. Right to Appear for Crown.— I'Ih l'gi.l..| llii' atliiriu \ L'liieral f.irthe I'loNiina' 1 of Quebec to apiiear lor the Crown caMiiot I questioned hy 11 private person. }foiik- v- Ouimet, Q. B. 1874, 19 L. C. J. 71. AUCTION-See Sale. AUCTIONEER (1)— See Aukniv. 1. Action was brought against an !mcti"nrcr to recover the value of a horse, wliieli the plaintiir placed at X15 sterling, ami the auc- tioneer, conlrtiry to instructions, had sold at i-'l") currency, tiiid the (lefendunt pleaded that the limitation plaenl upon the auctioneer \va-' illegal — Hell/, that uti'ler the circuinstances thi' lim tation was pirfcctly legal, ainl that till' iiucfioia i-f w I- liahl. t'.ir the full value of llielior-r. Lnrh.r vs. /'w./» -,(.'. C. 1" 1. l'> 1.. C. R. 2.-.. 2. 'Jiie i' n .'- 1.1 tl,.- I'i.jlit ,,f audi. lie I'f- iivrr |if.ipiit\ iiitrii-ie.l |.. ihcm lor salr. 'I'ln- 'jii'i-i.ii luiiieil on 1 vLlenee solely, n li.lng ill I I. eon firming the jiidginent of I In Siip. r:>.; (' nil, llinl lie aiU'lioin-i r liinl Hot jirov.l ,at lie j I I I il , .' ' liiril-led I., iiilll I'v sale : Hliij lliill lie ||l| I :i |\. 1 l.-.d the |.i,iperl\ li.f -ale i\ ill I iii-lnii hull- of ,aii\ Kind. /)'("/',• i \. ('mill, t) II, ls7.-., K:.. Dijr. r,i;. !l. All oiclioiiiei 1-. 1I..I liahle i'.i-oii:dl> on a -ale made hy him I'oi' a di'-clo-ed prin- cipal. Lu.,1. v-.i.V'/.ver, S.C. 1>77, 21 I..C'. J. 4. Expulsion of Person Attending Auction. --.V iier-.iu atteinling an aiictieu cannot I..- e.xp.-lled wilhoiii pro|Mi' nioti'..-. and it ]s on tin- auctimieer to prove -ueli i;ni- ti\e-:. Mm-'iii'ini V-. J/((/-/..///, S. C. 1-7:'.'.' K. L. :,:w. AUTHORJZATION TO PAY' Se.- StaTI 1 K. AVOCAT— S. AiivocvTi: .wn Ait.kvkv AVOWAL— S.c ,\ ii.Mi,-,-ioNs. 'I I l-'ni- ..lili:;ali..iis iai|...-.-.l l.\ Si.iiiili. ii|i.ai un- til iiei'V-^ anil iieiialliis Im . .iiilr,u..nti..ii<. -. .\ri-. aiatria l;, s. i> .Xs i.. .nictn.i rs' li.-en? .-eo .\ri. ^i:ii K, s. 1,1. r\ I 1 liitj 180 BAILIFFS. B. BAIL BOND— S,( C.MM.A^^— CiiiM. Law. BAIL— Sec I,EA WlT.VK.-iSKS. 1-J. Ill, CnSTfMi'T ''ii\ -l-.'i. Lii(liiliti/ of A/l<- '//or. li-T. Mihll.ir. 8-11. rii.icriliti'iii- l."i. VII. .Il lil^^inCTION. VIII, i,IAI!ll.!TV tiF. I >i 1,11/ ill KjU'rlltinll. \-'l. Gnuriliiiii'.f tii.ll:. 31. Ivrcijiihiriliex in Uctiirii. .'i. Oi-i rcliiiriji-. (i. Ill laiiiinij Money riceireil. I. ACTION' nV, FOR (iOODS SOl-D.- AiiT yy.', c. c.p. Wlicii-a liiiilid, liiiviiii.' t-,,1,1 etrtain ffXhU in |iiiii'cs.s (irfxi"'iiliiiii, (li'livci'i'il tlioiu iiefiire liiuiiiL' liceii |iiii(l, mill iiftcrvMinIs |iioii;:lit iiutioii Ciriiicpi-ife— //c/i/, tliiil 11(1 -iicli iictiiMi woulil lie. J'ltleiier vs. Lnjnie. C t . l-^.'i5, .'» I- C. K. :'.i)l. 1 11. J. R.(>. H^-. II. A.S WITN'KSS.— AiiT. 2i;2 C, C. P. 1. \ Imilill' wliii iia~ iicli'il ill a cii^-c may !"■ ■ liiiiiiiR'il a-i a witiii'^-', proviil' ' lliut il i-^ ii't lu provi' cuiivcr-atinii.s liai -r ailiiii^.sidii-* iiiibic lit iIk' lime of si'i'vici , (junienn v.-. Ciin-linir, C. Cl. 1>^7'J, il li. L. U. :M. 2. Ill an iicliiiM to recover a ixiially for I Ik' s;iii' cif i'.l.ixinitiii;? li(|Uur^. llic liailill" wliu ( .-^(■rvcl nil 111 iIh' ilf|rniliiiit'< altnrney tlic in- si! jiliiiiiuf till' ca-i' ran I'C t'.MimiiiC'il a- a 1 witnr.-is ir;;ariliiii: llic siiK' of iiituxii atiiiLT iii|ilO]'- liv till' ilclnulaiil. Ji'irurit \s. ('unit' : 111,1 iirhe,\:. Cl. issi, 11 K.L. ic:;. III. COXTK.MI'T OK COTRT. 1. .\ liailiU', ill iltrault fur mil iiiaUi i:; a relinii lo a writ . Jiiiiiijn; C. ('. l^'ll^. 7 L. C. J. H. 2. Wlirrc order for coercive iiii|iri.-taled in the writ of e.veeution ; he sherill slioiild also iiave deinanded the remiitanee of till' ami. lint so reeeivr.l, Dnfnsne \ s. Coilerre, C. Cl. l>7(i.:; U. L. IJs. 3. Where a I. ailitr, resilient ill anotlier di-- irii't. an I eharLred wilh llie e.\eeiilioii there of Ml .\.t (•iiiici-niiiig llii'ir.'iilinissiuii.pocurity. ilmie.-. a wiil of e.xei'iuion i--iic.i onl of llir Distri.'t XVI. Si riiinv o V {■!)■ See iindi'r tide .^M l!KI vsiin rt'iiLiviil, |ii'iia!tii' : li. .S. (^ .Art. .•i7U. ) Si'i,' .\rl. ."i.'i \i.v .i.iili'.i, I'll. 4s, :iliii'ilililig 111. uitv til III' .'ivcn li\ Ihi' liailill:* of .Mmitri'Ml. of M..ntrriil. fail- lo comply with lli(> e.^iiii'ii- i cies ol' the \\v\\. \\r i- liuli'c lo impri-onnu iil m m BAILIFFS. ISl OlKI'iIilli/l >• v.". in llir nistriit of Monlrriil 7V/v),//h, S. C. 1877,21 L. (' 4. A liiiiliir wlio proci'i iN willi ii Half, not- H illistiiiKJiii;; an opponilic n ami onler to siih- |iciiil sciveil upon liini, \k litilili' tci iiiiprifon- iiuMil Cdi- coiitenipi ofcdurt. Lerunx \^. Den- laiiiin-x, S. C. 1>^M . I 1,. N. 17:i, 12 U.L. 29H. IV. DUTIHS (JF. 1. Corporation of Bailiffs.— A biiiliil « liiiuriil Id comply willi llu' ri';^uliiliuiis of the Corpoi'iiiioii (if IJiiilill'H, ami to keep a, ve^'l-uv of ilic MvlrH niiiilc Ipv liiiii. Cnrj). ili'n ILiis- si'isM'. noiirass,!. S. C. K«H',), M. L. U., "• S. ('. init. 2. Execution When' u writ of cxccu- ticii lias IrtC'ii isMic'l ■ippaiciilly if._rn|n|. m CMi'v re-pcct uml addr-'s^cil to a cti .un liailill, il is 111.- iliily li> procfr.) iiiid,!' It, notwilii- -liunliii;^ that il may ri ully I'OMluiri cause.- of iiiillily. I'ifjIiKi vs. Miirrindii >(■ l^di/inn/n, Q. li.L^:'. I! H. L, yi:,. 3. Assaulting Bailiff' — And if tlic ))arty fxcciitfil agaiii-t as.-auli.- tlK> bailill' in till' ('.\cciiiioii of .-Mcli u writ, i (' i.s gidlly ni as-.uilt. (//'.) 4. A liudiir. i\cn ludiinjriiig to nnotlior (li^li'icl, iH ,Jilii.'cd to immcdiaudy e.vi'cute a writ (jf I'Xcculiiui .-cut tci liini ; and hi- n I'll.- a I III -o cxcciilc ,«iich writ will eiilail order for coercive imprisonniciil ajiaiiisl him. II,l V-. U'elili, C. ('• 18,«(;, 10 I,. N. .•ill. 5. It is no iinsuer for such I'liilitl' to [ilead, to the order l^r coiTcive imiirisimmoiil, thai his dishiirseinenls had in.it liccn forwarded to him, imli'ss ho shows thai he had, before such refusal, made a demand for such dis- hiirsemenl-. (/''.) 6. Return— A hailill hein;; i liarged wilh a writ of garnishment before judgment issued at ihe instance of the iiiiiinlill' himself, without the inini.-lry of an attorney, and having served such writ failed to return it either into court or to the pliiintill, liy reason of which the jilainlilf losi his recourse against the moneys in ihe hands of the garnishee, on action being Iniught against the liailitf— iZcZ-/, that il wa.s liisduly 10 deliver the writ on or before the return day, either to the alturney or the party frjni whom he received it, or lo file it in the "tlice (if the clerk of the court in which it was retiiniuble. although he was not especially re- i|Uc.-Ud to do so, and thai, having execiiled -U(di writ, he would not be permitted to urge waiil of iiroof (if his being a bailill' in aiiswtr lo -ueli action. Laiii}is(iii sc. Ii,i,r< It, i' . Ci, ls.-,1.2 L. r. It. 77, ;i H. .1 K. Q. 101. 7. ^~ It it not pari nf 'heoflicial (luty of a baililf ejn|iloyciJ by a shonli 'o reiuin • ■ tho conn iiis doings under a u.»rrani from the slierilV, and such retnni. I made to ilie court, will be regarded a- an niidllicial act, ainl tliei. |. re not ttutlieiiiic. /)//iii//o/ vs. ()lirn-.<. 1. Action in Forma Pauperis.— In an action ill J'l nii(( jHdijh ii.-< a bailill eiiiinot re- cover foi' bis sd'vices, but he can rei^over for his (lisbiirst mcnts.and as siudi for ihe aninunt allowed by the larill' fur mileage. /'/';;( vs. Toii.isaiii/, C. Ct. 1880, 7 Q. L. It. 51 2. Failure to Execute.— .\ builiil chiirged with a writ of execution who. fur iii- siillicient re.'isoiis, fails to act upon it is not; entith'd to his fees. Cmleaii vs. Giiu/ras, C. C. 18G4. ir. L. C. R. 201. 3. Invoices.— Where a bailill'sells goods in considerable (piantiiy, lie is bound to fur- nish the purcliiisers with invoices, fur whiidi lie can charge at the rate of .") cents for ea( h 100 wonls as allowed him by the larill' for all docuimnts wliitdi he is obliged to prepare. IF////. .,:ay.tey ml lilciii em ploy in j; a bailitl'to execute a writ and makin^' a special agreement with him as to hischariies, without stijiulatiiiL' that he is ncpt coniraetinj: for him- self, liecomes personally liable lowanls the bailill. Pdiiiictoii vs. 6'(////f/, C. Ct. 1880, 7 Q. 1.. R. 2J0. 8. Mileage — A liailitrcMiinot diariiem le- ane from his place of residence l> the jilace where ii writ served by him is returnable, nor can lie cliarire n)ileaj,'e in the same manner for remiltiiijr money levied under e.xecution. his duty being in the lir-t place to transmit his return by nuiil, and in tbcsecoii(i to trans- mit the money by j>ost othce order, liasvdl vs. lirlfian, C. C. 18t;4, 15 h. C. R. 22. 0. Art. 78 C. C. P., §4.— On a motion to revise a taxed bill of costs— flcW, thai the liailill in rt'ckoniTijr the distance travelled in the servile of a subpo>iia cannot count from the Co;irt House but from his domicile, and that e\eii when he has to ^.'o lo or I'elurn from the Court House to get or retiu n the subpo'iia .served. Jmzihh vs. Co/c. S ('. 18(18, 1 R. I,. 49. 10. And 111 hi, also, that although plaintill resiiled in a diHerent part of the dis trict from that in which the Court House was situated, the subpuiiia or service should have been returned by mail, ami, if the bailill' chooses to travel the distance himself, lie can '. onlv be naid bv the pari\ einploving him. ' (lb.) ' ' ' ' I 11. .\nd 7^/i/, also, thut in a general way thisappliesonly tothcserviceofsubpcenas, ' and to such services as require the jircsencc of the bailifi to receive instructions, {fh.) • 12. A bailiff ifi entitled to cliaige .i i double fee when he is obliged to return a ' second lime and effect a service, in conse- of a baililfs costs— //<;/(/, that in an actiup issuing from the Su])erior Court ofihechci- lieii of the district, the bailili" ciiarired with the execution of a writ of Fi Fa de boiiin CiU'. only liine hi.- mileage laxeil for the same dis- tance as if t!ic writ bad been executed by a bailiff dwelling nearest to the defendant's domicile, llic balance lo be paid by ll.e parlv employing him. Sairi/er vs. liohini, S. C. 1888, 12 ].. X. 1. 15. Prescription.— A I! T. 22(17 C. C. l'.~ Railitls" fees are iib.srihilch/ presci-ibeil by lapse of .'! years, under ihe r2ih Vic. ch. 44. /.'•■ I'aillntr v-. Smlt. S. C. 18r)i;, 1 L. C. .J. 2T.i. VII. .HJRISDICTIOX. .\i!T. 78 C. C. I'.— A bailill of the S. C. up pointed for the ilistiict in which he reside- decs not lose his ijiuility a- bailill' in such dis trict by retiioviiig his residence into aiiolbcr district and lu-iug iijipointed as ii bailill' fir that district also Ciinijniguii' du Chemin dc Fer '/c.v Lull n-iit idea vs. Gmiihlrr. C. C. 1880, 24 L. C. .1. 174.:;L. N. 24:?. VIII. LIABILITY OF. 1. Delay in Execution.— A bailill who. through negligence nnd ignorance, made a seizuie in an attacliment for rent several diivs after Ihe .«ervice of llie writ on the lessee, was held responsible for the los,^ ihereby occa- sioned to the plaintitV. Micln'ii vs. Veiiiii:. C. R. 18>^(). M. L. R.,2 S. C. ;i()7. 2. Subrogation.— The iudgmem in such case condemning the bailill' to damages will .suiiroL'ab' him to that extent in the rights of the plaintill against the lessee. (7/<.) 3. His Guardian's Costs.— A bailnl charged wi'.ii the execution of ,\ writ is personally liable for the renuineraliori of the guardian appointed by him. Ciiiiri'h(-iie vs. Gvnereux, C Ct. 18(;-), I R. L. 4:),'!. 4. But Hild, in a later case, thut neither the advocate nor the bailill is resjioii cpienceof thealLsenceof Ihe defendant from wible to the guardian whom he has appointed, his domicile, provided lie wails a reasonable I and who has voluntarily accepted Ihe charge. BAILIFFS. 183 fir the costs of Iiis jriianliiiiisliip. Plante vs. Ciizeau, S. C. 1875 (Dorion, J.), 1 Q. L. H. 20;i. 5. Irregularities in Eoturn.— Wlitn a hiiilid', by iri'ei;(ilarities in liis return, gives ri^^e to an exception to the form, ho is liable for the loss occasioned there liy. Major vs. Chartr.Jid, C. Ct. 1S77, 21 L. C. .1. :iO;i. 6. Overcharge. — A bailitl' for overcharge is subject to suspension, line am) imprison- ment. Der/un.), oil. 31. Xlie Hank Act. Propert'i in Goods pleihjed. 3. Sah' of — Accounliug. 4. Shares of Tradiuij Conyttny. ")-;•. Securities v/iich Pledi/nr had no Itir/ht (n jiledfje — Liabililij of Hank. in. ' Warehiiusc Ueccipts. 1 1 . Coustitutiounl Law. 12. VII. Coxs-iTiTioXAi, Law. (.See No. VI. 12.) VIII. CoMl'KXSATIOX. 1-2. IX. Dioi'osiTS. (See also Nc XIII.) As Seruriti/ for G"rrriinicnt Con- tract — Failure of Bank. 1 . Imputaliiin of Faijinents. 2. Interest on. .'!. Kigiiliabi/il)/. 4. Jiii/h/ to as Secnrilii fur Xutc nf Pepositors. ;"). Iiii/hts (if Creditors nf De/josilor. (i. DiuKcroiis — LiAiiii.ivv oi\ 13. UlSCiilXT.S. Claim ar/ainsl .Maker tif \o/r. I. Se::urilil Jnj Third Parli/. 2. Fai.sk Ri:tii!XS. l-fi. Ix.soi.vEXT Rank. Calls— Double IJabilit!/. 1-4, Cheques Paid after Sii.-^jiensioH — AV- course of Liiiuiilalurs. .">. Compensation . tl •.'^. Contribntories. 9. Depositors. 1011. Liquidatiirs. 12-1."). Restitution of Monaj recired at Time of Suspension. \i\\l. Ji'iT!0>•■s "t" Hvii)i;x(K. 1-2. XXI. Skuvick 01' Simmons. XXII. Shakes. Attachmcul. 1. Sitlf (ij by Jiiiiih- ill tKitisfi/ Debt Jhink — li-rtgidaiily. 2. Title to. 34. Ti-'iiisfcr. ;J-7. VsiifrHctnartj. 8-9. XXIII. Stock— N.vrruK ok. XXIV. TiusTS. 1-5. X.XV. Ui.TUA ViitKS .Vers— F.I ikct of (Sc'u also No. XVIll. 1-2.) vv.VI. I'xt.Awri'i.i.Y enoai;kii in Bankixo. Set' also CoMTAXY and Coiu'oijatiox \..\\\ " I'lir.I.S AXI) XoTKS. ' AOKXCV. to 1-;! I. ACCOrXTS. 1, ;\(;linM oil a ilcpiisit iiccoilMt kcjil liy the |.liiiiilill'iii the ikfciiilant's I'liiik for llit' sum of Sl,7.">2. ll^. which had liecii chai'L'i'il aj/aiiisl tlir iilaiiilitl'iii his pass-hook and in the hank leil);ei', htit wliich lio ik'clarcil he had never withdrawn, 'I'he i)laiiitifl', hefore hriii<.'in;.' liis action, had called Oil the plaintitl's to prodmic the cheipie, hnt this tiie)- had tailed to do, al- thoiii^h hy their plea they allej^ed that all the iilaiiitift's cheqiie.s hail heeii returiied to tliein. Defeiulaiit.s, in fact, admitted that the clieqiie had heen mislaid, hut sought to prove by evid- ence that the cheque was drawn hy the plain- tiff and jtaid by themselves. It was certain that it liad been paid, and tiie evidence a.s to tlie mode of pavini^ it was as follows, viz. : — ''The clerk to whom the disputed ciiei|uc was " presented, and by whom it was accepted, "says: A fewday.s before tlieltUh of January " a low sized man, whom I did not know, pre- " sented the cheipie, I ascertained thai there " were no funds to pay it. I submitted it to " Mr. II , and he to'd me to tell tlie man to •' present it again, as he prcsuiiicd it would " then he all right. I told this to the man. " He replied that it was strange, as tlie plaintiff " had written to him or told him that there " were sufficient funds. A day or two after- " wards, a deposit was made to tlie credit of " liie plaintiff, and two days after the same " person returned with the cheque, and said, '■' I suppose it is all riglit.' I said, ' Yes.' "" The witness also said lie knew tlie plaintitV's signature, ami was positive that it was Ins writing at the foot of the cheque, and being now examined for the deiendaiils, said he was not sure if he had ever before seen the person who presented thecheipie, but thought he was familiar with him. The clerk who (nii I the cheque saw nothing to distinguish the signa- ture from the ordinary signature of the ])lain- titi, and besides, while in his examination for the plaintiff he said thai he did not know the person wdio presented the clie(|ue, iii his , sjc. 40. (I) Bank of Toroniii vs. Pcrkiii.i, Supreme Ct. 1882, .^ Can.S. G. I!. 003. 4. Securitv taken in the name of a thinl person. Bight of bank to lien on sliarc-. Claim in insidvency. Liability for mal- iidmini-tration. Interest. ComniencemenI ><( proi'l in writing. .See case of Lanioureux vs. .l/../A»,, Supreme Ct.,Hlh March. IPSO, lb - ported at h'Ugth, CassePs Dig., 'h\i\ l'!dit, j.p. 71-7:'. HI. .\1!K I'UBUC CUBPURATIONS. J'ciin/ vs. Simurd, S. C. 1806, 10 L. C U. IV. CHEQUES. 1. Acceptance by Cashier and Pre- sident "t a Future Date.— Liability of Bank. — In i881, G., having business trans'.c- tions with the E.xchange Baidi, agreed with C, jiresident and manager of the bank, that in lieu of further advances the bank would ac- cept his cheque, but made )iayable at a future date. On the 19th October. 1881, G. drew a cheque on the E.xchange Bank, and after hav- ing it accepted as follows: " Gooil on Feb- ruary 19th, 18S2. T. Craig, Pres.," got the ciiecpie discounted by the People's Bank, and dejiosited the proceeds to his credit in the Kxchange Batd^. This cheque was renewed on the 23rd May, and it was presented at the Exchange Bank, and jiaid. Thereupon an- otSierchecniefor the same amount was accei)teil in the same way and discounted by the Peojile's Bank on the 7lh September, 1883. .\t the time of the suspension of payment by the I'lxchange l!ank, the People's Bank had in its possession four cheques signed by G., and accepted by T. Craig, iiresident of the ]v\change Bank, which were suUsecjuently presented for ]iayment on the dates when they were payable, and duly ^/rotested, and also after the three days of grace. The total amount of these cheipu\s was $1)0,020.04, and one of them. \ iz., the one dated Tlh September, 188.3, for :?31,000, was a renewal of the cheque the jiroceeils of whicii ha;ik against the Exchange Baidi, for the re- covery of the sum of $00,020.74, based on the four cheques in questir the cir- ciiiii>tari(;i's tlie Excliange Bank wii-^ liabh' for llic ari'i'iiliince liy tlieir jiresident and inanajrer iif (l.'s checiiU's discfmnted by the People's liiiiik in };ood faith and in iImc conr.^e of linsi- III--. Exchaiii/r Hunk of' CaiKida vs. T/ e I'.i.ph's Bank, Supreme Ct., Tl<\ J:ine, lsH7, in I,. X.:{G2. 2. Acceptance of Cheque— Powers of Bank acting as Agent for other Bank- Compensation. — A liank actint: as iigeni for aii'iliicr liank i- not authorized, in the ali-^eiici ote.N press agreement, to cash aclie(|U(' drawn upon the principal liank, hut >inar- icpicil liy ii. Mariliiiir liniik vs. Union lliiil: ofbiiiaila, S. C. 18.«8, M. L. U., 4 S. C. 214. 3 A telojjiiun from llic jiresidcnt nf \\if pi'incipal hank to a depositor therein, stat- in;: thai certain funds are at his credit, is not an acceptance of a chripie drawn hy the de- pci-iior ujioii the receipt of such teh'Lrram lor the anidunt of I l.r funds, such lelc;:ram adding U'lliiinL' t(j I lie le::al olilijzalion of the principal 1 aiik lowanis tlie depositor to pay the Ghe(iue ulienduly presented for payment, if there were ihen funds at his ci'edit to meet it. and no legal bin Irance til its payment e.xisieil. (//».) 4. No eomiiensatioii arises between ihe piincipal hank anil its aL'ent, entitlinu; the latter In set oil monies paid under an unac- eo|iied cheipie upon the jirincipal bank a^rainst iniiiiies held by the a^'en', and due to the pruu.'ipal banls. (//<.) 5. A custinu iif bankers cnnnnt be pill in evidence unless it lias been specially pleaded. (///.) 6. Endorsement- Liability of Bank. — Where a cheipu' was payable to the order of '• W. A.''. Ilic batdv on wliii li it was ilrawn wa- not justified in paving tlie anioiint mi tlie eiidiirseuu'iit " W. A." per " A. 15. A.,"' unless A. li. A."s aiitbiiiity to endorse for W. A. wa- proved. Almonr vs. L' i'?4f3 \ \Vi\\\ ill ■ : SILL 1 r^ ill I J ^ 1 on llicir .loint paper ot ^t'i.CiCd.S.'i. Tlie old note of ;:.'),0S7.,")() due 1st Octohcr, and ihc otic ..f ?1. 101 ;!:! were .-ijrned liy John Klliolf \ Co.. and on liii- KKli AiiL'MH wciT replaced hy I'vo ni'le^ -ijined hy Ellioti. Finlnysoii A- Co., and .'■ecured by 200 liiirri'l.'' ol' oil. I K'l Imnel- icnuiiniiii.' H'oni the ori};innl nninl'er plcdf.'cd. and :i'i iidditioniil warehoM-^e receipt of '>4 barrels of oil, ei)dor.''eJ over by W. K. Iv lo Fini.iy-.oi. Idliott A" Co., and by theio to the buidi. The ref|ioiident. a« ciiratijr lor liie estate of W. E. Elliott iV Co.. elaiiocd thai the pledge of the 2011 barrels of oil on tiie lOib Aui.'ns|. and the ^.'iviiiL'of Ihe notes on the lllih duly to the liiink, were frandidcnt prcierrnces The .Siiperior Court held llint the bank had knowledife of W. E. E.'s insolveiil condition on or about the l.'ltli duly, and decdared that they hud received frauiliilent preferences bv receiviiii: W. E. K.'i' customers" notes and tiie 2(10 barrels of oil; but the Court of .\ppeal. revcr.siuL' in part the judj^ment of the Sup'rior Court, heM that liie plci^'ini: of the 200 barrels of oil by Elliott, Kinlayson A Co. on tlie lOtli AiiL'u.st was not a fraudulent p,'efer- enve. On an appeal and cross-appe' 1 to the Su- jirenie Court ; Ili:lil,\M. That the tindins: of the Court.s below of the fact of the bank's knowleilge of W. E. Elliotl'.s insolvency, dated from tliel.'ltli July, was sustained by evidence in the case, and there had therefore been a fraudulent pre- ference yivei' to the bank by the insolvent in tran-ferriii;; over to it all M.s customers" paper not yet due. .Vrt. lODG C. C. Gwynnc, J., dissenting. 2nd. That llie addilioiuil security given to the l)ank on the lOth .Vugust, of .jt barrels of oil for tiie substituted notes of ICllioti, Finlay- son &, Co., was also u fiaiidulent preference. Art. lO;'") C. C, Gwyiine, J., dissenting. ■3rd. Reversing the judgment of the ('mirt of Queen's Bench and restoring thejuilgment of the Su])erior Court, that the legal edect of the 'ransaclion of tiie lOtli August wa* to release tlie pledged 11(3 barrels of oil, and that tiiey became immediately the piopcriy of the in- solvcut'.s creditors, and that th(y could not be held by tiie liank as collateral security for Elliott. FinlaysoQ it Co.'s siilistitiited notes. Arts. 11G!» and lO.'io C. C. Gwynnc and Patterson, JJ., dissenting. t^iicenxmi vs. Canadian Bank of Commrrre, Suprenie Ct. Is02,2.'i Can. S. C. R. ."iao (reversing in purl Q. »., 1 Que. :!:i). 2. Overdue Dobt.— 'I'he customer of a bank liougiit a c|iianlily of wiieat for cash, and obtiiiiicd delivery promising immediate pay- ment, iieiiig remonstrated witii by oneoftiic ollicers of llie bank for iiaving overdrawn his account, and lieiiig pressed for immediate setllemcnt, be drew a liiU on Englaiid, and attaciied to it the bill of lading for llie unpaid wlieat. Tiie liaiik discounted tlie liill, and placed it to liie customer's ciedil. wiiere it e.\tingiiislied iiis indelitediiess, iie never iiaving liad conlrid or possession of tiie proceeds. Tlic liill was not |iiiid in England, and the wheal was soM for the prolit of the liank. Appelhint seed ihe bank Ibr the proceeil- of tiie sale on i.ie ground liiat tlie liill traii.-aclli.n was fraudulent, and was only u covert mode of avoiding the lciiii~ of liie IJaiiking .Vet, and obtaining the payincnl of ;iii overdue debl — //('/'/, conlirmingihe judgmentof the .Superior Court, Ihiil the transaction was legitimale. Dnihnlii, vs. T/ir Mrrc/iaiils- /i,niA-. Q. i! , 22 June, 1ST7, Ram. Dig., p. ''>^- 3. Property in Goods pledged— Ho vendication — Bailee Beceipt. — Good- vested ilia bank for advances on a draft, under sections 4(), 17 and ■!'.• of tiie itanking Act d lS71,iind enlriisted by tlie iiaiik to tiie ae ccptor of tlie dralt, for sale on aci'omil of liic bank (llie bank taking a bailee receijit from the acceptor), do not cease to be llie properly of till' bank, r.iid may be revemJicated liy the bank in case of insolvency of tlit acceptor. Merclian/.s Hunk of Canada vs. Mcd'niil, C. R. l!^7S. 22 i.. C.'j. MS, 1 I,. N. "j;!!. 4. Sale of— Accounting.— VViierc a bank advances money on Ihe security of a iiill of lading under Stat. Can. 34 Vic., cii. 5, sec. Ii!. and does not obtiiin possession of liie animals covered I y tlie lull of lading, wliicli animals are sent Uj Europe by the I'liiik's f M„„trr„l vs. Gc'lihs. S. (". 1S7;», 2 L. N. :!.")(). 6. Contra liiiitk of Moiitienl vs. finhh's. S. C. 1880, 3 L. N. MO. (2) (Sec ,„.|,;! L. N. lie.) 7. A liuiik li!i\iiij.' iiiinic iiiiviiiiccs on the -CI illitv ank to j.iir- elia-^e tlicni. JidiKjUr iT Kpafijiir ilr Mantii'itl V-, 6V7./CX. S. ('. ISDd. 1!) It. l',. C.S.l. 8. Tiie ilirei'tors of llie (•eliipany were not lii'M liiilile to tlip l.ank tor cliiiiiiiL'es saiil to have I'een siillereil liy tlieiii liv reason of the fal -e re|)orts nini lietitioii- ili\ iilends niaJe l'\ the ilireetors. tlit' hank liaviii'.;, tlii'on^li its ollieers, atteiiiU'il llie iiiceliii;:s of the colii- jiaiiv aiel aeipiieseeii in tlie n-poit- ami state- iiieiii-. niaije liy the liireetors. Were it not for iiis acipiiesceiice tiie liircclors wuiilil he hahh (.•)) (Ih.) 9. Sneli action i- suliject lo llic Jire- sciipiio'i of thirty year-. ( //>.) 10. Securities which Pledgor had no Bight to pledge— Liability of Bank — Broker. ( \) 11. Warehouse Receipts— Banking Act. It. S. ("., Vn. 110, .^i-;c. f)!!, kt skq.— 'I'Ih' MoNoii- IJaiik look from one II. several ware- leiii-e iiceijits as collatei'al sociirity for (uiin- iiicrcial pajier (iiscomiteil in the orilinary cunrse of laisiiiess. and liaviniT a surplus from tiie sale of the l'OoiJs represeiiteil hy the re- (1) See soos. i;,"i, fid, Bk. Act 18911. (■J) See new lili. .\pt 1S!KI. seo. CC. Cli irwh-'i llinihn/ .t/ni,/,-, ,1/ vs. r;, ,/,/,.-■, S. f. ls,io"e case ((ill) A liisliirl .Siiriiiii.' H'IkI; vs. (.(■/./>.'•') wniilil iip- \lrmiieiit!< !.il"ii.;'im III otlier iierMiic' Willi a bank as M'i'iiiity 1 » './".' I'lr an ,iih aiicc Tlie liaiiU iliil nut Unuw « liellier th'' ill^t^lllllc■nts tM'liiiij;eil 1.1 tie' liniker c.r oilier per- sons, "i- wlieiliei' llie le.ikir hail aiiv amliiirily to il' III Willi tlieiii. ami inade im iiniiiii'ies. The hroker Ii;i\ ili:^ iili-fiiliileil. the h:iiik ri-alizi'il I Ic SL'ell^itil's— //.•/|/ leviTsiiij! iith'i< Jaint .^tttrL- l'.'iul \^, Simmons, \\\'\\^v ut l.orils ,ls'.r2 .\pp. Cas. 'jal. ceipis after jmyinj; tiie delils for which lln'y were immediately pled^'ed, clamied under 11 jiarol aL'reement to hold that surplus in pay- ment of other del'ts diU' iiy H. 11. huvinj: liecome iii-oivent, 'J". (ap]ielliint') iiinier .\rt. 1031 C (". liroiiL'ht an action a^rainst tiie lnuik claiming; thai the surplus must i>e ilistrilmted rataiiiy ainoni; tiiecreditors eeneraliy. II. was I a inemlier of the (inn of II. & ll..niid they were \ nut parties to the suit — llilil, atlirmiiii: tiie ; judgment of the courts heiow, liial tlie parol I njireemenl was nol contrary to the ))ro\ isions I of the Hankini,' \ .. 120. sec<. r,2 ttsi'i]. I That after tiie jiooiis were lawfuiiy sold, tlie money tiiat remained alter applying the pro- ceeds of (ach sale to its proper note was sim- , ply money lieiil to the use .I'll., siilijecl to the terms of the parol a^'ricment. (Kilcliie, ('. ,1.. I diiliitdnlr. nni\ Fouriiier, .1 ., dissentini;.) I'i'r j Tascherian, J., tliat. 11. A: II. oiiL'iit to iiave heen made parties tij the suit. Tlioiiiftsiin \s. ; Molsiiiiti Hunk, Supreme Ct. 188'.;, 12 L. X. I 3:il», H; Can. S. ('. It. (iiil. ' 12. Constitutional Law. H. X..\. .\rT.. Skc. Ill (|r,)._The words •' HaiikiiiL', Incorporation of Hanks and liie Issue cif I'ajier .Money." in section 1)1 (l.'i) 15. N. .\. Act, cover tiie ca-e of wareiioii-e receipts taken as sei'U- rily iiv a iiaiik in tiie cour.-i' of tlie Inisine.^s of I liankiiiL'. Notwitli-landini;' section '.)2 of liie ; same Act. the l)oininion I'ariiament has power i to leiiisiate wilii re-pect to siicii securities, tiiou'.:h witli tiie eU'ecl of modifyiii;: the law of liie Province in reialion tiiereto. 'J't'iniduf \s. I'liion Bank. P. (". l-'.i:!, [l-HIJ .\pp. Ciis. lil. (.■\plieal t'roni (hitiirio.) VII. CONSTITUTIOXAL LAW— (See supra '• Coi.T.ATKU.M. SllClTilTlKS,"' No. 12). VIII. COMPKXSATIOX. 1. Tiie plaintill' had a note for $1100 dis- ' eoiiiileil iiy llie liefeinlanls, and tiie latter re- tained out of tiie ]iriiceeils of the note tiie I anionni of another note oxerdiic I'x' tiie jiiain- till' lo tlie I'anlc. and wiiich was duly protested — Held I'ever^in-.;' jiel'.'iiient of court lieiow, that tiie iiaiik had a riiiiit lo retain tlie amount of the note so iield liy tliiiii.aiid the action in so far wii- ili.-mis-ii'd with co-Is. Iliihjiii' KalioH'ilt \-. (;ii,iy.^).n. l-Cio. l.-i L. ('. K. I'.lli. \ 2. Xo coiiipi'ii-at ion arises Ijetweeii tiie prin- : cipal lialiic and its avii nt, entitlirii;' tlie latter lo i set ofl' nionie- paid under an unai'ccpieil I i:lii'i|iie upon llie principal iianli a'j:ain-t monies Uil] m \'' \ i» n \,v %:m ,JUM 190 BANKS AND BANKING. held by flie ni,'ent and due to iliP principal hank. Maritime Bank vs. Union Bank of Canada, S. C. 188H, M. L. R., 4 S. U. 244. IX. DKl'OSIT. 1. As Security for Gtovernment Con- tract. — Wiicrc u cotiti-uc't()i'(U'|Mj.«it8 money in u blink in the name ol' tlic OovoriiineMt, nr tb" money is depo.-'itod in lii.-i behalf liy another party, as scenrity for the executioii of a Oov- ernnient contract, such (le|iosit is al the risk of the Government, which is not freed from liability by deliverinj,' to the depositor the deposit receipt after the bank has become in- solvent; it must return tlie iimoiint deposited. Giliiwn vs. Gilbert, Q. 15. lf<81t, 17 R. L. 132; ib. ]). 124, H2 L. C. .r. i;)8. (Appeiil to. 'Sup- reme Ct. quashed for want of jiirisdiclion, IG .S.C R. 18'J.) 2. Imputation of Payments.— Wiiere a bank took a note endorsed by a eiisiomer as security for past advances amountiiiLr to ;diout 810,00(1, aiid after the maturity of Iliis note, deposits nmouiitinj: to more than ijlOO.OOU were passeii tc iiis credit in ;Iie iiooks of tin- bank — Hi'ld, tiiat in tiie absence of any spe- cial iiMpiitation of payments or reserve as to the applicatioti of the sulisc(|uent deposits, these deposits were to be imputed in piiynient of the oldest delit, anil the c istonier's liiiliilily at the maturity of the collateral security beiii^' MKUe tiian |)aid by the siilisequeiit deposits, tiie collateral was disi'liarj.'eil, and the bank's action ajiainsi the maker and lirst endorser of said note wjuld be dismissed. Exc/i(iii(/r Bank vs. Xowll, 1.^87, M. L. R.. ;i S. C. 12'J ; Cleveland vs. Kj-clniinje Bank, Q. R. iHs;, ;ii L. r. J.12t). 3. Interest on.— A bank is init liable to pay interest on money for which it has accepted and eerlilied cheques. Wihon vs. La Ban were being made. (iinlldi \~. Ihintpif Jit<hed was ulti- mately closed a-^ being insolvent, an 1 a portion of the debts due as sjieeial deposits was bou.'ht (I) In tlie eiise nl' \,iti,),i,j/ Miihit'ur,' /!,iiiL- vn. /■.■■■/:, wliiuli was ilwi, toil hv tlie Supreme Ci. nit Mt ^l;e.<;e ehiisetl.x (ISTD) M'JT Mass. ■J'.ISj luid wlii.'li iini.jvd a |ii>iiit siniilarle lliat iiliine, cliiel .IiisiU'o (liavsaid: •• Money ili'|i08ite(l in a tiaiili iloes nut reiiiaiii tli.' ]iri>[ierly i.f tlie cleiie.siter, iipeii wliic'li tlie liaiik lias a lii'ii only ; but it beijniiics lliu alisulule in-opertv "f tlie bank, ami tlie bank is meiolv adeblni- to tlie"ilep,.si- lor ill an ecinal aiiiouni,'-' citing Folrt/ r. Hill t Phillips ;!:i!l; •_• ir. I.. Ciis. L'S. .-Since tlie I!il|s ..| l-.xeli. Act, |s|ii), H bill iioes not operate as an as-sij-ii mentor riiiiiN ill tbeliaiuls of- the ilriiMeo (see. .-,;Ji, anil see (iii-oiianl on Hills anil Notes relative to the ease ot MnrUr c. MuUon, at p. Itjo. BANKS AND BANKING. 191 up by till' directors ul a c(.ini>08itioii in tlie l»nitiil. In an iiclion on fts.-uinpsit liyonenf ihi'iiepoHJtor.i ui;iiinKt the president and ■'evenil v( llie directors for the lull ainounl nf liiw deposits — Held, that without reference t(i llie (|iiPstioi. ol' friiud, the president and directors liud lieeoine traders by niixint; themselves up with u commercial buidiinj,' business, ami were jiiintly and Fcverally liable to such depositor, and the fact that the plaintill approved of the |inieeedin;;sof Ihcdirectors submitted aniuially Ml meetinjrs of the ilepositors, where such iip|iroval wa.! obtaine I by means of false si.ite- ments, could not operate to his prejudice in lliis regard. Pnvny/ \<. Alli.in; Q. B. ISiil. 11 L. ('. II. 29;i. 2. And 7/eA/, also, that the president and ijirectors beinj; a co-partnership or unimor- poraled company, the action was properly lirouL'hl aizainsL any one or more of them under the provisions of 12 Vic. cap. IJ. (Ih.) 3. And llild, also, that the charilable in-litulion had no interest in the matter, and consei|Uently thai no action to account ///'/ .vof/« for or aiiuinst it wouM lie. \I. DISCOl'NT.>^. 1. Claim against Maker of Note— .V imidi which ilisciMints a iioii' in fa\or of tin' riiilorscr has mo claim a'jainst the niiiker. where it is proved thut the maUer has paid tin.' aiiionni to the endorser, and that the note wa- iditM'L'ed to the ac:counl of the endorser \\iio had an account at the baidi. Cliri-laiid vs. llaiuiiie d' Kf/iaiiijr dii Cidinda, (). B. lf^f<7. 15 R. !>. .-.i,;!! L. c. .r. i2(;. 2. Security by Third Party— Pledge —Condition.— Where a hank discounts a note anil takes as security a chei|Uc of a third parly havin'j: funds in the baidi, jiiven on condition that the bank u-i' due dili^'enee in collectiiiL' till' amount, of the note when over- diie from the maker and endorsers before cashini: the idieqiu', the bank violates this Condition by acceplins; a ri'newal of the note and in treating: with one of the endorsers wiih a vicu to releasini: him in consideration of a jiarlial payment, thus losing; their recour.-e aL'ainst him. The third party has thereupon an action ajrainst the bank for the amount of his pledge. Jldili/}!!.' dii Pi'liplc \s. racaiid, (1. B. 18;);i, 2 Que. 124, Superior Ct. IS'J.S". ;i and wilfully n.ade a wilfully false and (leceptiM- statement in a return respt'ctinj: the ntluirs of the bank, need not allej^e that the return referred to waH one required by law to be made by the accused, or that any use was made by him of such return, or specify in what ])artic\ilnis the return was fal«e. (1) Hn/inu vs. Oil/r, (.}. B. 1877. 22 I-. C J. 1 tl. 2. The enumeration in the indictment of several false statements con-titute~ but one count, and a ^reneral verilict is sulfieient, if the statement be shown to be false in uny one of the particulars alleged. {Ih.) 3. It is not necessary to allege in the indict- ment that the false statement was made with intent to deceive or n'islead. (.tb.) 4. In a prosecution under the Bankini.' .\ct of 1871 for making a wilfully fal-e and decep- tive return, the (piestion as to whether certain items in the return had been improperly classified wa-^ not one of law but of fact, and the failure, therefore, to leave it to the jury makes it the duty ot the Court ol Q. B., on a re-ervf.l <'a>e. to i|ua>li the verdict. (I) j J{r,fh„t V-. Hii,rhs,(i. B. I>7!t,21 l..t'.,I. Ihl. 5. The infcu'imition in a case of uiakiii;.' a j fal

s,-,, 8 L. X. 30.5. I 6. The atlidavit should be written in the language spoken by the informant, or in one ' wiiich he understands perfectly. (III.) XII. FALSI', KllTURNS. 1. .\n inlicliiient under sec. (i2 of the Banking Act of 1871 for bavinir iinlawfullv XFII. ly.SOLVKMT BAXK. CI) 1. Calls— Double Liability. -.Vciioi, by the li.(uidator (pf the .Mechanic.- Bank, insol- vent, to recover from defendant the sum nf \ S7,.")00. being the balance due on his -ub-ci'ip- tioti of ;■)() preferential shares including the ; ilouble liability. I'leathat hy :!:• Vic.,i:ap. 12, sec. 2. a by-law had to be parsed aiithon/ing the ised at a spii-ial t;en- eral meeting of shareholders called for the ' purpose, and concurred in by at l(>a>l Ivvo- I thirds of the holders of paid up -lock pre.-ent, , and no such meeting was calleil or held : liiat ; no by-law by a qualified boai'd of diieeloi- was I ever passed aulli(prizing the i-sm ..f the -ai.l stock; and that, moreover, dei'endanr wa- not 111 Now see. fl!) IJKt'. Aet. isiui. (2) 4.-) Vic. u>.). ell. i;;;,'.' n. s. r,, cii. rjo. 1 hM 1 11)2 HANKS AND HANKING. lil^n iiililc for llii- iiclilitiniiiil ciill- |iii'lriicli'J to lie line '.vv thr (Iniil'lc lial'illty cIuii-i'h of (lie liiiiikiii;: Aft--y/<7i/, llmt .i- ilcf.ndMnl liiln- -I'lf IjihI liccii n (lii'cctor uml lunl liilu^ilf luillinri/cl the i--iie of llif -Iiiuvh, iimi liii.l liikcii lilly of lliciii uml liii'l nccivcil dividfriil- on IJHIJI, lillll lllf |ilcii ilid IH.I cniiio willi H j.'.i(ii| ^'rucc iroiM liiMi.iiini iriii>l lie ovciTiili'd. JildL'iiicNl ln|- uiiioiiril rlilitiK'd. CuHit V-. n'n.hhil, S. ('. r-^l.l I,. N.78. 2. Under (". ;il Vic, (III). '), xc. ;m (liiiidiiiiL' A<''. iif Is71>, tliiTi' iiiii-i lie Mil lu- ll iMil of 'Id duv- liclwrcii liic iiiiikiii;; iif ciili-^ nil lIlC .-Illin-luiidlM':^, ll'^ well II- iin iiilrrviil nf ;>'! diiys iiitwrcii llir daU'^ lixcd fur |iiiyiMi'iil-. Jlur/,'ihl;/,t Ihiiik vs. Il,J,n-ls„n, g. 1). l.S-;!, C) L. N. :wt . ,3. — Tlnic iiiii-i lie iiii iiiifiMil iif lliiiiy clrar ijiiy.- luMwuii iiill- inidcr mh'. ."iM ilk. An, Is; I. Jlmii/llf il' /■'r/lillK/r vs. Clim/ilirl/. S. ('. ISS'i, 1.') K. I, .'IT.'l ; Cliii/is vs. ]Jiii!iiii/. S. C. 1SS4. li; i{. !,. i;4H i Cilnnin vs. Coiiit, <^ M. I.<8L', l;! K. I,. (Jill. 4. Si vrrnl calls (if I'll pi r criil. each raiiniil 111' iiiadi- liy unc ri-nliiiii.n nr oi'dcr uii- ilii' -cr. ."iS, |!k. .\cl, I>'71. (liliiiaii vs. Cmri, <,>. li. |KS2. 1,! |{. !,. Cl'.t. 5. Cheques paid alter Suspension— Re- course ol' Liquidators.— TIk' nsiHuiilciii, liii\ ii;.<: fiiiid-- k> Ills I'i'i'ilil III II liiiiik w liii'li liad siis|i(i|idi'il ]iiiyiiiciil,ill'i'U ciiciiui's nil llio liaiik f. iv \ a lii Ills sinus. Tlic-.' clieiiiics \vcrcarci|ilcil liy till' liMiik (111 llic sMiiir iliiy. mill the rcs- ]ioiiileiil llit'ii, fur viihialilc ciiiisidcralinn, djs- liijscd of lliclii 111 various |iiii'tics who were paid tlic rc's|icctivc ainounts liy ihc Imnk, liy n'c- dils or otlicruisc— //(/(/, llml the lank liad i no actiiiii afiuinsl ihc rcs|i(iiid(iiit to recover the aniinint of the clit'inies h'o paid, their recmirsej if any, heiii;: a^'iiiiisi the iniriies to uhoiii they i had paid the iiioiuy. Krc/mni/e Hank of I (■',/». vs. //,(//, 18SG, M. L. R., 2 Q. li. 40'J. 6. Compensation or Set off— Where a ; shareholder of a hank liny- delils of the bunk \ aficr it has siisjpcndcd, he cannot o]ipose the.«e ! dflils ill Compensation ol culls on his dmilile liuliility iiiinlc liy the liiiiiidator under sec. 5.S ■ Bk. Act 1871. (Hlmait vs. Court, (}. li. 1882. i i;; K. L. or.). 7. Where a bank deposited certain ' iK-;:;otialiIe instrniiient-"- wilii another hank as security for a fale of bonds made to it, and the , liiircliasiiiL'bank became insolvent after jiavini.' , the viiliio of the bonds for wliich the seciiritv was iiveii, the creditor bank coiiid ni.it upon diinanil of the Hquidutors for the |iiis.-ession of the above hccurity oppo.-e in comiienHiitinn thereto a former debt of the iiiHolvenI bunk for whiidi the Heciirily was nut (.'ivcii. Jhiiniue fl'Kc/iiiiii/e ilii Cduiiilit vs. liainiiir il' Kiiiiri/iie ,!<■/„ air, . Uh. Q. Contributories.— In two cases the n s. piiiideiit, |ilaiiitill in the Court lielow, siicil ihr pi'lilioner, defeiiilant in the Court below, ulm wa- alleL'ed to be debtor of the bank. 'I'ln' ilechiratioii allcL'ed the insolvency of the E.\- (diiiii;;e lliiiik and its lii|uiilatioii under the Sliiliite of Canada, I.') \'ic., cap. 2!i, the indebi- edius^ of llie petitioners, with coiiclusinii- accordiiiL'ly. The petitioners pleaded dilatory e.vccplioiis oil the (.'round llml. if true a- all(L'e(l in declar.ilioli, thev were '■ contribiitu- lies," they were s., under the Statute, and be- fore any .suit could be taken ii'.'iiin-t Iheiii tiny mu~t be oettled oil the list of Ci iiit ribut(.iries in the bank- as |irovided in the Act. Admissions were tiled Ihal the iielilioiicrs uer(| not settled on any list of coiilrilnitories — Held, not iieeis. siiry, and exce|ition.s disini.s-eil. Acer v.s. /,'.i- change Hank, Q. B. 18S4, 7 L. N. :i4(i. 10. Depositors.— A deposit (^if money made with a bank on the day and at the very lioiir when it suspended ])ayiiient mav lawfully be returned to the depositor. Kri/ian/jc Bank vh. Montreal Cofl'ce Ilousc Association, ('. U. 1880, .M. L. H., 28. C. 141. 11. A person wild makes a deposit with a bank alter its suspension, the deposit consistiiif^ of idiei|Ues of third parties drawn on and accepted by the bank 'ii (luestion, i- not entitled to be jiaid by jirivilege the amount of such dejiosit. Onlurio Bank vs. Chajilin, 1889, Superior Ct., l,'. R. L. 'l.'io, M. L. R., r, Q. B. 107, 17 R. L. 24(i, allirmed by Suineme Ct.lSOO, 20Can.S. C.R. 1,V2. 12. Liquidators — Dismissal. — The Court has the power to dismis.s the li((uidators of an insolvent bank upon demand of ilie BANKS AND BANKING. I'.'u partit's inttTi'hlcil, Imt before doini; so will order n (loiierftl meeting of tlip Hliareiioldern and creditors of the Imnk to (jet (lieir advice ii~ to the j.'riiiiiiiU iif disiiiiMHiil. Cluyis Vr. J>.nliiii/,S. C. 18SI, It) l{. L. (Ml). 13. Tlie Court eiiti disininn a liqni- iliilnr upon deitiand nf the crediturs if it is -howii that tlic lii|uidiitorH do not B^ree, and H n k liartnonionHJy anion;; thciiifelve-* lis to ilic ii(|Uidntion of the hank's alhiirs. /6. and lliiiKjiir . I!!) can bc' recovei'ed liv the lii]iiidiilors. ExrhaiKjc limilc aj' Cmi. vs. Moiitriiil ('iill'cc lldtise Aasnciaiioii, ('. K. issi;, M. J.. it.,2S. ('. in. 17. 111 any case the dejiosit of money iiiiule with a hank, on the day and at the very liniir when it suspended iiayments, may lie liiH fully retiinud to the depositor. {Ih.) 18. Eights of Creditors.— A creditiir of an iiicorpiirated bank which has sii.^pendeil piiyiiicnts lias a iij:ht to Pue for the .inioiiiit of his (dttiiii, even before the e.xjii ration of DO I lays from the suspension- Snii'cal vf>. Jhiii- ijii,: d'Echatuje, S. C. l«8t, M. L. R., Z S. (". 107. 19. Savings Bank— Holding Shares as Collateral Security— Double Liabil- ity. — .\ saviiiL's bank holditig bank shares us pledgee, and appearing as owner on the book.s of the bank, is not the owner of .such shares within the meaning of section 58 of the Banking Act 31 Vic, ch. 5, and therefore not siiliject to the double lialjility. ExchniKje Hank of Canada vs. Montreal City & District Savin,,.i Huiilc, 8. f. 18^'., M. [.. K . 2 S, C .-.l, conllrmed in Q. U. I8«7,.M. L. it., •; Q. I!, r.i'i. 20. —— A bank, shares of which are translerred toaHiivings ba.ik, is pre-iinieil to know that the sjiares are held by the Intl. r as collateral secuiily, inasmuch as under sictiMii lSof:U Vie. fl).), eh. 7, a .saving- bank cannot iici]iiire hank shares vr hold liiiiii except as pledge-. (//;.) 2 1 . Suspension of Pay mont— 90 Days how Calculated— Creditors— Order of Judge.— On the 2tJtli of .Vugust a demand for a writ of iiltachmer.t, under the Iiisolv nt .\ct lS7.'), against the Meidianics Hank, was pie-'eiited to ii judge in (Miamber-J. The bank a-ked tor a pruvisioiial order giving them notice (if lli!^ demand. This order was given the same ijay. nctifying the bank of the hear- ing on tiie merits of a demand tor a writ of attachment for the 29tli August. The notice was served the 2(Ith, and the 21.'tli the parties appeared, wdieii tiic bank o|ipo-ed the dpiiiand fdi' a writ of attachment for ihe following it ii'^oiis ; iSecause the ilemand for a writ could I not be niadc before the 27lli August, Si'eiiig 1 tliat the blink had suspended payiuent the j 28tli May, and tlie 'M) days graiite I to the bank under the provision- of the Act onlv I e.spired the 2(illi August ; bee.iiusc the order tif ihe judge which was wiitten on tlie demand had beiii gi\i'n without the notice I rc'iuired by law; beeimse the allldavit of the interveiiants was dated the 2i;ili before the e.xpiration cf the 90 day.s— //(?/(/, that the bank having -uspeiided payment on the 2sth ; May, as udniitled in the preliminary an-vver iif the bank, tlie 2Sth must count as the lir.-r of the 'JO day. s during wliicii the bank ciiild remain in suspen-ioii according to the terms of .'19 Vie.,("ip. ol, sec. 2, and then tMii; tiic 25th August was tiic 'JOth day, and the deinand was rightly maile on the 2iitli. Mcrlnmir.i Jhink vs. .s7. J,, III et at., S. C. Is7il, 9 I;. I,. ii'i.'i. 22. .\nd there was no nut ice ut' Um: order of the judge necessary. (//;.) 23. And that the creditors of tlie bank, being in a better position than thejiidi'i' to decide what should be done, the court before deci'ling as to the issue of a writ ap- pointed an assignee with instructions to call u meeting of the creditors of the bank, in order that they might adopt such resolution^ a- they deemed best and submit them to the judge according to the terms of .sub-.sec. 5 of sec. 147 of the Iiisolveiit Act 1875. (/6.) m& ''A'l. tfi !:? ;1,„V 13 Jti !. \jm 194 ]',ANKS AND BANKING. •!■: .V m^ rv\ .\IV, INTEREST. (So.- ulso Sii/un"DK- POSIT."') 1. IJaiik.s cannot cliurjre iiiori' than 7 ]ier cent, intere.-^t upnn nolefi iliscounti'd 1"' tliein. Banquc il< Sf. UyaciiUhe vj^, Sdrrm J. C. 1892, 2 Que. 90. 2- Tlie ])roliibition in tliis le.^pcct is a iiiiitler of imhlio onlcr. and any jHTson wlio jiayp to the liank inteic"! in e.\i'e.;r),500), and ji^h'red u luu trial. 7 R. L. -tiL'. XVI, IJ..\niLlTY OF. (See al.so Svpm "Accounts."—" ('oi,i,ati:i!.\i. Seci:!i:tv.") 1. Forgery — In an action to recover from ihc liank the sum of $1,.")00 drawn by plaintifT (in liis account with the baidi, wiiich the latter refused to jiay, alleging that the plaintiil had U'l funds i.i the bank, the fact bein ' that all the money belonginj; lu nlaintitl' had been drawn nut by means of forged (heqiies by some per.son or jier.sons unknown, and the signatures to which were so perfect tiiat the court could scarcely discover any difierence between it and the genuine one, lh3 baid< was condemned to pay. Wcnhtim vs. La .Uiimpie (III Paiph; >S. C. 18C5, 1 1.. ( . L. J. 30. 2. A bank is bound t(j know the amount "fits own drafts, and eenseipiently if one of the branches pays a draft drawn by auoihe'', the liouy of which has been altered, it is boimd by s\u'h paymcnl, and cannot recover baek the amount fro.n an innocent tliird party who has parted with the money. Uninn B'tak of Loira- Caiuohi \ s. Ontario liank. S. C. 1S79, 2;! L. C. J. 'u, 11 R. I.. (;:!!, 3. For Acts of Officers. (See also under title" Agi:X(V.")— A cashiemr other o.'licer of the baidx, receiving money, as the attorney of another parly, acts iiulividual'y, and tlie iiank I in no way allectcd by the transaction. Li/nrli vs. McLennan, P. C 185P, 3 L. C.J. 81, 9 I.. C. R. 257. Ill See. ,SI1 l!k. Ai't, ISfiO. reproilunny i.oc, CI, 1!. S. <'.,cli l-'l», .•Mill :)4 \ic., ell. .-,. see. .V.'. iimlrii Qiiinliai V. (Innlnii. ai Oraiifs Cliy., p. I ; lliitioii ,s. l-Vil.riU Jrinl:, U (Mit. I'r. Iteii. SCS. j 4. To an action on a checpie the defen dant pleaded inter alia that the cheque was given as a con)promise of a criminal prosecu- tion brought against defetidant and .si. \ other directors iif the consolidated bank for making ; false and f.''audiilent returns; that the bank I paid the money to one M.aiid his solicitor who 1 were bringing the jirosecutinn, and that thi< I took pla. with the full knowledge of the bank of all the facts, and that therefore the chciiue I was illegal and they could not recover on it I The court found that the money was paid iin- ! der the circuni-tances above stated, but that i the tiank had no knowledge of liie alleged ■ compromi-e as the )Hrsonal knowledge of ilip I president could not be oppo.sed to the bank, I and the bank was not bound by the acts of the I president in his individual capacity, and tli' re- j fore had no cognizance of the pretended com- promi.se at the time thf money was paid. Ihiiik : qt Montreal \<. Ifankin, S. C. 1881, 4 L. X. I 302. I 5. Ratification. Acipjicscence and i ratification must be founded on a full know- I ledgeof the tiu/ts, and, further, it must be in I relation to a transaction to wliich etl'ect may be > L'iven thereby. Jiamjiie Jacques Carticr vs. I Banquc d'Ejuirgne de Montreal, P. C. 1887, i 13 Ai.p. Cas. Ill, 11 L. N. Gtj. 6. Where the accounts of a bank in lii|uidation liad been changed 8o as to rcpre- : .-ent the bank a- a debtor in respect of a sum j which had been borrowed by its manager fur I his own jiiirposcs— //(■/(/, overruling the Court I below (Ci. B. lS8i;, 30 L. C. J. lOtJ, M. L.lt., 2 ^l. 15. (J4), that the doctrine of actiuiescei c and ratilicalioii by the lii|uiilatiiig authorities wotild not avail to render the bank liable in |iay a debt which il never owed. (//).) 7. For Error in Money paid out. -In an iction to recover i*20 which th' bank luel paid short on a cheque— /^e/rf, thit banking institution" are not liable lor any delicit in ]iackage- of silver |iaid out by them, un- less the silver be countci and the delicit ma |e known '■'><'..vi. il.^. packages are taken from llie bank. Jiroini \ s. T/ir i,Uicliec Hank, C. C. I^titj. 2 L. C.I,. J. 2.-.3. 8. Holding Shares as Collateral Se curity— Calls.— A bank takiiera tranter. -i shari"' :i~ I'oilateral sc'cuiily is not liibleasa stock holder for calls on such shares. J'.ii/- waij tfc Ncn-niiai)i'r Adrcrtininij vs. Molaon.i Bank, il H. 1879, 2 L. N. 207. " 9. Insolvent Bank.— /7(7i/ (ailimiin,.' the judgment of Jolm-on, J., M. L. K.. 2 BANKS AND BANKING. 195 S. C. 51, 30 L. C. J. 85), that a saviiij;^ lank, lioldini; bank slmres as pledgee, and ,i|i)ieariiig as owner un tlie books of the bank, i- not the owner of such shares within tlie iiiianiiig of sec. 58 of the iianking Act, M \'i(t. (U.), cii. 5, uiiil tiieri'foro is not subject lo the double liability. Exchaii'jc Hank nf ran. vs. Ciii) & Distii<:l Sai'inijs lianh; 18S7, M. L. R., 6li. B. IDfi. 10. A Lahk, shares of wliich are iian-ferred to a savings bank, is jiresnnied to know that the siiares are held iiy the latter as (i.lliiteral seinirity, ina:;i!Mu;h as under see. 18 if :i4 Vic. (D.), ch. 7, a savings liank eaninjt ai'i|\iire bank shares or hold theni except as lilfdgee. (Ih.) XVII. iJEN. 1. Limitation of Time for holding Goods pledged under.— 'il Vk ., i ii. 5, ski . .",11 CI) Sec 5(1 of tlie 31 \'ie., cap. 5. which n lids as follows: "No cereal grains or goods, \wircs or merchandise shall be held in jiledge by the iiank for a peridil exceeding six nMmths (except liy the consent of the ]ier-^on jiledging ihe same), el(^,■' does not itnjjly that a bank -hi'i'ld forfeit its right of pledge by allowing till, six months to elajise witlnmt selling the uoods. Molsons Bank vs. jMnund, Q. 13. HSl, 2 Dorioi.sKep. 182. 2. In the present cusv there wris a re- pl'dging (ir con-ent given by the owner of the ■.'onds sullicient to secure a continuation I'f the plidge beyond the first six months. (//'.) 3. I-iOgS. Arts. 1745, I'JOG. — Bank.'? can- in it ac(|uire a lien on logs under 34 Vic, ill. 5, ss. 4(1 and 47, if the jdedge of tlie log- was iiiiide fcir a prcvinus indebtedness, or if i;,' \ were nut held by virtue of a 'ransfer of a icnipt liy a cove keeper, or by the keeper uf iiiiv wharf, yard, iiarbor or any otlur placi' in Caiia la within the meaning of said Act. (2) /.'-;.« vs. 1' '-'■lis Bank, Q. B. bSSl, 2 Dorian's iJ.'p. ,^2. 4. Stock.— Under It. S. ('.,,11. 120, sec. iV,'. a bank has a lien on the stuek held in it by a number of a tinn for a debt due In it by sii.li lirm. (::) In re Ciiiiiic, .S. C, isss, 14 II. L. U. 2s:i. 5. — — When a debt is iliie a bank, and ihe (li'litor aciiuiics stock in liie sanic. such slock i- ill once all'ecled by the lien of ilie bank, and monies realized by the bank nul of such stock ll Sec', en li.uikillli .Acl, 1.<1III. 1..') Soc. ','• Iianking' .\ct, IMli. ' 1, Slm-. (15 ll^iiliiii;; Act. 1S-1«I. may be applied by it to tlie payment of said debt, in preference to another debt contracted subsequently by the same debtor, {lb.) XVIir. POWERS OF. (See also Supra " Col,L.\TERAL SECrUlTV.") i. Contract of Guarantee— Ultra Vires. — A bank is not authorized to enter into a contract of siiretyshiji guaranteeing tiie payment by a customer of the hire of a steam- shij) under a charter party. Johansen vs. Cluqdhu 1889, M. L. R., G Q. B. 111. 2. A bank cannot validly enter into a contract of suretyship, guaranteeing the pay- ment by a customer of the hire of a steamshi]) iiiuier a charier jiarty ; and where the bank lias derived no benefit from such contract, a (daim made thereon against the bank in liquid- ation will be dismissed. Watts vs. WdU, 18'JO, M. L. R. 7 Q.B. 387. 3. Guaranteeing Purchase of Goods. — Where a ba'ik, wishing to guarantee a jiur- idiase of goods, telegraphs to the sellers in these terms : " If you send to the Mol- son's Bank, M.>iilrea!, goods to the amount of i.'l,000 purciiased by K. & Co., about the first of 'Inly, sending us the iiiU of lading and documents in time, we will guarantee the col- I lection," sending their address to the same, it does not violate the iirovisions of tlie Banking Act, 34 » ic.jch. 5, sec. 40. (1) lianqne Molson vs. Kennedy, S. C. 187!), 10 R. L. 110. XIX. POWERS OF OFFICERS OF BANKS. 1. Cashier, Action by. Art.19C.C.P. — Where the cashier of a bank brouglit action in his own name for a sum due the bank, and the defendant demurred, the demurrer was dismissed, and this judgment was ccjnfirmed in ajipeal. Ferric vs. Tlioinpson, K. B. Ib.i.S, 2 Rev. de Leg. 3C3 ; Armour vs. Main, K. B., 20 July, 1821. 2. Cashier— Note — Endorsement — Hypothec— The casiiier of a bank, wiio has endiirsed iiutes for a customer of the bank, may, if in good faith, lake a hypothec on the ." ditor's pviiperty t') jn'otect himself on the endorsement-'. Thibeawkou vs. Bra'idoiu. I,). B., 22 June, I'^So. (See as to this i,oini Jiamaurcux vs. Mallcur, Suiueme Ct., , 88G, CassePs Digest, 2nd Edit., pp. 71-75.) 3. Manager — Discounts — Favoring Certain Parties.— The aijpellants were su- il) Itaiiking -Vet. IJ'JO, s;e, Gl. f \ >'( Ml I 1.0 190 BANKS AND BANKING. : |oi' ing their late manager to n'oovi'i-Tiionoy lost on I XXII. SHARES. bills ufexcliaiige a-nl promissory luitts \vliio!i | j. Attachment. — Bunlc shares cannot I'C were ilL^cuiintt'it iiy liiin, wiiile inaiiagiiig the j suized iinfier .luhie-arre.t. Hiulon vs. I'uin- bank in favoring certain companies ami firms in ' chaad, Q- P., June, 1875. which he was interested. The evidence ostah- , ^ g^j^ j^y Bank to satisfy Debt to lished thai sucii transactions were all in tlie Bank— Irregulainty.— Where a hank, will, ordinary course of tiic Imsines.s of tlic l.anlc ; ^^^^j authority of justice, sells sliares sul.scril.cl that he had not e.xcocded tiie jwwcr iiml authority with which he was entrusted ; and that he had not acted in iiad faith in any case brougiit up in tlie \r 1. The Judicial I'oinmittee, aflirniing the judgments of both Courts below, iudd, undei' the circumstances, tiiat no sncii action could be sustauied, and tiiat the bank sliould Ijcar the lo.s-es. Ajipeal dismissed with costs. Bank of rppcr Caiuuhi vs. Jlnids/iair, ]'■ C. 1867, 4 Moure N, S. 406, IT L. C. R. 273, Q. B. 18G5, IG L. C. 11. 1. 4. Manager and President.— The man- ager and president uf a hank cannot, as such, give as security for lliedelit of a bank ini-nrnd bi'foie tiie giving of such security, a consider- able amount of discount notes (iiiliO.OOO). To do so rerjiiires the special authorization of tiic direcsrs. Jiioujiie iV Ec/Knii/e vs. BuiKjiie d'Epariinede la Oiled dii Di.slricf,S. C 188."), 14 U. L. 8. XX. QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCi:. 1. Statement of Bank. Aur. 1228(J.C.— Acti(jn was liroughl by a liauk on an obliga- tion for £1.200. The defendant plcaiicd jiay- meni, relvinir on a statement iiv the bank in which certain cicibts were given them — Hclil, on objection, tiiat llic statement would I'e ! |„.,i,i„„ „ jn i„, ,.,.j^,,,(,,,| '^illi co-t-. ( 1) l'.->i,l.: by a iiusliand, but suiiseipietitly transferred liy liim to his wife, as having been jjaid for w itli lier money, the wit'c or iicr heirs cannot com- plnin of th(! informality of the sale, where it is apiiarent th .t nn ler no circumstu' ces could suidi shares have brought siitlici^.f to di-- cliaige her obligations to the bank. liaii'iH': d'llwhelaga vs. Judi,i,i, P. (\ ISO'), 1>^ L. N. 2'(1, revei>ingQ. 11., 3 Q. B. :ifi. 3. Title to In order to act un ler 21 Vic . cap. 91, sec. 1, wbiidi allows the dirertor- of the IJaiiK of Montreal, in case they entertain rciisonaiilc duiibt as to the legality of any claim to any slnirc, diviiieiiil or ent a declaratiiju and ))etiiion to the Superior Court, setting forth tlie fact-', and praying tliat an order or judgment adjudic,a:iii-' and awarding llie said sliares, dividend- <.r deposits to ll-,e jiarlies legally entitled t if tlic bank, in iiccorilanec with Sfctiuns Id and 17 of tlic All lOtli Vi(^, cli. 70. Bank of Montreal vs. Il^ii'hrson, (l \i. 1870, It ].. C. J. IG;). 7. Sc" Statute of Qne. ')'-5G Vic, cli. 17. wliieli proviiles lliat all tnm-fers of pi'ci- |»ily, shares, cio., belotiirinj;; to the sncces.-ioii ■AVf null and vnid, and ]iass ni> title until the ta\ \\:\< iK'cn paid. (Repealed ()() Vict., (di. 12.) 8. Usufructuary.— 'i'lie usufructuary of sliiircs of stock in llie Hank ni' Montreal i.s (iitilled to the share or jiroporii.in (jf profits iipplicable to such shares, renli/ed I'y the batik on till' sale nf all .sucli shan > of llie increased i:i|iiiiil -lock as were uniiare-; of .-lock subscribed for, undtf lln' iiriviletie ;;va!ilid by llic liaiik lo the ladder of llie oriuihal siiari's lo so -ub-cribr. Uiii'loid< niu.-l be i'nn>idered lit coiiiiiion \:t\\ [<• be wliiit is uiriied 111 llie Freiudi law iiit iiniiunLIc firlif. liiiiik iij Miiiilri'i/I \>. Siiiijisiiii., (.}. {{., '.■| I.. ('. .1. IC'i.'lil I.. ('. li. 2'Jo.aiid (i I,. C). 1.11 I.. C. U.:!77. MMoore417. 1'. C. It^lH. XXIV. THUST.'^. (1) 1. W'hi'i'e a -Inline iiieorpovalili.L; a bank |ii'ii\ idr< that "the bank shall not be bound lo sir to the execution of any tru-l, whetiier expri'--^, iiiiplie.l iir ('on-trueii\(', lo which any ol the shares of the bank may be subject, " such provi.-ion must n bit? to. and free the bank from, liability for trii-ls of wliich the lianl; iiad notice or knowledL.'e, a< llie bank C'luld iiol, a()art from the slatule. incur liabi- (li S.T. 4:1 BaiiUiii); .\i'i, IslKi. lity b}' not seeing tJ the execution of a triis of wiiicli tliey liad no knowledge. Simpsonx^. Molsons Bank, P. C. l.Sl>5, M U. 427 ; [IF'to] App. Cas. 270 confirming Q. B., Imt upon another point, see Siewurl vs. Mohoiu Bank, C2.B. 1894,4 Que. 11. 2. But assuming that tlie l>ank would be liable if it were siiown tliat tlity were ]ios- sessed of actual notice of tlie trust, the facts : Ir-t, tiiat a cojiy of the testator's will was in the possession of the bank ; 2iid, lliat in tlie ease of three of the testator's children, notice of the substitution of grandchildren was con- tained in the transfer registered by tlie ex- ecutors in the bank's books on a ))revious occasion j 3rd, tliat one of the executors was jiresideiit of tlie bank, and that the law agent of the e.xecutors was also law agent of the bank, ai'e not siiflicient to prove that the liank have received notice of the trust. (//*.) 3. Where the transferor iM' shares lias no iiulhorily to tran-fer, an^' the want of authority i- ap|)arent ; for instance, where shares in a blink stood in the name of a tutor to a minor, and the bank allowed the transfer to be made by tlie tutor, without liie authorization of the Court, upon the inlvice of a family council, it was — IlchI, that the bank was liable for the value of the shares (which liad been dissi|)ateil and lost), on the ground that llie tutor had no power lo sell. Bank of Montrctil vs. Simp.son, P. ('. ISOI, 14 Monre" P. C. 417, G L. V. J. 1, 11 1;. C. R. ;J77, Q. B., 5 L.C. I. IGU, 10 1,. C. R. 22.-!. 4. Where a bank I'or its (jwn benefit deals with slock held in Iru-t or subject to a trust of wliich it had notice, it would be obliged to aceoniit til the true owner for the shares, ! slioiild it appear that the person iVcim whom i it got the shares bad not authority lo deal wiih iliem. Blink of .V(Jiilreul vs. Sicfrnci/, P. C. 1887, 12 App. (Jas. G17, ailirming Supreme Cl., 12 Can S. C. R. GGl. 5. And in such ca-e where the shares are lield by a person " in tiu-t,"' these words import an interest in seme other ])erson, though not in atiy specified jici'son, and clearly show an inlirmity or inaufiiciency in t!ie hold- er's title, and are enough to put the comjiaii}' upon their guard. (10.) XXV. ULTRA VIRES ACTS. 1. Loan— Bank Shares. :!4 Vic.cii.S, si:c. 41). — The Exchange Bank in advancing money to F. on the security of Merchants' Bank shares causcil the shares to be assigned r < tf i-i.U'^ - V' ■t Jl 1&8 BAR. ni I to their nianajiin^' director, and an entry to be made in tlieir iionks tliattiic inanagin<;dire<'tor licld the rilmres in question on beiiiilf nf the bunk as peciirity for tlio loan. Tiie bank subsequently credited F. with the dividends accruing thereon. Later on the tnaniiging director |)K'lged these shures to another bank for his own personal debt, and absocndoil — Jleld, iifTirniini.' the jiiii;:inei.t of the Court of Queen's Hench (lit H. L. .•J77, .i-l L. C. J. l.SO, M. L. il.,7 t^U. 11), thiit upon repay- ment by F. of the loan niade to him. the E.xclianne Bank was buuml to return the shares or ))ay llieir value. J ho proiiiliilion to advance upon .-ieeurity of sliiires of anotiier baidc contained in the amendment to the gen eral Banking: Act upjilies to the bank and not to the borrower. Per I'attkhson, J. — Assuming' lli!it thi' Kubserpient aniendinenl of the L'^nera! Bank- ing Act forbade the tiikingof such security by any bank, the amendment did not alter the charter of the Exchange Hunk, 3") Vic, ch. 51 (D), uiider which tiie Exehange Bank had liower to take the shares in que.-tion in its corporate name as collateral security. To take such security may become an oflerice against the lianking law, punishable from the beginning as a misdemeanor, and subject to a jiecuniary penalty, but it was not ultra vires. Art. 14 0. C , which deelares tiiat prohibitive laws import nullity, has no application to such case. (1) Exchdiiffe Bank vs. Fletcher, Su- preme Ct. 1890, ly Can. .S. C. R. 278. 2. Analleged infringement of the Bank- ing Act (e. //., taking sceurity for future ad- vances) th(iugh a unit teralleeting public policy, will not support a conte.-tati jf the bank's claim unless pleaded and legally proved. In re McCaffreij, Ct. of Kev. 18;i4, 5 Que. l.'ia. 3. Loan by Savings Bank.— L. bor- rowed a sum of money IVom La Caisse d'Economie, a savings bunk in Quebec. givini: as collateral security letter-: of credit on the I Government of Quebec. 1.. baving become insolvent, the bank tiled a claim with the curator ot his estate for the amount so loaned, with interest, which claim the curator con- tested, on the ground that the bank was not authorized to lend iioncy on the security of letters credit which were not securities of the kind mentioned in see. 20 of the Savings Baids Act, B. S. (;., c. 122, and the loan was there- fore null; and that it was a radical nullity, being contrary to ])ublic order, and 'lie rcjiay- (1) .See Sec. f4, Kaukliig .-Vet, 1890. ment could not be tnforced (Arts. 08D, 1190 C. C). The .Sujierior Court dismissed the contestation, and it.s judgment was varied by the Court of Queen's Bench, which hold ihat the bank could not recover interest on the loan -//'7(/, aftir mi ng the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench (Q. K., .'? Q. B. ^l.')), and of the Superior (/'ourt (t Que. <).j), thar assuming the loan to have been ^il.trn rinn, the borrower .'ould not avail himself of ii-: invaliility to repudiate his obligation to pay hi~ debt, nor could his creditors ; that a contraei of loan and one of pledge are so far inilepn,- dent that the one may stand and the ollur tall ; and that the contestation \va> rightlv dismissed — Held, also on cross-appeal, re- versing the jiulgment of the Court of Qneen'^ Bench, that the baidf was entitled to inten >i on it'' claim a« well as to the primupal money. Rnllaml vs. La Cai.sse irEronomiu de X'^lri. Dame lie Qncticc. .'supreme Ct., ti May, I89.>, '1 1 Can. .^. C. K. 1 (!.■). .\XVr. UNLAWFULLY ENGAGI.VG [\ ]{ANrax(j. A loan by a Building' Society on the security of a promissory note (the transaction beinLr in efl'ect an ordinary discount) is not illegul, Socii'tc P' rnianente. de Coiislriicfion d'U/cr- rille vs. Posxifer, C. 11. 1881, 4 L. N. 209 ; but see the Ontario case, ^Valmslei/ vs. /,'.„/ Gunniutee r'o., 29 Grant's Chy. 484, and see .", Coiuiecticut .■)H0, .J7 1, 578. BAR. (1) Jurisdiction.— The council of the i5ar, acting and taking cognizance of complaints against members of the profession under the 72nd (diapter of the Cons. Stat, of L. C, ha\e no jurisdiction to try a complaint m;i le against a HKunlier for an act done as a ineie agent. Ex parte Devlin, S. C. 1802, 7 L. C. ,1. 2'.». Offences Derogatory to. (2) — The uo- pellant,aii attorney and advocate, practicing in the district of Quebec, was proceeded against before tie council of the section (1) liar Ai't (J It. .S. (,i. ;i,-,ll) nineinli.il r,2 Vie.. , li. 37. anil ."iH Vie,, oil, :iii, III rej.'!U-il III tiie liiltm- .\('l,.\rt. ;r,J! I!, .S. i.>, is aineiiileil by .•nlilin;; Itie felltiH iim : •' 'I'lio Kvn specially etliirjieci with tlie siipervisieii ot tiie pliiio (if tlie \in\, lie is IkmuiU iiiiiiiRiljati' to the coiiiieil of tlii' seetion any in' nieiit of till" by-l:iW8. all cnniliic't iif any im iliM'dgatory to tlie honor of the Itar. ami to s to it any iicciisation for similar .icta whii'li ts li to liiiii hy any person, savins; the rinlit of tlio e, to receive the same ilireeily, or tn take tlii> liiit in tlie exereiso of its (lisei|iliiiary powers," (2) III re;;ar(l to iliseipliiie of the Itar. see liv of the It.ir 18s|,4 I., X. 377. .lie is ili-ei- ly to ri|]L.'e- 'inher iilmiit an.|e.l llllleil iatlve -1.MW-: BENEFIT SOCIETIES. 199 of llie Bar for said district on the following accusatirns: 1. " D'avoii; In (lit '• John O'Farrell, h ou vers le 2Gme jour dc ' ' mat dernier, e council of the Bar foniiil these charfres proved, aiid tliat ihey wi'it' iiifini'tioiis of (li.-ciplitic, and derogatory to the honor of the IJar ; but //«/»/,— reversing this deci-iion and the decision of the Superior Court in Review, that the chiir;;es in tiie ahscnce of any by-law did not disclose any otlence. O'Farrell vp. ]}ro.'.'<((rd, 1 L. N. ;!2, Q. ]?. 1S77, reversing Ci of Rev., ;i Q. L. li. :u. I. BY-LAWS. Penalties for Inftraction.— Where an article of tlie by-laws of a benefit .society imposes a general penalty for all infractions of the by-laws, and in another .su' • ((ucnt artic n special jienalty is imposed for a special in- I'raction, the oidy penalty that can be apiilied in the case of the spci;ial infraction is the special penalty. Desmarais vs. Socii'b' dc Sec(atrs, etc.. de Jolirtlc, S. C. 1882, 12 R. i-. 198. BEACH. (1) ; The owner of the land facing the beach cannot contest the validity of letters ]iatent of the Government of Quebec conveying right over the beach of which he is not in posses- sion. Molz vs. Carrier, Q. H.,Sept, Vth, 1878, Ham. Dig. 72. BENEFIT SOCIETIES (2) (.!) I. Bv-Laws — Sec also No. VI. intra. II. CONSTITITIOXAI. Law — IxSOl.VKXCY Mattkus. III. Dl.SHKXSION' — FOK.MINO Nkw BitANCll — ACCOUXTINO, IV. Ei.WTiox OK Offickus— See under title ! " I'OMPAXY AXI) CoKPORATIOX Law." 1 V. Mxi'lM.SlOX OF Mk.miikks. I-(. VI. PoWKKS OF — Rv-r.,AW — ri.TISA VlllKS. ■ l-.l. ; VII. Rn.KS OF. 1-2. . (1) Art. 4(10 <;. (,'. (J) K. S. i/.. \ul. 1!, Art. ;MKh; I't scq. i:i) Si'c .\ci, til ili'cliiri' tliiit tlie l)i'iii'lits i^onferrcd 1 111'"" llieir nienibors liy incorporated lipiievoleiit ' »(M'ictlea arc exempt from seizure. 6'.' Vie. ((»iiic.), [ II. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Insolvency Matters.— The Legi.-huuie iif Quebec has power to pass an Act, au- thorizing a benelit society to compel a widow of a deceased member to i'ccei\c $200 once for all, instead of a life rent of 7s Od weekly, the ground that the society was insolvent. lielisle vs. Ij' Union St. Jacques, V. C. 1874, Beauchamp"^ Privy (.'oiincil {82, reversiiri C. Ct. 1871, 1.-) I.e. J. 212. IIL DISSENSION— FORMINC NEW BRANCII-.\CCOi:XTING. A majority of the mcmber.s of a corpoiate liotly wereexpelled from the meeting rooin.s of the society. They retired and met in another ]ilace, iind organized themselves for objects similar to those of the association, taking a new ni.me. 'i'he trustees were amonir the number. On an action by the old associa- tion calling on the trustees to account, it was held by the Court of Appeal eonlirming the judgment of the Court of Review, ihat the members who had taken a new name reprcsenteil the old associatiiiii, and that having accouuteil to that association they were discharged. Cuurt Mount lioijal No. .'ii'i'J 1 vs. /io)(/^o;i, 22 X<'\., Is81, Ramsay J., dis- senting. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. (See under tith — " Co.mi'axy axij Corpohatiox Law.-') V. EXIHLSION OF ME.MBERS. 1. On a petition for a writ of mandamus, the p( titioner asked to bo replaced on the list of members of a benefit society from which ho had been cxiicllecl, and the defendants pleailed that the ])Otitioner had obtained admission liy representing that he wa.s in good health when in fact he was suiTering from Cfiu.-iimp- lion. And that subsequently he hfd refused on several occasions to submit to moiiical ' ! II ' I*! ' I I I! r I f III fill 200 BENEFIT SOCIETIES. 4. Sui'l; iiioinbcr cannot ask toho rcinstatcil (caii-ic liis expulsion had nut ln'on carried out c.\!iinniiilii>ii— //(/'/, iliiii ilic iiilnii->]iiM to inciiilii rsliip wa-' null, and tlic expulsion wa-* jnstidcii Ity the fiici-. Diiraiitai/e vi'. The So- | with tlip proper formalities, i)rovidedtiic onii-- lit-lc .S7. L/iiiicc lie Mi'Uli-t'nl. S. (". ISGit, 1,'! ' sii ins were not iinjiortunt, and thut ho had tli>' ],. ('. J. ]. '■ upportunily of detVndiu'j; liiniself heforo tiie 2. Hesjiondent wan expelled fn.ni meniher- ' s^ociely. (tli.) nliip inthesiicie(yap)iella:il I'orlningin default 10 jiay -ix months contrihuliiins. Art. iiO uf the SocietyV hy-laws provided that "when n 1. Uenefit soeielies orjianl/.ed under (di. 7 1 " nieinler sliall have nejrlecled dnrin;; six | C. S. C. must restrain their operations to " inontlis til pay his conlriliuiiMns ipr tlieentire ! those pro* ided in hy (lie Statute (1) La Me.tru '• amount of ill.- entrance fee, the siieiety may ; pnlitulne Soclr/c Mulnclh dr /iicnfainmnu' vr. I'owiius OF. ■' era-e his name from the li-t nrinemhers, and " he siiall then im hititrer firm ]iart of the " society : for that |iurposc at every treneral " and ref.'i\lar meetinir it is the duly of the rol- " lector-trea-unrH to make known the names " nf those who iwr iudehlrd in six months " coniribution- or in a hahmi-e of theirentianee •• fee. and then any one niay move that sueh '• meml.<'rs he struelc otf fi'oni the list of mem- " l.iers of thesocirly." Kespondent thereupon hruUL'ht suit ill the shape lliat a writ of mandamus dcmeiivr in any way, and that no siM'eiueiit or notice lia 1 been ;iiven him of the aneninl of iiis indebt- edness : (Ml tlic Lr|',,iind that many othci' mem- bers of ihe society w<'re ill arrears foi- similar jierioil-, ioid that it was not competent foi' the si)(/i,ny to make any distinction amon^' those in arrears ; on the irround that no motion to that end was made at any I'eL'ul'ii' meclin;:. In (juecn's Ijdicli in appeal it wa- Held, that res- )iondent should have had " prior iiolice"of the proceedings to be taken wilh a \iew to bis expulsion. ]{ut in Supreme Court — //'/./, I'eversin;: the judirment in appeal, and maiii- taiiiin:: the |irelch.-ions of tin- so.-iety, that as rcspoiident did not raise liy his pleading's the want of" prior notice," or i"ake it a part of bis case in the court below, that be could not do so ill appeal. IJnl m Sf. Jose/i/i dc Moiitvi'al vs. Liipierre, Supreme Ct. IST'.l, I Can. .*s. C. R. liM, reversinj; (^ B. 21 \.. C. .1. :):\i, 1 L. X.40. 3. .V beiulit sieifly ( an expel erne of its iiieiiibers where, by bis sraii'lalous conduct, he has insulted or compromised the honor nfihe societv ; such power is common to all cor- es. l)i,(,re, C. Ct. 1S82, 11 U. L. M\. 2. By-Law— IllegBl Assessment— Ultra Vires.- Ildd, the ])ower to levy an assess- ment upon tiie memliers of a corporation mu~t be deduced from the act of incorporation. So, where the objects of the corporation are declar- ed by tiie charter to bo '• to form a beiietlt society and by means of the revenue derivd from thepi'opertc of Ihe society, and of the monthly conlrihu ions, to form a fund le of a p"tition; prayinc.' ,.,„. p,.ovi,]in2 aid and as.sistance to its members 1 in ease of accident or illness, and in the event ofilcath to their widows and children or fathers and mother.-, ■' a by-law providim; tiiat, on the , decea-e of tlie wife of any member. 10 cents should be levied on each member, to be paid i to the widower, is )(Z/)v/ r/;'c.«, null and void. j Ilnirird \<. LTiiimi S/. J,,sc/i!i. C . Ct. 18!t:i, ' IQne. :i.V.>. 3. By-Laws Ultra Vires.— The Act.'J.'i Vic. Ct^hie.), ch. 9S, incorporating' the Qiicbci' Ship Laborers, render." such society a purely benevolent one ; it c 111 not therefore pass by laws bavinrr theelli'ct of inlerferiiiL' with tlieilemand and |.r;ee of labor. Siudi by-laws will be null, and the society will lie civilly responsilile (or thcillefial acts ol'ils members performed under such by-laws. I'anidi.-i vs. Ld Sucirlr (Ji'x Oiin-;n-s dc Ih.rd, C. Ct. IMs;, ]:; Q. 1,. |>. 101. 1. liy provided Vn. RULES OF. I by law of a benellt society it was " that no member, who shall imt have been a member of this corporation fir twelve months, shall have any riirht to (daini assisiani'e, and by another artiide it was de- clared that the widow or widowed mot her of a ib'ceased iiicmher shall liave no claim on tlii> porations, allhou;;h not spcitially cijuferred by I ■■'"ciely unless her husband or son, as the ca-e their Acts of incorpoiation. Monrltc vs. S(iri,-/r SI. Jean Bapti.ile, Q. R. ISiO, ;!(| L. C..1. 150, confl.mingCt. of Rev. ISSr), ll! R. L. 4.^.1. may be, shall have been an active member diir- (I) Two similar (iecisions were remliTeil at Vhvor Klvers, 10 Niiv., ISSO, in Miitirl v.s. Dniituinii. I'miii'lon vs. Mall- II roporteil in tlie "Journal d'es'Trois Itivi- erc8," '.' .Ian., ISS'J. BILLS AND NOTKS. ill,' twelve inoiitlis from the date of liis inliiiis- Fion card." . , iif tlie time of lii^' dealli, lmh: Mnntrnil, S. C. 188'J. 20 II. I-.:i20. BICYCLES. Nature of.— See cases thcreou in 1'.' L. N. BILLS AISD NOTES. (1) (J) I. Acco.MMoii.vTlox I'ArKit. 1 :!. II. Action on J/li,l,in/. l-.'l. All'''lillil)ll-'i nj Drrjfirali'llt. A^). Jlr/ifir M,itiii-;tii. (1. lijl Finn. ' . liij triii'ii' il u'oij III l(i!,r)i. >-ll. li'.icrijilioii of I'liiiiis. I'J-i:^. Ffiriiijn X'lli'. K!". Xdtc It'll Fill 4. •2'J. MO. Notiii: iij I'lOli.sl, I Ic. I'l. Parliislii. KMT. I'limHiiij rnanijiliiiii. i"-- SIrihiiiij (iiil .'■ul/fciiiiciif liiildise- mctil.s-. r.i. Tirii \iilis iiijiiiiisl One Mukcr. 20. When l.iist. 21 -2-. Where Maker Ahsrmiils. Where Mnliiir Iir-'nlreiil. III. Al.TI-ltlNC. Binih Drill t. 1. Dnie. 2 1. lii.serliiuj Wnnl. 5. IV. .ViiACnMrNT. (1) I'.illsof K.^i'liiinge .\'-A. IH'.iii, wliiMiO.v .\rls. 227!) 1oj;;.")l(;. ('oil;, are n^pi'iileil (scm- Seln'iUilc No. 'Ji. Kxceiil in SI) far as .such iiitioli's (or :iiiy ol tliciii) ic- \»Xv tn eviileiic<' in n'K'nril to bills of excliiiiige, oliiMjiu'S and proniissorv iioies. (■'I Sect, 14 (J) i.r till' Bills oi Kxclinnnc' .\ct, ISiin, is iiineiiil.d liy ii.liliuK to llii.' diiys t., he nl.servcil in the seviinil provinces ns leu'al lioliiliiys oi- iion-juriilieal iliivs, \\w. lii'st Momlay in Scpteinbtir. lo lie ilesignateil " !' .liour l),iv." r;7-0« \ id. cli. ."i." i /'). vr VII VIII IX X xr XII XIII XIV XV 201 IJll.l, or ExclHNOK. Ciiii.iiiliriilirDi. 1 . Fun lit ill Iliiiiilf of Drawee. 2'.^. l/inhnUji of Acceptor . 4. Liabiliti/ of Drawer. U. Surety — Rciieiral. G. What are. ". 15 Y ACKNTS. LiuliiUtii of. i-rs. Powers of. 4. Proof of Sianatiire, ">. I5v Coiti'oRATios:*. See infru Xo. X. Autliorilij of Officers of Corpor- ation. 1(1. Builiting Societi/— Power.-: T. Compaiii/'s Act.'i. S-IO. Non-Commercial Corporation— Itatificiition 11. niijhtx of Thinl Parties. 12. . Hv Insoi.vkxt. I!y Mauuikii Woman. For Dihlsof Iliistiand. 1-T. Cumiiioii ((.•-■ to Propcrtij. ."^lO. For Loan. IM:?. For Nircisories. 14-1.''>. Iihlnr.-ir.-- lor—Plcftiling A'*''- /////. n;. Mureliandi Viilliipic. 1T11>. iJV MrNlrlPAI. CourouATioN. P)V l'l;l!SON TO WHOM JnilrlAl. AnVISKIt MAS IIKKX ArPuINTIP. jiv Pahtni-.r. 1-2. By Tm.vn'Ks; of iNsoLvrNT Es- TATK. Bv Si 110(11. CoMMissioxi;iis. Ciii:qii:s. See also under Title " Banks and Bankin'o." Acceplcil ConditionaUij. 1. Consiihration—Ihirdenof ProoJ . 2. Frundnlently Inilialcd. '.'<. Indorsement. 4. Katnre of. 5-7. I'resentiiirnl — hidor.ier — Dix- iliarije. ^■ I'le.tenliiient for Payment— Dil- iijence. 9 10. Piiya'ole to Bearer— Indorsement fur Deposit, etc. 11. liii/his of Transferee after Mii- tnrity. 12. h'iyhts of Holder in Gi.od Faith. is. !^-^-F?i f ' :0 ;;:.;-Si i ^mm ,m\ i 202 BILLS AND NOTES. Jiighh of Bolder as regards the Hank. Ill 5. What arc Cheques. 16-17. XVI. ColJ.ATKKAI. SeCCIUTT. liights iif Uolders us. 1-4. XVII. CoNHIDKItATIOS. Holders fur Valui'. I-.'). Trtinsiutinii. (i. Validitij. Coriipiifition witli ("rt'ditor.'. 7-22. GuiiililiiisDcl.t. '2:i-24. 'I'liini Parlies— Gambling Delit. 2,^. Third Parties. 2fi. Snliscription to Eleci'on Fiiiui. 27-2!'. Valiiiihli' Consideration. 110. ]'aliie lieceived. 31-;!1. Witnl of. Affidavit by Defendant. ."JS-IfO. Error of Law. .">7. Evidence. .".S-.'ill. Discharge of" Hypothec. 40. Burden of Proof. II. I.ogs revendicated. 42. Patent Right. 43. Stock tiial was never pur- chased. 44-45. Threats of Prosecution. 4t). XVIII. Datk. XIX. Days of Guaie. XX. Dk.scuiptio.n ok. XXI. Evidence. See also Nus. XXXVII and XXIII. Commercial. 1 . Jhirden of Proof— Exchange of j\ote. 2. 0/ Consideration. .3. Of Mnkiin/ t'nd Lo.ss of Note. 4. Of Iiidorscr. 5. Of Indorsement. 6, Of Indorsement and lielatlon- ship of Parties. 7. Of Paijnient. s. XXII. FoiiaEn. XXIII. IxDOIiSER. Dischari/c. Absence of Protest. 1-.'!. Demand Note — Reasonable Time. 4. Fraud. .'). Giving Time. tp-7. Waiver of Protest. .^. Liability of. Acconiinodation Indorser. 1-2. Coni|X)sition NotCH. .3. Evidence as to. 4-5. For Costs. G-!i. Lien de Droit— Coiiiposilioii Note.-. 10. Misleading Holder- II. Not aflected by Hcdder taking New Note as Security. 12. Overdue Note. I'.lV.ia. Where tliere are twoorujoic Ind(jrsers, 14-lti. Wrongful Posses.- ion. 17. nie/hts of. Action en Garantie. 1^-22. Capias — See No. l!l supra. Compensation. 2.T. Olili;;ation with a Term. 21. Siihrogatiiin. 25. .XXIV. IxnoKSE.MKsr. liy Error. 2G. Fonjed. 27. In Blank. 2s. Of le.is than whole Amount . XXXII. Pavmest. Compensation. 1. Currency. 2-4. Delay to Present. 5. Demand oj. 6-9. Inslalmcnt Note, 10. Presentment for. 1116. .'^ro also Protest. Proof of. 17. Time, how reclconed. |h. To Indorscr. 19-20. X.WIII. Promissorv Notes — What Aiie. Acknoudcdiimcnt of Indebtedness. 1-2 Agreement. 3-4. Bank Deposit Certificate. 5, Cash or Goods, 6. BILLS AND NOTES. 203 Cciiijicdie of Government Offl- j vei: 7. Conditional. 8-0. Gireu (is Collateral Seairiti/. 10. /. O. r. 11 12. Mnniiijial Jhlieiitiircn. 1.1. Notmial Dvd. M-K',. Note to Order of [Maker— Not Indorseil. 17. J'art Caxli, Part Gomls. IS. rreinituii Nole. I'.'-'iO. Itecei])! for Loan. '1\T1. XXXiV. Pkotkst. Jiy Notary Uohhr of Note. 1. Notice of Addres.-. 'M. Contlict uC Lnw.j. ">. Descriptidii of Miikor. ti. Description of Note. V. liiilorf-cr. s-i.i. Vci'l.iil. 10. Wiiiver. 11 12. rn;fof. i:i. I/ff/iil(irili/ of Xoii-l''.\liiliitioti of Note. 14. Mnitioii of T:ine of Protect. 15. XXXV. Kknkwai.. See al.«o umlpr title " Novation " Hce al-o Indor- SK[t, LlAIIlLITY OF, No. XXIII .vijira. Agreement. 1. EpWt. 2-:!. XXXVI. Ricni's OK Hoi.DKRs. Sco al.«o Nos. XXXI ami XVII. Accommntlatlon Note. 1. Accommodiili(tn Nute— I'artner.'i — Renewal. 2. Collateral Seniril;/. .3. Ihdder in due Course- \. Insolreney o( Maker. ">. Note to he itclirircd on I'trjorm- anre of Condition. (!. Oirncr.flu'j). Cio-Ctlt. Transferreil iritlioiit Indor.'n- mciit. 7-!l. Want of Considiriition — Tran.s- ferie after Malurili/. I(t. Warrant;/. 11. Wlien Note Cnniiji'lialne. 12. XXXVII. SuiXATlKK. Altered Xide — Liahilitij . Notejor Payment of Money nn- der Art. 157;! C. C. and. Art. 1571. 1011. Notarial Note — Indorneintnt in lilaiik. 12. See nupra No. XXXlli. 14-10. Of Note n-hirli i.i Iiiralid. Art. "i57:ic. r'. i:i. Property in No>e. 14. Witliont Jndor.iemenl. 1 51 P. See No. XXXVI. 7!i. Sec iili-'o Actions. Hanks and Hankinc. " I'liKsnni'iioN. " Gaminc; Transaction?. " Mauiuki) Womkn. " Novation. " MiNoi:. CoMI'KNSATION. I. ACCOMMODATION NOTE. 1. A holder of an .acconimodation promis- sory note even with knowledge of the fact may recover thereon from the maker, and may rank on tiie estate of and discharge tiio endor- ser, without los'iig his recour.-e against the maker, and the imputation made by tiie holder of payments made by tiie endorser, and not declared to he incorrect upon an acconnt fiirnislieil, will operate as a valid imputation even against the accommodation maker. Lyman vs. Dyon, S. C. 18G8, i:i L. C. J. It'iO. 2. Action on a note maiie hy defendant to the ordt'r of another, and onihirsp,■('.. 'Js CJ). 3. A..'tuiii l.y r('-|i(iii.h'iit n;.'iiiii:'t the nmUcr of 11 |iniiiiiss()iv iiiilc iVir ?(i50 at I'oiir iiinntli-J. piiviilile to till' ()i''lci' (if J. S., mid fii'lui'si'd liy S. to tlic 1 imI<. I'k'ii that tliis note wii.s luiulc I'V liiiii fur llic acconimodalioii of S., that lie iicMT had anv value fur it ; that S. pro- iiiiscdhiiM.tln' dcft'iidrtiit, tiiat lie would pav it, and liiat hi', .'! of the Consolidated Sta- tutes i,f ],. C. .VeCart/i;/ y. liavllic. S, ('. lSi;2, (JL. C. J. l:!0. 3. In an action on a proniis of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ilmlon vs. CliiimiiKjne, S. C. 1^^72,17 L. C. J. \:>,eon(,-a lieaiirli'iinii V.S. lirodeur, Sorei, 10 .Jan., 1872, Ram-ay ,1. 4. Allegations Of Declaration.— In action on a proniissoi'y !iote aL'ainst endorser, an erro- neous allegation in the declaration as to date of note and its maturity and protest will not he- covered by a suhseipienl alieeation of the pro- (li See Alt. 49 C.C.I', a^ te descriiitioii of defen- daiit. See Art. 8!) C. ('. P. as to iii(I(,'iiiciit iiv delault. .■See An. 145 C. C. i". as lo denial iif si't'iiaturc. As t(i cause of ^otioii, Art. ,s,-, of tlie Civil Code .-is amended reads as follows ;— " The iiidieatioii of a place of payment in any note or writing, wlierevcT it is dated, is ciiuivalcnt tosuch election of domicile at the place so indicated " mise of tiie endorser after jiroieKt to pay the a?nount of the note to the jilaintilF, am) a de- niiirrcr t i sncli n declaration is well founded. HeUiu-ells-i^. MuUin, S. C. 18G1, 5 L. C. .1, 7(1. 6. In an action on a promissory note, the plaintitI'(not the payee) sulVicienlly set- out the contract l>y atlegiiii^ that the note \mi< made, without allejring that it was siened and that it was endi rsej and delivered by the payee to the plaintiH', and without ullegiiij ihdivcry by the niaher to the payee. Bnllill vs. S/i'aw',ii. C. lHli:{, 7 L. C. J. -17. 6 Before Maturity— Maturity during Pendency of Action. — Tiie nuiturity of a note diiriiij; liie iiendency of an action pre- maturely hroujiht upon it is no answer to the excejjtion (d' the defendant that such note was not payaiile at the moment of the institution oi' the aJti.ju. Worh vs. I'en-oii, C \i. IBW, :> Que. :>(;. 7. By Firm. HI) CC. P.— Where judgment had heen rendered t'j: proVc in an action on a |iromissory note, and the case was taken to apjieal, on the ground that proof should have heeii made by plaintills of the partnership allejied to exi-t between them, and also of the partnersjiiji allcired to e.\ist between the defen- dant-^, the appeal was unanimously dismissed. Fu/r;/ vs Forn.Hrr, Q. Ij. IRiii;, 2 L. C. L. ,). 1(1, It; b. c. n. HI. 8. By whom it may be taken. (Sei also" Kiciri's ()!•• IIoi luMi — Ti!ANski;k wniiorr iNiMiHSKMiiNT."') — The indorsee and holderof a promissory note, for the jmrpo-'c of collection, iniiy recover a:;ainst the nuiker and endorser. }fill.s V-. I'/iilhin, Q. JJ. 184S, :i U. de L. 2.-,^ ; FiiUkii V-. Lajhur, S. C. 18'J-1, ."i Que- AWX. 0. Action was to recover$225, amount ot a promiss(U'y note made by defendant in favor of plaintifr. The defendant jileaded : l.-i, That the plaint itl' was not bolder for value, I'lit y w jin'te-nom of the .(Etna Insurance Com- |iany; 2nd, that the consideration (d' the hole was the first annual ]ircmiuiii on a life ptdicv for ;?.'i,()00, and that the annual premiums were not to exceed that amount ; that tiie poln-y oflered was at an annual ))remiiim of Jol.'i— llehl, that the Imrden of procd' was up(jn the defendant that there was want of consideration. There was no ditllcnlty in plaintitlsnin!: in iiis own name, thouirh trustee for another. (Mills \ s. P/iilliin, ;> Kev. de Li.''g. 25j.) There wen- two witnesses in tlie ca.se, one wiio jirovcd for iilaintiti'that ;ho policy offered and refused by defendant was in the usual terms of the lULLS AND NOTES. 205 ollioc iif pluitititl. The otlicr wiliioss wus llio jilaiiilill eximiiiR'il furdcffiiilant, lie certuiiily (Iocs not inuke oiU the cane dftliu ili'feiidiviit. Tlio uiiiltTtiikiiij; of pliiintill \vii'< to riiriiisli llic policy, unil lu' diil ho. The Coiii'l loiiM not ailopt tlio proposition oi'dctViiiliiiil tlial pliiiiilill sliould Inivo prodiioed tlii' written iippliciitioii, .«ii;;i)Pil liy detoiiduni, for tlie poiiiy. It wa-' foi'ilcfo' daiit to produce it oi- pruvc it in tlic u-iiiil way. I'roliaMy tlie piodiictioii of ilic application would not have helped dcfeiidani, and he iherclofe ali-laiiied from askinjr fof it. Jnil;:niont confiiMned. Alfxmnli r \->. 'fdijldr, C. H. 1H80. 10. The holder of a note, even if he Ik' hnl ■.\ jifrle-iiinihciw maintain an action on the note iflhero is no fraud and the deiitor sutlers no prejudice thereliV. liirna v^. Ilro-^finl, IfSSO, M. \j. 1!., 2 S. C. 105; r,o / vs. /ii, 2! !,. ('. J. 1.".. 16. Notice of Protest, etc. —.'n an acti .n by the endorsee of a pi'omi-sory note against the endorser, jirotesl. demand, ''.iiisal by the ilrawer and notice to the defendant must be jtroved, or that he is not erititl"d lo noiire. Siil/i.)2, 2 Que. 2Sti ; lilork vs. Luirrairr, iSSi;, .\[. L. I{.,2S. C. 2T;I; Darorlur vs. L.'iuilm,; ISs.-,, M. I.. I!., 1 ,S. ('..nil. 17. CoJihii. IkniiU'n vs. DrniL'r.-; C. ('t. l^<7t, r> It. L. 211; Dfi,i,r.< vs. Ilm-rqi, S. C. IS|i:i, C^ue. I ; and see lldininc Xdl'mnnlr vs. AVv.v, ('. \{. ls>-,, 11 (,^ !.. i!. Ml p.. 11:;. (2) 18. Pleading Prescription 22i;ii ('. C, .'. C. \i.VH. 19- Striking out subsequent Indorse- ments. — In an aetioii on a |ironiissoi-y ikjIc the Court may, on motion of the plainiiir, authoi-ize the strikin,^' out of all endorsements ' s(,bs(>pieiit to those recited in the declaration. iw,s-/(.T vs. MrKnig/!','A. <". H7'', 22 L. (.'. J. KG. 20. Two Notos against one Maker.— The holder of two notes iiy the same maker can sue separately on them liy two actions. ' Lalihcrhi vs. CItenard, S. C 187'.t. G Q. L. 1{. 12. 21. When Lost.— Wliere the note was jiayable by instalments, the first of which it I was alleged in the declaration was payable in Seiitemher, whereas by the evidence it was , (ll .See fiirmiunl on Bills ami Notes at \<. 123. I (L') .See Uemarks Oil this cai-e 1>> lioiitliier J., H.C. I 18i)3, OQuo. at pp. 2-3. t. uM M ,v (.- .r ft tSK vm i^ li: M'. ■' i;* ■!;:■ ;1-i^iil I i if m i ii I .? i I L'UG BILLS AND NOTES. proved to lie jjiiviililf in Decern t)er—W*W, tlia' iIh' vuriaticc wivs not inulcrinl. C'nlen vh. J^Hi/ei; Q. U. IMJl, y L, C. ..'. 'JIT, unci li> L. (J. R. 2;J7. 22. Anil lull}, iil-ii, llmt in iiny cttiwl('ilf;iii('nl ol'tlie nolc sulisciincnt tn liin kniiwlodi^L' of till' los-i. [Ih.) 23. And llie fvuletun' of llie pavee liini.Hi'lfafter inakiijirurtiilavil of ilielo,-V,r., Q. 'J. 1878,24 L. C.'j. 111. 28. WliiM'e a party mies on a note alk'L'i'd to lio in lii.-^ pn.-J.-e.-'r^ion, ho eannot ro- I'livi'i- jndj;ment tlierron, even if he prove that the Moti' once e.\i.-ti'.i, Imt withont jirovinj; whether pjaintitl" ever had po-^.-^ession of it. naiiimmd vs. Lnlidciiuc, i >. B. 187.J, 2n L. C'.,l . 1 ".■.'. 29. Where Maker Absconds.— Before a note of hand payahle with a teim iieeoiiies dne, action miiy he niainiiiincd t'or the amount airaiiist the draucr if he aliseond. Shi'phcrd \-. Ilrnrkksdn, K. 15. I'^IH, 2 Kev. del.eg. 31. 30. Where Maker Insolvent. 1092 C. C. — Promissory note with a term allowed fur payment is immediately exijrilile where maker is insolvent. LdkcU vs. Miikh', S. ('. ISS.'J, 2 J,. C. J. GO, and .-ee W'lil: \s. Perron, Cl. of JU'v. i8y:<, ;! Que. .".o. III. ALTHRIXO. 1. Bank Draft.— Where a Imnk draws a draft for 1?25 on one of its hramdies, and fails to advise .such hraneh of the faci, and the draft is afterwards rai.-ej to one for .^5,000, atnl so (1) See Sees. C8-(;ii Bills III i:xcli!iiitn> Aet, 1«I0. skillfully ai< to (leceive the branch oflice, wliii li pays the itmonnt of the draft as rained to atiolher hank, lioldin;; the draft in ;{ooi| faith, and, in conseipienee of siudi payment, the latter bank pay.H $H,.')00 on aeeouiit thereof to the person from whom the bank reeeived it, (he former bank eannot recover from the latter bank the amount so paid by it. Unioti Hank of L C. vs. Oiiliirio Hank; Q. B. 1H,80, 21 L. C. J. :10!), conllrmin!,' S. V.,2:) 1,. C.J. CO. 2. Date— Indorser— Discharge.— In an action on a note n^iainst an acconiinoiiation in- dorser, e.xhibilini: on its face a manifest altera- tion ot dale, and the endorser pleaded such alteration, the holder was bound to show lliat the alteiation was made before the endorse- ment, or thai it was made with the endorsi r's conseiil. ]iiin(jUf ViUc Mayie vs. Primcni, Q. B. 1880, 20 h. ('. .1. 20, I L. N. ID, I Du- riun's Ilep. 2 1. 3. Aclion fur the recovers back of a sum iif money jaid to the bank by the ]ilaiii- tills, drawjrs of a bill dated Montreal, upon one B. in Untarin. which bill the bank discounted fur the plaintitis in Murch, 187".— llehl, that when a bill has been accepted and delivered to the holder, the dale of acce)itauc e cannot be altered without the consent of all the parties In the bills. Oi/ilvie vs. Qurhir ]linh-,ii. ('. 1882, .5 L. N. 18;!, Q. B. 188:!, 3 Dorion's Heji. 200. 4. The alteration of a promis.sory noie by clian^'ing the date from the 8th to I lie 28th is not a sutlicient alteration to release ilie maker, such alteration bein^ in his favor hy e.xtendin!,' the delay for payment, and it was not proved that the alteration wa.s made by llie plainiifl' who was holder in due cour.se. t'un- ndu fnre.ilmenf it' Ai/enci/ Co. vs. llroien, C. U. I8II0, la K.I.. 3G-1. 5. Inserting Word.— Where the lioldrr of a jiromissory note inserted the wmil " months '■ which bad been omilted in the note after tlie word "three," williout the know- ledge of the endorser, such addition did nut ciinsiitule a forjiery, and the endorser was theiv. fore not released. Liiine vs. Clarke, S. C. 1871,;! 1{. L. IJO. IV. .\TTACIIMKNT OF. The amounl of a note payable to order cannot be attached in the hands i<( llie drawer as tiers saisie. Tliorl \e. llotjt, K. IJ, 181,3, ;! Rev. de Lojr. ;!05, 2 U. J. 11. Q. 21)0. Q.ii. 3. I'orra IIIIHl'l of ret i I'M (lie ilrau- 1 miiy alilion same. 21 I.. L':i I.. (III.). 4. I ofPa;^ ellStoii discuu aiiee, ii.arid at (lie "hicli iniiiSiK were ii h:ilane Wi.'lld BILLS AND NOTES. 201 V. ini-LS OF KXClIAN(!i;. (See uIhou,, ilcr title — " Hank.i am» Uankimj") I 1. Consideration —A (I riiit nmilc hy H., I'. A. B., llin)ii;:li tlicir iicjciil I)., uml ^^ivcii tu II Imiik ill |iayiii('iit (if iiiiullicr (Iriit't ilniwii liy W. on S. A iM. in I'livnr of 1). (sulispqncntly (li^lionoiH'il liy S.iV .M.)ili.-'coiitit('(J h\ the liaiik (II |i!iy 11 |iroinis.iory imti' iliie l>y rciiMon of a transiictioii liy wliicli B., I'.iV B.ncvi'r iirolilod, mill of wliicli tlii'v xvoic ignorant, is williout ('oiiHiiieration, aniJ no action lies on it niiniiiMt I!,, I'.iV B. Uniiin liiink ol'Ciiniiild vs. Bri/aiil, r,;ris ,t ]{n/,ii,l, S. v.. IHIII. 17 Q. L. II. 'J.'!. 2. Funds in Hands of Drawee —WIkm u liiiiik (lii^coiiiits for A.ailrallby liiiii on FJ., mill accepts u olit'c.k for I lie iirocecjs, ami de- lis crs it to A., for trnnsiiii.-sioii to B., to enalilc I!, liierewitli lo retire a draft for u similar aiiiount drawn by A., and iu;ee|iteil by B. for A.'-> (ii:(;oiiinioilation, and about to fall due at llie branch of the bunk where B. resides, on ilie faith of A.'s repruHentatioii, assurance and underlakini^ Cwithoiit authority, however, from li ) Ihiit B. will a('( ept tlie new dniCt, un 1 li. receives the check, ami before usin^ it has kiiuwledjre of the transaction as between A. and the bank, B. cannot le^rally use the check III lelire bis iicceiitance on the old draft, williout ncceplinj; the new one. Torruiicr V-. liimk of li. X. Ameririi, V. C. 187;i, 17 I,. C.J. 185, 5 P. C. App. '24G,connrinin^ Q. B., 15 I.. V. J. IGi), S. C, VI L. C. .1. .{25. 3. J/ehl, followiiif; Bank of B. N. A. vs. i'ornuice (iiii])r(i), where a bank discounts the unaccepted draft of A. on B., for the purpo.se of reiiriiii.^ B.'.s acceptiuuie on a former draft, mi the faith of a tele;.'rani from B. to A. to draw on B. for the ]iurpiiseafore.-aiil, the bank limy recover the amount of such draft on B., allliou;^h ho siibsei|iienlly refuse to accept the smiie. .Vohons Hank vs. Siymonr, S. C. 1877, 21 L. C. J.S2, conflrming in appeal Q. B. 1878, 2.'! L. ('. J. 57 ; Dunxpaiii/h vs. Mulsons Bank {II'-)- 4. Liability of Aecsptor— Imputation ot'Payraents. (See "1'at. vest or.")— d.,a rii'-tomer of the lv\cliaii<;e Bank, respondent, ili-cuuntcil with that bank ajipellaiit's acce|it- iinee. When it fell dueappellant failed to pay it. and the blink (diarireil it to J. 'a account, who lit Die time owed the bank a .simiill baliince, wliich balance was aii^'inented by siibsci|netit iniiisaction.s, wherein nevertheles.s if thecredits were iiupufed to the earliest indebtediiess, the lj;iliiiii;e due when the acceptance matured Would be more than covered. The tank re- lained iioMsession of the ncce|ilnnce, and brought this suit against appellant, the nocpptor, to re- cover its iiniount. Appidlant pleaded payment and compensatiou. lli'U, that Mi(> Lank WHS ontiiled to recover from uppellant the ainuunt of bis ncceptance, and that appellant was not cliscbarged by the credits in the bank's iiecoiint with J. Gooddlf vs. Ejc- rliiinfer.s it after maturity is jointly and severally liable with (be aixeptor, and can be sued with him. Horaj vs. XoVin, ('. H. Hs9, 18 U. L. l.'t'J. 6. Surety— Renewal.— .V creditor bank bolder of a bill of e.\chan;;e which is in the hands of its agent in another country cannot recover from the surety for its debtor {who bad bound himnelf lo pay the amount of the bill and all renewals thereof) the amount of a bill discounted by it lo renew the former, but the product of which was remitted by it to the principal debtor, and used by him for other purposes than the renewal of the former bill. Jldiiijitc rnitiii (1)1 CiiHinlii v.s. Banqnc dc Quebec, (l B. 1887, K; U. \.. 126. 7. \Vhat are. (.Skk Pkomlssorv Notios— \Vii.\T .\iiK.)— Where an ollicer of the Govern- ment gave to the plaintill' an open letter, desiring the com;iiis«ary general to pay him a certain sum of money due by the department to plaintiff, and ihe letter beiiig pre.sented, ]i!iymeiit was refused, upon whicli it wa.s regularly protested, and action brought agoinst j the writer of the letter — Ilvld, that it could not be considered a bill of exchange, as there was no exchange of money lor money or value received, and that no aclion would lie thereon. McLenn vs. Ro.ts, K. B. I81G, 3 Kev.de L(''g. 4;i4. VI. BY AGKN'TS. (.See also under title " AliKN-CV.") 1. Liability of (1) —A note promising to pay A., or bis order, X20 on account of B., en- ables the endorser of A. to recover the amount. Xewton vs. Allen, K. B., 2 Rev. dc Leg 29 ; and Moir v.«. Allen, Ih. 1817. 2. And on sueu a note, payment must be made to A., or A. 's order, and not to B. Clarke vs. K.-ison, K. li. Is20, 2 llev. de U-g. ;!0. 3. L. R. A' Co., a .Montreal firm, acting as agent.s of a London Pho.sphate Comjiany, drew upon the Coinpaiiy, in l-ondon, two bills 'i\ m. i..m 'M :\ I! Imp If* .'if '[If H '! i i 20G BILLS AND NOTES. of exchange payable to tlie order of 13., to whom they were indehted, and f'ollowini; their "ignatiire were tlic letters " M;;. Af;ents. "' The 'lills were accepteil, and 15. endorsed them for value 'o pliilntiir. 'J'iiey were ii'jt jiaiil at maturity. In an action by plaintill' upon tliein, a^'ain.-t I,., a member of the !irm, wliich had since been chssoived, L. pleaded tliat the bills were drawn liy the linn in thrir capacity o( mnn- (i'jiiKj (Kji'iUs, the letters " .Mg. Ajreiits '" sij;nl- fy iim maniKjhiii iiiicntu, and nut ininiiuj iii/ents — HeU, (1) that tinder sec. 211 of the liills of Exchange .\ct Ifc'JO, the firm, in order to escape personal liabdily as drawers, were bound to sij;n for and in the name of princi- pals disclosed in the instrument, and the mere aildition to their siijnatuie of words cr let tens describinj; liieiii as agents did vut ex- empt them from personal liability. Hunk of Oltatca vs. Lomcv, S. ('. Mdntreal, May 10, ls9S, reversed in Review, ;!1 .ran-. 1894, but julj;;nent of Su])( riiir C'durt restoieil in Appeal, 2(5 Dec, 18W. 4. Power;: of.— Extent.— Where an a^ent accepts or endorses /« /• jnn. ihe tall be established, as (juch ease does not con.e within the jjidvisions of the'Jdih Vi.v, ell. 11, >,..■. S7. H) Jos^pk vs. ILitton, ('. Cl. I^.V.i. ;) I.. C. l;. "II!) ; Ethic- VA. ThuuiK. (in. \i Vic. (Que.), cli. .'),"). ■'Tlio coniiiaiiy niiiy, liy a Bimplo i-'soliition, issue notes p.-iviilile to onlcr or to bearer, tor tliu settleinems of accuunt.s or otii,.;' current .natters." 3. — The secretary and acnountant of the Mornreal & Champlain R. R. Co. have no povver to acce|)t drafts on iiehalf of the Company, and conseciuently the nicnieys covereil by snrli drafts may be legally allaihed by process of altachineiit, noiwithstatnlin,' si.ch acceptance by such unauthori.H'd Mdici r- . Ryan \-f<. Montreal A- Cluimpliiiii li. I'. (.',)., q!r. 1859. \ L. C. .r. ;;.S, reversing ,'^. ('., 2 L. C. J. 211,). 4. The endorsement of a premium note by the secretary of the Company, in thai capacity, is sufficient to i)as.s the title to the note when an implied nutborily in him to do so has been shown by ])roof of the ordinary course of business of the ("otiipany, thai the dire tor.s had ctlected the arrangements with 'he hoMers of which the transfer ofthenuic formed part, and that tlie Company had received the cousiileratiou of such transfer. Wooil vs. Sliiuv, S. C. Is58, ;{ [,. C. J. li;',i. 5. Action on two promissory notes trade by mie of the defendants in favor of llie other, a company, and by it endorsed b\- its president. Theconi[Miv pleaded that it wa~ a corporation, et(^, and Cfniid only bind itsell in that manner liy Ihe signatures of the pre-i dent, vieo-piosident and treasurer. The nlher defendant siimmnned the cumpany in war- ranty as ha\ ini: signed for their aecommodation simply. A''ticiu ilismis^^ed as to bulh, and demand m warrunly maintained. Mechnni'':^ Bout: vs. Branil.y, Q. H. lS-9, 2 L. N. :)-<:i. 6. .\ note, payable ti.i the uidcr of a corporation, cannot he endori=ed to a third party by its vice-pre-^idenl, unless the bydaws e.xpres.-ly allow of such endorse menl. ykchanii-s Biintc vs. JSruinlcj/ ct gemeiit (jf the allairs of ti>e Company,'' and " the presi- dent and secretary shall iiave power to draw cheques, to sign deeds, Htock certificates, all contracts authorized by the board of directors, iiiiii all matters and documents of special im- parl," and where it -..as not proved that the miles in (jnestion were authnrized in such a manner as to bring them within the category of "contracts authorized by the board of directors,"' — they were not binding on the Ci •' pany. (lb.) 10. Company's Act 1877— Burden of Proof.— Under sec. oO of thi.s Act the burden (il proiif is upon the defendant to disprove the aiitluirity of the president. Briri' vs. Martnn Dairy Conipaii;/, C. II. 1S83, G L. N. 171. 11. By Corporation (2) — Non Com- mercial Corporation — Hatiflcation. — The nialfing cf a jiromissory note, or I'le indorsini; of one where liability is iih'nrred, is not an act of mere administratiirn, ami such act on the part of the corporation iiiii-t be anthuri/cd eilhor by the by-laws or by a s|)ccial resolution of the board or council ; but a-* the making or indorsing nf n, pnjmis- .-(.ly note, where thi.s has been dune without [in. per autlmrity on the part (if tlwe who liiive purported to act fur the CdrjKiriitiuu, are iK't in ihemselics illegal and |iroliibitcd on imin of nullity, tb*^ engagement may be ratified by the ccrpoiatiun, and su';h ratiticatiou will render the curpdratiun liable, lianijue Jar- ■jiii's Carlier vs. Lis nnlii/ii'iines S'vurs //o///- /'ihrns ,1c ,S7. Joscp/i, dc, Q. B. Isy2, 1 Que. 2i:i, rexersingC. R. 1«92, 17 Q. L. H. 8. 12. By- Laws-Rights of Third Parties —Mutual Insurance Co.— The by-laws of a inntual insurance company gave the president dienianagementof its concerns and funds, with power to act in his own discretion and judgment in the alistnce of specific directions from the iiuc'ors ; (ind it was also his duty to sign all iijtes authorized by the board or by virtue of the by-laws. 'J'he president was both presidi'iit and treasurer, and was al.-o acting as secretary —Ili''K i\v.,\ the pli'.intid, who was ihe tn.ns- (1) Si_' • ii(i\v."l V • (QiiR ), oh. H5. (J) S.;c. •.'.■! Bille ef Kxcliantje Act, 1800. feree for value given before maturity, of a note signed in behalf of the company by the president as president and treasurer, and given to the payee in settlement of a valid claim against the company, was entitled to recover the amount of said note from the company. Jone.i vn. East. Tnwitships Mniual Fire Insurance Co., C 11. 1887, M. L. R., 3 S. C. 413, 15 R. L. 500. VIII. BY INSOLVENT. Claim on a note made by the insolvent in favor of her brother seven days before she waa put into insolvency. The claimant proved consideration given for the note, namely, goods sold — Held, that as the note was given under suspicious circumstances the contesta- tion would be dismi.ssed but without costs. Garon vs. Glohensky, S. C. 1880, 3 L. N. i82. IX. BY .MARRIED WOMAN. 1- For Debt of Husband— Absolute Nullity— Bank discounting Note in Goijd Faith. Aitr. II'.OI C.C. — .\. promissory note made by a married wmnan, .separated as to properly, in favor of a creditor of her husband, in payment of a debt uf her husband, is abi^^oliitely null ; and no action can be maintained tbereun by a bank which has iliscounted the same in good faith before maturity, in ignorance uftlie cause of nullity. ninKjUr XaUtmah.' vs. Gnij, S. C. 1S91,'m. L. R.,7S, 0. 114. 2. ni:lil (revers'ng the judgment of Loranger, .1., Q. 11. 2 S. ('. 152), that a note to order, .signed by a marrieil woman without ( onsideration, and f>r the benefit of her hus- band, who received the proiluct of the dis- cuuntofsaid note fur bis own use, is abso- lutely null and void as being against public order, even in the hands of a third b.older for value. liicnrd vs. lianqnc Nntionab', Q. B. 1^03,3 Que. ICl. 3. A proinissoty note made by a inarrieisband if she profited by tlie transaction, To escape her liability the wife must prove that the creditor knew at the time of contracting she was doing so as security for lier husband. Malhiot vs. Briin- elle, Q.B. 1870, 15 L. C. J. 197- 12. But in a later case, semble, tliat it is incumbent on the party claiming (o ei.force the contract of a urarried woman in such case, to show that it inured to her separ- ate advantage. Artisans' Permanent Build- ing Society vs. Lemieux, S. C. 1888, 15 Q. •..R.35. 13. And so Held in Banque Union vs. Gagnon, Q. B. 1888, 15 Q. L. R. 31. 14. For Necessaries— Wife separate as to Property.— Promissory note made by a wife, separated as to i)roperty from her hus- band, in favor of her husband, and indorsed by liiiii for groceries and other necessaries of fi 'iiily use purchased by her, is valid, (1) (1) Contra Itousson vs. Gaiivin, C. Ct. 18G3. 13 L. C. J. 82. Chalet vs. Duplessis, S. C. 1862, 6 fi. C. J. ,-1, 12 L. C. R. 303 ; Rivet vs. Leonard, S. C. 1848, 1 L. C. J. 172 ; St Amand v; . Bourret, C. Ct. 1863, 13 L. C. R. 2,38 ; Roberts vs. Romberi dit Martin, C. R. 1870,2 R. L, 188; Elliott v.=. Grenier, S. C 1865, 1 L, C. L. J. 91. 15. BaiHeld, — the indorsement jionr aval of a wife separated as to projierty from her husband, on a promissory note signed by the husband, for goods sold and delivered to liini and charged to him alone in the vendor's books, and given in renewal of a note of the hus- band not bearing her indorsement, is null and void, notwithstanding that the goods so sold and delivered may have contribiited to the support of the wife. Bruneau vs. Barnes, Q. B. 1880, ;;■) h. C. J. 245. 16. Indorsers for -Pleading Nullity. — The incapacity of a married woman cannot he pleaded by her endorser or warrantor d'aval. Morris vs. Conden, C. R. 1888, 14 Q. L. R. 184. 17. Marchande Publique — Both the husband and wife are jointly and severally liable for a joint note made in the course of a business in which they were both jointly inter- ested. Oirouard vs. LacJiapelle, C. Ct. 1863, 7 L. C, J. 289, and see Shearer vs. Conipnin, S, C. 1860,5 L.C.J. 47. 18. A promissory note signed by a married woman separate as to property, with- out the authority of her husband, is good, the woman having, at the perio 4 of the nmkiii;,' of the note in question, assumed the quality nf a marchande publique. Beaubien vs. IIus: on, Q. B. 1862, 12 L. C. R. 47. 19. A wife separate as to property wiio is a marchande publique cannot indorse a mite, received by her in the courseof lier businei's, to one of her liusband's creditors. Such crcdiiur would thereby have no recourse againi-t her. Martin vs. Guyot, S. C. 1885, M. L. !{., I S.C. 181. X. BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO.N'S. 1. Municipal corporationr^ cannot sign a pro- missory note unless expressly authorizeil by statute. Pacaud vs. Corporation of Jlali/'ax South, Ct. of Rev. 1866, 17 L. C. R 5(; ; Martin vs. Citd de Hull, S. C. 1878, 10 II. L. 232. 2. Contra. But a note signed by the mayor and secretary-treasurer of a municipal cor- poration, in the name of the corporation, is binding on the corpora'ion, when it is neit ler ill the ill the Waltei 18 Sepi note in tliority "itlioiit niissioneil debt duel BILLS AND NOTES. 211 allpged nor proved that the note was given witliout lawful coneideratioi:. Corporation of the Township of Grantham vs. Couture, Q. B. 1879,24 L. C. J. 105, 10 R L. 186, and see Ville d'JberriUe vs. Jiauque ilu Peuple, Q. B. 1895, 4 Que. 2G8. 3. Where ii contestation arore on the declar- ation of a tirrs-saisi aa to the validity of a promissory note which the iiers-saisi,& iiiuni- cipai corporation, urged that it had given in settlonient— //(;/(/, that as the note was not ^iven to raise money but to ])ay a debt, and as it had passed iiilotlie hands of a third parly, and piaiiitill was not iti a position to oiler it lack, that the claim of defendant was dis- charged and piaintiH could riOt recover. Ledoux K?-. J'icotte (t Municipality of Mile End, S. C. 1878, 2 L.N. 37. Xr. BY PERSON TO WHOM JUDICfAL ADVISER HAS BEEN APPOINTED. A note signed by a jier.-on carrying on busi- ness as a grocer, to whom a judicial adviser has been appointed, without the assistance of such adviser, for goods sold and delivered to him as such grocer, is valid. Delislc vs. Valade, S. C. 1877,21 L. C. J. 250. Xll. BY PARTNER. 1. A note made fraudulently by a partner in tlie ) artnersliip's name binds the partners in the hands o{ a, bond fide hoMer for value, Walter vs. Molson's Bank, (I. B. iMontreal, 18 Sept., 1877. 2. Where a partner gives an accommodation n(jle in the firm name to a friend, without au- thority to do »o—IIelil, that a holder for value without knowledge of its defective character, can recover thereon. Union ISank ^, 2 R. L. 111. XVI. COLLATERAL SECURITY. 1. Rights of Holder.— Wliere the appel- lant gave his promissory note to respondent as collateral security for a hypothecary debt due by his (appellant's) father, and on the same piece of paper wrote a letter stating that the note was so given as collateral, upon con- dition that res]iondent should delay proceed- ings on the mortgage until the note was due, — that the respondent was entitled to sue the appellant on tlie note when due, without put- ting the principal debtor en demeure, and the appellant, not having demanded that the principal debtor be discuS'ied, or ^iroved that the mortgage was paid, was rightly held liable for the amount of sucli note. Palliser v-i. Limhny, Q. B. IS'JO, ti M. L. R. 311. J?. The severance of the note from the letter written above it, was not mutilation tiiat could atiecl the validity of the instrument, {lb.) 3. But held, that a note given by a building Society as collateral security fur the repayment of a deposit made with it i< not ii negotiable instrument. Cuohtj vs, Boininion nnildinn Society, Q. B. 1878, 24 L. (". .1. I ! 1 : 1 L. N. V.».-.. 4. But since the Bills of E-fchange .\ct, 181)0— //eW, that where a note is received as collateral security from a holde- in due course, before maturity, and without notice of any defect in the title of the person who nego tiated it, the creditor has all the rights of such bolder as regards all parties prior to him, ami lij can recover the amount of the n ite from such prior parties. Wlien the suiii secured is less than the amount of the note, the pledgee, as regards the surplu'^, sues as trustee for the pledgor, andean recover if the latter could do so. Ward vs. Quebec Bank, Q. B. 1894, :! Que. 122. XVn. CONSIDERATION. 1. Holders for Value.— The transferee of a promissory note who receives it as collateral security, is a holder for value. (I) Ban-jnc A'Echunge vs. Korniand, S. C. 1884, 11! R. L. ,59. (1) Soo sec. '27 C!) ami 82 Uills of Kxcb. Act, 1890. W v^' 214 BILLS AND NOTES. 8*1 ■''"»? si' I ■ i; * i 2. The indorsee and holder of a note lor the purpose of collection is a holder in due course. Milk vs. Philbin, Q. B. 1848, 3 R. de L. 255. 3. An exchange of negotiable paper if sufficient to constitute each party to such ex- ihange a holder for value of the paper he re ceives. Wood vs. Shaiv, S. C. 1858, 3 L. C. J. 169. 4. A holder of negotialile paper as col- lateral security, before it lipcame due, is not affected by any equities between the uriginal parties. (76.) 5. Appellant, assignee to the insolvent estate of one B., sold the stock in trade to iiis own lather, who jiaid part cash and gave a note of trie insolvent for the balance. Held, that the slock in trade was good consideration for the note, and in any case the resjiondent, who represented lier d.ceased husband, the insolvent, could not refuse to pay the note without returning the gooilr. Letnieux vs. Bourassa, Q. B. 1881, 1 Dorion's Q. B. K. :i05. 6- Transaction. — C. having purchased Y.'s interest in certain lands which were in the City of Montreal, and upon which there was a inortgHge of $80,000, gave his promis- sory notes to Y. for the balance of tlio pur- chase price. Subsciiuenily C. failed and Y. being liable for the inorli;age, C. agreed to take the necessary steps lo obtain Y.'s dis- charge from the iiiorigngees on a payment of one thousand dollars, and Y. signed a docu- ment «()»s sehii/ prif(?, dated I8tii February, 1879, agreeing that all parties should be in the same {, siiion as if the ileed of sale had never been passed. The mortgagees sub- sequently gave a discharge to Y. in conlbrinity with the above agreement, In an action taken by Y. against C. on his promissory notes. — Held, atlirming the judgments of the Superior Court for Lower Canada and the Court of Queen's Bench (3.! L. C. J. lOG), that there was no consideration given for the notes, and that C. was clisjcharged from all liability under the document of the 18th Feb., 1879. Yon vs. Cassidy, Supreme Ct. 1890, 18 Can. S. C. R. 7l:i. 7. Validity— Composition with Cre- ditors. — The consideration is illej;al as being against public policy, when given to induce a creditor to sign a deed of discharge, or a deed of composition and discharge, in favor of an insolvent, in fraud of the other creditors. Blackwood vs. Chink, K. B. 1809, 2 R. de L. 27 ; Sinclair vs. Henderson, Q. B. 18tj5, 9 L. C. J. 306 ; Prevost vs. ricklr, U L. C. J. 220 J Doyle vs. Prevost, Q. B. 1872, 17 L. C. J. 307; McDonald vs. Senez, 8. C 1877, 21 L. C. J. 290 ; Deccllcs vs. Bertrand, C. U. 877, 21 L. C. J. 291; Wilkes vs. Skinner, Q. B. Montreal, 6 March, 1882. 8. That a note given by an in- solvent, or hy a third ptrson, to induce the payee to consent to the insolvent's dischargo. or to sign a deed of coMiposition, is null aiid void ; and where money is paid for the same purpose, it may be recovered from th? crediicjr receiving it. The fact that the maker of the note is the insolvent's father does not cou- stitute a valid consideration for such a note ; for a benelil to another is a good consideration only where the benclit can be had lawfully. Lechtire vs. Casijrain, S. C. 1887, 3 M. L. K. .355 ; and see Prevost vs. Pickle, 14 L. C. J. 220, supra; Decelles vs. Bertrand, 21 L. (".J. 291, supra. 9. And no action can be main- tained on such iKites by a jierson to whom the note is transferred after maturity. Gervais vs. Duhe, S. C. 1890, 6 M. L. R. 91, 20 R. L. 211. 10- Contra, where it is trans- ferred before maturity to holder in good faitli. Girouard vs. Gnindon, S. C. 1879, 2 L. X. 270, 9 R. \j. 539. 11. And such notes are void iii common law. Lefehvre v^. Bertliinnme, C.Ci. 1889, 18 R L. 325 ; Lcclaire vs. Ca.sgrain, M. L. R. :!, S. C. .35.') ; Gerrais vs. Dubr, M. L. R. (i, S. C. 91 i Greene, Sons & Co. vs. Tobin, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. .377; Martin \<. Poulin, Q. B. 1880, 1 Dorion's Q. H. R. T;, ; Arpin vs. Poulin, Q. B. 1878, 22 L. C. J. .131. 12. A promissdi-y note, giv(n by an insolvent debtor to one of bis creditors, in excess o( the composition payable under an agreement of composition, to induce the creditor to sign such agreement, is abso- lutely null, iind no action upon such note can be maintained by the creditor against the delilor. Greene & Sons Co. vs. Tobin, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 3.77. 13. Contra decisions. — Hchl, in appeal, that the mite taken under the agree- ment mentioned was valid and bir. ling on the defendant, the note not being prejiulicial to the other crediti^rs, nor complained of by theni, and the defendant having l're()uently acknow- ledged to owe and promised to pay the same. Greenshield- vs. Plamondon, Q. B. 1860,10 L. C. R. 251, 8 L. C. J. 192. Reversing S. C. 3 L. C. J. 240. No. 25 19. from of con Datnral reiiiiiie (ii I)u 81011 to ; tliej- lifl( BILLS AND NOTES. !15 14. And licld in nnother case tlint as the note was cigried after the composi- tion was agreed to by tlie otlier creditors, it WHS not given in frand of their rights and was coni^pquently good. (Grecnshields vs. I'lamon- don, supra, followed.) Perrault vs. Laurin^ C. Ct. 1863, 14 L. C. II. 85, 8 L. C. J. 195. 15. — Note given in excess of cuiiiiiusiiion. Plea that note was given before the cninposition notes and was postdated by phiiiitill'; and tiiut if it were paid, tiie plain- titt would receive more than tiie other cre- ditors — Held, no iinswer to action. (I) Miirlin vs. Mm-farlane, Q. B. 1805, 1 L. C. L. ,1. 55. 16. And Hdd in a later case tlini if a note is given by an insolvent to a cri'ijitor in excess of his proportion of the debt, ami that the circumstances do not disclose fi'Hiid, concealment or collusion, or any at- leiiipt wliatever by plaintifl' to obtain a pre- ference over other creditors, sucli note will he held valid. Bank of Montreal vs. .Uidette, S. C. 1878, 4 Q. L. R. 254. 17. Tliere is no principle of coniMiou law, statutory provision or rule of pulilic policy sanctioned by jurisprudence, rO(|iiiriiig that all creditors being parties to a (Ic'iil of composition should, irrespective of the cxisitiice of good or bad faith, detriment, or injustice or inducement, or otherwise, be in perlVctly the same position, to the extent of inviilidating security given to one or more crcilitors, because others iiad not received it {lb.) 18- — — In the absence of legislative eniutinents prohibiting the same, and in dc'fiuilt of an Insolvent Act whereby the imijority of the creditors would bind the re- mainder to the cr/nditions of ii composition and discharge, no'diing invaliilates, as between the debtor and his creditor, att agreement by which the debtor iinilertidn tlils principle they held judgment of Superior Court correct. a new obligation, and an action may be brought on a promissory note so made by the debtor. Ijockerhy vs. O'Hara, S. C. 1890, 7 M. L. R. .'!5 ; Lamalice vs. Ethier, S. C. aist May, 1890, Montreal. 20. In an rctionon a promissory note by the payee against the maker, llie latter pleaded that he owed the plaintiti'$180 on a note, but that while tiiis note was at the blink he, i M. L. R., 5 Q. B. ;!:i2. Atlirmcd in Su- ])reme Ci., It^'M), tmhnom. Danserean vs. SI. I,o»/.s 18Can.S.C. R, 587. 29. Third party acquiring cheque long atler issue rannot recover thereon when the consiijeration is for advances lo election fund. Dion vs. lionhmijer, S. V. 189.'!, I Qnr. .'158. Confirmed in Review, 111 Oct. 1891!. 30. Valuable Consideration— Becom ing Security for Third Party.— A note given as an indemnity for becoming security for a third party, at the request of the maker, I is valid, and may be sued on, so noon as the I holiler is troubled, and before paying the debt j for which he became security. l^crrij vs. .1/(7/ie, S. C. 1801,5 L, C. .1. 121. 1 31. Value Received.— Sect. 3 {h) Bills of Exchange Act. — The want of the words "for value received" does not prevent a plaititili from recovering on a note if it be in I evidence that value was given therefor. l)a- c/ic.iiunj vs. Erart.t, 2 Rev. de l.,i'g. Ill, K. 1!. 1821. 32. Under certain circumstances a phiintifl'suing on a note may be compelled to prove what value he gave therefor, notwith- standing such note jnay cor.f.ain the worils "value receive.)." CoHcer.vc vs. Brown, S. C. 1805, 10 1.. C. J. 19G; Whitneij vs. Biivkc, ' S. C.,4L. C. J. 308. 33. For instance, if fraud be alleged and proved by the defendant. Walters vs. i Mithan, C. R. 1883. f^ L,. N. .^10. Iia.vter vs. Bilodeau, S. C. 1883, 9 Q. L. R. 208. See ; infra No. 1 1 . 34. Presumption as to.— Where j a promissory note is given for value on the face of it, the defendant must prove that it was not given for value. And it will not be a pre- sumption that it was not given for value that the parties had another note transaction for election purposes, which is not shown to be defei in.'olv defeiii sum it was ceeds ( liowev with feudal defend plaint the tic fen.l; vs. /V, 40. an aoti defend the pla clainie his I'at ant, ai BILLS AND NOTES. 217 connected with the note sued upon. McGreevy vs. Senecal, Montreal, 30 June, 188fi. 35. Want Of— Affidavit by Defendant. —(See nlio " Considehation— Vai.uk Rk- ctivKO." See aI.«o " Oiitaixkd iir FiiArn ") — Held: — In nn action on promispory notes ', whicii stale upon their face that they wore ' given for value, tli<> i)resuniption that value was HO given is in no way atlected or ile.«troyed by (JeteiidantV affidavit, filed with his plea, denying that he ever received any considera- tion. Such an affidavit is wholly irrelevant ami usi'lcsg, anil will be rej'Cte.l on motion. Sunjurd Mfy. Co. vs McLaren, 4 Que. 4(i7. 38. — The defendant pleaded want of (-'onsiilerntion — Held, that he was bound 10 | produce with such plea an nllidavit under C. S. L. C. cap. 83, Hcc. 8G. Kdhj cf al- vs. O'Coii- nell. S. C. IBG6, IG L. C. K. 'l40. 37. Error of Law.— A promissory note given without value and for a con.sidera- lion crioneou-^ly believed to lie gooil in law is not valid. 7^/c/vs. McEweii, Q. 15., Motjtrcal, 2!»ili Seiitcmber, 1881. 38. Evidence of —Action was to re- cover the .sum of §31)0.78, amount of a bon. The defendant pleaded want of consideration, and that the lion was given by him on the fraudulent representations of the plaiiilitr, and as a mere form. The note was given iu ac- knowledgment of a ])urchase of goods made by defendant from plaintill', who was selling the in.solvent slock of one R., an insolvent. The (lefenilaiit conlemled that he was to be ])aid a funi of :5500, which he had advanced R.j that it wa.s to be returned to him out of the pro ceeds of the sale by plaintitl. It was admitted, however, that (ilainlilf was to be paid along with his associate D. in preference to the de- fendant. Hy the ('L.art: It may be that the defendant is entitled to an amount from the plaintilf. hut on the issues I cannot hold that the note is without consideration by the de- fendant. Judgment will go against him. Bell vs. rn-rosl, S. C. 1879. 39. Yon vs. Cassidi/, Q. B. 1889, .^3 L. C. J. 106. Confirmed in Supreme Ct., 13 Can. S. C. R. 713. (See No. XVII. 6 stiimi.) 40. Discharge of Hypothec— In an action on a promissory note given by the defendant on consideration of the promise of the plaintiff to divscharge a mortgage, which he claimed, as attorney of the represeniative of his father, to have on the property of defend- ant, and defendant proved that the title from which the plaintitTs father derived the hypo- thec was null and void, and in fact the plain- lift" never oflTered nor had the power to dis- charge any such hypothec, or indeed possessed any such hypothec— //«Zi, S. C. 1859, 13 L. C. R. 1. XXI. EVIDENCE. (See also " Siux.vtukk." " I.NDOKSEKS.") 1. Commercial Matter.— Where a note to order is signed by two persons, one of whom is a trader, parol evidence is admissible to (1) It li.TB l)een very recentlv deciilod in England in tlie Court of App. tliat •' altlioucli the holder of a bill of exchange may prj'sent the bill fur piivment at any reasonable hour on the day it becomes pa"yable, that is ordinarily on the third day Oi" grace, and If it is not then paia may at once give notice of dishonour to the parties liable upon it ; yet even after dishonour he is HOC entitled (at least where the acceptance is general) to commence an action upon the bill before the expir- ation of the last day of grace." Kennedy vs. Tliomaa, Q. B. App. WM, vol. a, The Keports 564. prove that such note had been replaced by an other of the same amount which was paid at maturity. Hamilton vs. Perry, C. R. 1834, 5 Que. 76. Reversing S. C. 1893, 3 Que. 60. 2. Burden of Proof— Exchange of Notes. — Where a defendant plen Is that pro- missory notes were given in exchange for the one sued ujion, the burden of proof is on de- fendant; he may, however, prove by parol the consideration of the note, and tliat it formed part of otl'cr transactions. Temple vs. Jones, Q.B., Montreal, 20, Ian., 1883. 3. Of Consideration— C. C. 989, C. C. 1'. 145. — The burden of proving want of consiiler- utiou for a promissory note is upon the maker even where he lia^ given the proper alHdavit under Art. 145 C. C. 1*. Cotii vs. Bere/eron, C. Ct. 1893,3 Que. 470; Downie \s. Frnneis, C. R. 1885, 30 L. C. J. 22. See " Coiisidcrii- tion," 31 10 .33. 4. Of making and Loss of Note.— The making and lo; s of a note may be establisjud by parol evidence, and the variance lietweeii the declaration (stating maturity of note to be in SeptemlxM), and the proof (e.-tablishing it to be in November) is immaterial, when the evidence establishes acknowledgment of the note hv the maker, suhsenuent to bis know- ledge of its loss. Carden and linitrr, Q. 15. 1804, 9 L. C. J. 217. 5. Of Indorsers.— The evidence of an in- dorser of a note is admissible to prove that the signature of another indorser of the same note is genuine. McLeod & Eastern Townships Bank, Q.B. 1879,2 L. N. 239. 6. Of Indorsement (See also Indorsers— Evidence). — Held, that parol evidence to the eflect 'hat a note was indorsed (inly for form and without recourse against the indorser is inadmistiible. Decelle vs. Samoiselle, C. H. 1888, 32 L. C. J. 230. 7. and Relationship of Parties.— But Jletd — 1. In a suit founded on promissory notes or bills of exchange, in the investigation of facts, recourse must be had to the laws of England in force on the 30th May, 1849. C.C. 2341 (1). 2. According to the laws of England parol evidence is admissible to establish the real relationship of the parties to a bill of ex- change or promissory note, and the circum- stances under which it was endorsed. North- field vs. Lawrenee, S. C. 1891, M. L. R., 7 S. C. 148; 21 R. L.359. Confirmed in Review, 15 L.N. 324. (1) See Bills of Exchange Act, Schedule 2. BILLS AND NOTES. i{19 8. Of Payment.— May be proved by parol (p-iiniony. Cnriten vf. Finli'ijtQ. B. 1860,8 I. ('. J. m. XXII. FORGED. U'licnover a imiiie is inserted in a bill as that ot I'liyee l>y way of pretence merely, wiiliout any iiiieiition that payment shall be niaile in Cdii'orniity therewith, the payee is a '• (icti- lii. us" person within the meaning o( the Bills c'f Ivxiilmnge Act, 1882 s. 7, subs. .'{ (linper- iiil). [Sec. 7 (3) Canadian Act 1890,] The rec]ioTideiit'« clerk, by forf^ing letters of ji'ivice and preparing and filling in forged (liiiri.", in which he inserted th tlic linvvcr wno iis liiiidinR iv if limde til till' liiililfr, iiinl, iiicirciivtT, cmilil lie ))riivt'l \iy ]iarol ('viil(tic<'. John.fnn v». Genlfrion, C. C. l,«G.l, 7 L.C.J. 12.5 iumJ 1;1 L.C. U. Kil. 1. Liability of — Accommodation — Evidence of Guarantee.— Tlic ileftinliiiit iiiiior-cr, liciii;; 'iicil on ii proini-'Hury imte, (ileuileil that lie lull liiclorHcil for cicdit, and lliut till' plaiiitiir (ii siili-i('(|in'nl indor^'er) had ; j;uaranteed the )irior ihd(>rH('r.-< tlmt he would I sec tlip note paid. — //'7r/, not proved, it up- ] pearitii.', anions other thin;:-', that tliP defon- daiit had hy a letter to iilaintill personally jrua rantecil due payment of the note in (pie-'lioli. WillrH v.M. roiirt, Q. B. 1H8.1, (i I,. N. 204. 2. Accommodation Indoraer. — Where a per-oii ha-i pla :ed Irs name oii the hack of a Mote lielow the indorsemeiil of the payee, the fa;t that he did so solely for thene- (.■oinmodalloM of the maker and to j;ive hlin credit with the p:irty discountin;.', without liavin;: received any consideration, and without ever haviiiL' I n the holder of the note, is n ,t snlHinent to destroy the iiroi-iuiiplion arisinL' from the position of the names on the hack of the note, and to make him liahle iis warrantor. Mcrc/iKiiln liinik III' Citii'iiht vs. ('iiiiniiii/hiiiii, Q. H. 1892, 1 Que. 3:i; Boiin/iiiiiii y<. I! ■nr. S. C. H-14, l:! H. I.. (12. 3. Composition Notes— The in- dorsers of coinpi^ition notes for an in-olverit remain liahle thereon thoii;,'h the disihar^'c of the insidvent may have been aioi illed hy the co\irt, un I lhoM;rh the insolvent may have given other notes hy way of iireference to so ne of his creditors. Mnrnhawl vs. If'ilkfs, (j. It. 1880, :i L. N. lilS. 4. Evidenca.— In an action hy the bearer, who was also the n.akei', ai-ainst an indor.ser, the latter pleaded that he indorsed the note sinqily as an aceommodation, and on the understaMdinj; that the plnintitf should place liis name ahove his (il,,. defendant'.-) as 8t Jond indorser. On appeal froTn ajn l>:ment against the defendant— //eW, reversin;,' the jud,i;inerit of the court helow, that the order of signature hy indorsement of a note was a mere presumption of the undertakin;; of the in lor- ser's with respect, to one another, and tliat this presumption could be destroyed hv proof of a contrary i;n lerstandin^, a id that, ac cordingly in the case submitted, the indor- sation made hy one of the indorsers, with the express condition that .such indorsement would be preceded by the indor.sement of a third parly, wlio wan inaile acquninted t)y tae liearer of the note with liie conditions of the indorsement, could not give to such third pi»rty rij^ht ofa;tion agiinst the indorser,— the hearer of the note being consjdere I in such case the a^etit o! the indorser. Day v-^. Si,(it/io,-}ii', y n. iBc.i, 11 L. c. H. 2(;ii. 6. Although it is the rule thm li.e respo'islhility of Indorsers of a negotiable insirumerit is according to the order of then- indorflement, liiis rule is not invariable, an I it may be shown by ordinary proof that the indorsements occurred in such order liy mi- tak ', or that there was an uinlerstandin.; be- tween the ill lorsers that their liability wonlil not follow the order of in lorsement. Li-ri'illi' v. DiiHjle, Q. M. 1880, 2 Dorion's Q. 11. U. 12',); SrntI vs. Tiirnlmll. S, C. 1,881!, (I L. N. .SH7 ; Ldiinnt vs. Mifcici-, Q. 15. l88.t, j.; Feb. , ilain. Dig. .V8I; Ihnrliamiix vs. Li'ifr, S. C. 1880, M. L. I!,, ;! S. C. I ; WiIIku' \~. Court, Q. n. I8S;!, (1 L. N. 201. 6. Cost.i — The maker of apvimissoiy note is not liable IV)r the c-o-ts of an aciion on such note again-l the in lor.ser. McDunnht vs. Si-i/iiiniir, S. C. 1.8,'),'i, (1 ii. C, K. 102. .") R.J. U. Q. :ii. 7. T\\'' indorser sued to;;et':ier with the drawer, but who has pleadeil separ ately, though by the same attorney, is not re- sponsible for the costs, fiiiix Jraix, nt' the dra-vi'i', unless ihese/i/iM' /"/■,(/.< are deiii'Uneed to the in lor-^er. Iloiicliir vs. I^rilijur, Q. II. 1^(12. i; L. ('..I. 2i;'.t. 8. Where the bidder of a note promises to accept from tlie indorsers a coin- position o;i the note it' not paid when due, lie must present the not ^ lor p-iyment when due and protest if not paid, and the indorsers must pay the ciist of such jirotesi ; but such cost must not Comprise the notice of protest to the anil and to the ImliliT because they are unnecessary, lininiur i'liloii vs. Gitjiiult, C It. 188(i,"l2y. L. U, l-b5. 9. Ac oiler iiiade at Tiiree Rivers to pay a composition on such note on the day it became due, when the note was payable at .Montreal, was not Hulticient to save the indor- sers the costs t)f protest. (//),) 10. Privity of Contract. — Com position note. — .-Action on four n ites agaiii-t the sureties of an insolvent firm wdiich had entered into a composition of thirty-five ceiit- in ths dollar. Tiie composition was carried out by the notes indorsel by the defendants being delivered to tlie assignee for the benetit lir-t Irani- of till Ciivth (i.Vl 13. 15ILIS AND NOTKS. mt a^ M. iif ili)> partifK roticornpil, Imt (lie luiiik iutt liiiviiig tiled a c III! Ill in tiiiir, tlieir cliiiiii wkh iiii'liii|p(l in till' noteN ^ivrn for tiiv ciniiii of [\if inilurNcr, wlio whs hIho iimolvenl. 'liicy iiiiu- i-oufrlit to jii'l lilt' licnclit iif the iinlnrHC- infill fin) iautii on tlic iioIcm of tlie imlorscr. Tli(> (liTciiilanlf) pleitiloil tlmt iIhtc wnn im |iriviiy of coiitrai't iiiwecn iliciii iiml ('liiiiiiitt', ami lliiit tlii'li' imlorHeiMciil whh only in favor iif till' inilorsir wlio iiiul no claim — Held, llial till' liaiik wiiH ciititliMl 111 recover. Hank nf Miiulretil VH. McLavhhni, S. C. 1880,3 L. K. '2.11. ("oiiliniud ill Appeal Miircli Tl, HH'2. 11. Misleading holder.—!-., the imlori-er of ii note of M.'s, due llie Ulli Feli , i;ave 10 the learer (if llie note the following' iiii'iiiora!.diiin : " my note iliie the Idlh in.«t., 10 days after ilaie." The note to wiiich he lol'i ir(d cQiiie due the lltli. There wa.-i no (iiliir note. It was only prolt'steil on the 24tii Keli. Ilihl, l,y the Circuit Court at St. lly:iclnllie, and coiiliriiu-d in Review, that the ' imloiser was liiilile. linruett vs. miiikii/Ikdi, ('. It. IsTl, ;•, 1{. L. 41S. 12. Not affected by Holder tak- ing new Kote as Security.— The holder nf a pri'iiiisMiry note to order under protest, who lia- received an account from the iiiaker and luioiher note as securiiy lor the tirst, dues nut K.se his recourse n^rainst the indorsers of the lii'.-t noie wlio have piven tlieir assent to the IranMiciion, nolwithstniidinj; the i-'-^olvency of the maker of the lirst ii(i|e. ironi//);//-// vs. Garth, Q. H. 1S5S, 9 L. C. K, -l.'N, .-. 1{. j. U. Q.121. 13. Overduo Note. In an action 01) two promissory notes — //c/i/, that .a persuii rccC'ivin;; by indurseinent a hill of e.\(;lian;;c al'ler it was due, held it, under 2'2.'^T C. C, suhject to the iihjections to which it was liable ill the liand.s (.f the indurser. (1) Amazon Jiisiirdiice Co. vs. (hichc'fd: Giilt' I'orts Slcam- ship Co., S. C. H7(), 2 Q. \j. K.MIO. 13a. -And, liihl also, that this article dillers from the law of Hiiizlnnd, whii h iiialies the indori-er liable to the eipiities iiltaching to the note itself, that is, to the eipiities arising out of tiie transaction in the Course of which the note was made, but not to those arising; out of a collateral matter. (2) (//;.) 14. Where there are two or more Indorsers. — Under the circumstances 11)800 sec. :!() Bills of I'.xchaiigp Act, ISnO, anlispr- tinn ■_> Sec. 2'>7 C. C. reiiealod. See 'Jiiil Hohedule to Act, IKOO. rJ) This latter holding is the 8Pii.«e of the I'nglish, Oiitarin and French decisions. See Uiroimrd, p. 118, N".8. of tluHcase, the plaiiititr, tiioii^h last iinloriipr, could not recover from defendant, a prior in- dorcer, more than one half the amoiinl of the promissory note nued upon, imismueh an tiiey were both accommodation indorsers, and ho joitit sureties, for tiie maker of the note. ValU vs. Talhol, C. it. 1892, 1 Que. 22H. 15. So where neveral persoiH mutually aj;ree to (live their indorseinenla iin a hill or note aH cosureties for the iiolder, wlio wisiies to discount, they are entitled and liable to equal coiitribution i/i/cr .'c, irrespective of the order of their indorsements. .Viinloualil vs. iniitfi,il,C, 1,. N. •11'*, 27 L. C. .1. Iti.'), >i App. Cas. 73.'!, I'. C. I8,s;i. 10. The def<'ndant indorser cannot have ]ir,iceediiigs sus|i(iided until the pliintill' shall furnish him with a com- jilete description of the makir and prior en- dorsers in order that he may call them in waiianty. It is the defendant's duty to f;et such information. Arpin vs. Carreau, S. C, 1S84, i:i I{. L. 270. 17 Wrongful Possession- Second Indorser.— The second indorserof a bill of exchaii^'c who iruaranlees the indor.-e- mentofa prior indorser. is not liable to the ilrawer where the hill came Icu'iliinately into |iosse!>sioii of the lirst indorser bjr mistake ot' the drawer's a^ent. Annricnn E.rprcsx I'o, vs. Iliincoo'lfC. Ct. 1887, l.'i li. L. .''.Jli. 18. Rights of— Action in Warranty. Aur. I'.l'iii C. Com-;. — .\u indorser of a note who is siie.l for its payment miiy briii'.' action as surety aqiiiiist the maker in order to secure himself, tli(jUL'h the note he not in his poSHCS- sion. Dcsbartt/.i vs. Hamilton, S. C. 1879. 2 L. N. 279; Mathieii vf^. Moii.wau, C. Ct. Is7l, .'. R. L. 2f.O. And see Manlowild vs. »7i(7- fidd, P. C. « App. Cas. rx.\, 1) L. N. 278, 27 L. C. J. It;."). 19. Al.so, an indorser of a note disciJtinled by a bank has the ritrhl under Art. 1953 C. C. to avail himself of the remedy provided by Art. 793 C. C. P. if the maker fraudulently disposes of his property. Mac- Kinnon vs. Kcrouack, Supreme Ct. 1887, 1.') Can. S. C. R. 111. (The Court were eipiall}- divided.) Conlirming Q. H. 1887, 15 R. L. 34. 20. But Hrld, the indorser of a note payalile to order, who has not paid it him self, and is not otherwi»e ihe lioMei tln'reof, cannot sue the maker to compel liim to pay the note, in consequence of its beir.j; dii" ami protested. Maynard vs. Prnaiid, Q. JJ. 18(;,- . 12 L. C. J. 293. i ■■>: f 1^ ■ii mH ! IIPpI f'^ 222 21. BILLS A¥D NOTES. But the exercise of this riglit of action in warranty ' ust cause no delay In tlie hohler in liinown recourse. Diirocher vs. Lnpalme, S. C. 1885, M. L. il., 1 S. C. 494 ; Block vs. Lawrence, S. C. ISHK, M. I.. R., 2 S. C. 279 ; Mohon'sBank .s. C/tarlebois,S. C. 1892,2 Que. 286. 22. Contra. — Biaulicn vs. Z>e- viers, C. Cr. 1874, 5 U. L. 244. Bemi-r.i vs. Jlarveij, S. C. 189H, 5 Que. 1 (see reinaiivs of Koutliier J. at \>[). 2 ami .i), ami see linnque Natinnale vs. 7i!o6.s-, II Q. L. R. at p. 113. 23. Compensation.— 11 88 C. C— In i'n action ngainst an inilDrst'r — Held, that tlie ik'fenilaiit hail a riglit to set up in coni|)eii- fation against the h'liiler al! sums cif iniiney, which tlie lioMcr had heen paid l.'v, or in which he hail Ijceonie indelited to the maker .«ince the protest of the note, and that the salary ' indorsement being the defendant's answers, the plaintitf was entitled to have them divideil «,> that the part in which he sought to explain 1 the character ia which he signed or indnrsw] , such note might he rejected as not having liceii pleaded. Sei/mour V'i. Wrif/lit,S. C. 18 J2 ,S ; L. C. R. 454, 4 R. J. R. Q. 31. 27. Forged — In an action on a pnimis. S(iry note — Held, contirming court below, that the holderwhose title thereto wastlerivedlioiii an indorsement which proved to be a foru'erv although he be acting in entire pood faitii, Cduld not recover the amount of the note frm;' any of the previous indorsers. Tmtuc \s, Ecantnnl Q. B. 1860, 2 L. C. L. J. 112. 28. In Blank- Liaoility of Maker.— In (jrder to vitinto the payment by tlu' mak,r of a promissory note ind(jrsed in blank, Imd faith must be shown, as the maker is onlv if a hank oflicer paid by cinarlorly iiistalments bound to assure himself of the genuineness ..f nught in this way to be set up against the bank by an accomniodaiion indorscr. Qiuhic Bank \s. Mohoii, S. U. 18.51, 1 L. C R. 116, 2 R. J. R. Q. 426. And see Hays vs. David, Q. B. 1852,3 L. C. R. 112. 24. Obligation. with a Term — The indorsers do not lose the benefit of the term because the maker of the note has becmne in- solvent. Guibault vs. MigiiK, C. C. 1891, 20 R. L. 697. 25. Subrogation. Akts.2314, 11,)6, C. C. — The indorscr of a promissory mile tendering tlie amount to the p lyee does imt require and cannot demand any special subro- gation besiilesthe surrender cif the note, and therefore the indorser cannot throw upon the payee refusing ten ler of the amount the lia- bility for the maker's insolvency unles.s he has renewed the tender by legal action. Bove vs. Macdonuld, Q. B. 1865, 1 L. C. L. J. 55, 16L. CR. 191. 25a. The aceommolation indorser who pays a promis.sory note i.s subrogiited bylaw in all the rights of the creditor, including any hypothec which the latter may have taken as collateral security. Re McCaffrey, C. R. 1894, 5 Que. 135. XXIV. INDORSEMENT. (See "Signa nr.K." "Indorser.") 26. By Error.— In an action against the endorser of a promissory note— Held, that a parly who indorses a note is liable although lie intended to do so at the time ,is the attorney of another, the error not being jileaded, and that in the present case the sole proof of the the signature, and is not bound to make miy inquiry. Ferric vs. 2V/e Wardens ofilte II(,its,' of Industry, Q. B. 1845, 1 Rev. de Leg. 27. 29. Of less th.m whola Amount of Note.— Where action in assumpsit wa-; brought by the indorsees of a note against ili.' indor.-er fu-a sum less than that made pav. able by the note, the action wa< disinisseil. CI j Mcleod vs. Meek, K. B. 1831, Stuart's lie- liorts 456, 1 R. J. R. Q. 353. 30. Pour aval.— A note payable to ih, order of the iilaintill's was indorsed fust l,v L. L :t P. G. L., an 1 und.^rneath these nanu- by the pluintilFs— //«;,/, contirnrng court l.p low, that L. L. & P. G. L. indorsed as ,„;,l.i and security for the maker. (2) Lntnur v-. Gauthier, Q. B. 1866, 2 L. C. L. J. 109. 31. The plaintitl sued the defendant on a note which he had obtained to be drawn by another in favor of the plaintitl' or b'aivr, which he, the defendant, ha 1 indorsed in l,l»iili —Hchl,U) be an indorsement pour nral, and that the defendant, the indorser pour iirtil, could not pleail want of notije of protest, or raise any other defence thai, might have been raised by fh<. maker. (2) Merrill vs. L'/ue/i, S C. 1859, 3 L. C. J. 276 and 9 L. C. II. 353, 32. And where the trial was hid be- fore u sjiecial jury— //eW, on argument, ihiit the question whether such an indorsement was an indonsement pour aval or not, was a hich mu-t be governed by Arts. 2341 and 2342 C. C.^de. Straus vs. Gilbert, C. Ct. 1889, 15 Q. L. R. 59. 3. Art. 2840 C. C—lMd, in a case not aflected by 54-55 Vict. (Can.), ch. 17, s. 8, that Art. 2340 C. C, whicdi 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 " 30tii May, 1849," -pplies u;\ly to the form, negcitiability anil proof of the instrument, ar i nut to matters of civil obligation resultiru' from the substance of the contmct created thereby,— in regard to which recourse must be iiad to the provisions applicable thereto to be found in other parts of llio Civil Code. Guy vs. Par plaintitl' to represent his share. That they all agreed among themselves that any of them might retire from the scheme before the acceptance of tlieir tender. 'J'jiat the tender was not accepted, and the whole of the money was returned by the Government. That defendant retired from the scheme before the matter was decided. — Held, tiiat he (1) See Bills of Kxchange Act, 1800, Schedule 2. W'-ii i I T ?f I ijljlff^flii urn ■6t I fn\ 224 BILLS AND NOTES. was nevei'tlifless liiiblp. Falarrlenu %■>'. Smith, S. C. 1874, 2 L. N. 102. XXX. MADE ON SUNDAY. 1. A promissory note or ngrcpineiit in writing, (latcil on Sunday, in iiaytncnt of a liorse purchased on tlie .same day, is null and void, under 4.')tli Uco. III., cap 10, and 18 Vic. cap. 117. (1) Cote vs. Lemieux, S. C. 1859, 9 L. C. R. 221. 2. A promissory note made payable to order and dated on .Sunday is valid. (2) > -- Kearney vs. A'i/it7(, C. Ct. 18(33, 7 L. C. J. ;il. 5- XXXr. OJiTAlNIiD BY FRAUD, EllROK, OR DECEIT. 1. Bights of Holder io due Course. (2) — Oidy a lioMer in due course can recover on a note obtained by fruuij. But if, in an action on a bill, it is admitted or proved tliat the accp|itaiic(', issue or euhse- iiueiit ne^^otiation of the bill is aflVcled with fraud, duress, or force aini fear, or illejjality, the burden of proof that ho is such holder in due course shall be on iiiin. Jielniii/iT vs. Boxtf); Q. B. ISS.i, L. N. U:), 12 R.L. olVi. Sec. .'SI) (2) Bdls of Exclian^'e Act, ]8'J0. Jhtnuis ,s. Baxter, Q. B. 1885, 14 R. L. 49(5 ; Walters vs. Mahin, C. R. ISS:!, 6 L. X. .'UCi; Withall vs. Huston, S. C. lS.-)7, 7 L. C. R. ;i99, :, \l. ,1. R. (i. .{27 ; IMniison vs. Cn/colt, Q. B. It) Sept,, 187;"., 2 Tlieniis .'i.'il ; M<,riii vs. Grenier, .Montreal, 15 Sept., 1877; MclhnuuU vs. Mahan, S. C, 29 L. C. J. 7(1 ; Biurter vs. Bruiu-av. S. C. I8.S4, 17 R. L. ;)59; Kxihange BanI; vs. Carle, ii. B. 1887, M. 1.. R.. :; 'q. B. (11, -U L. C. .1. 90, 15 R. L. 250, confirming C. R , V.\ R. 1.. 284 ; Bavi/ne Janpies Crrtiir vs. Gajnon, C. R. 1S94, Que. 88. 2. Unless aiiij untd lie proves tliat subse- quent to the allege 1 fraud, etc., value lias m good faith been given for the bill by some other holder in due course. Se(\ WO (2) Bills of Exchange Act, 1890. 3. The fact tliat the frauii by which notes are obtiiined is a matter of public notoriety Ibrms a strong i.resumption that the holder has not obtained them in ilue course. Ex- chaiiije Rank vs. Carle, Q. B. 1887, M. L. R., .i y. B. 01. (II Set-. U (2) Dills of Kxchiiiige Act, ISOO, providca tliat a hill is not invalid by rousou only tliiil it i8 .inte-Uated or jiost-dated, or that it buars ilate on a Siniday. As to Coti^ vs. Lcmioux, sen remarks of M (iiroiiani at pj). ^9-3U, who thinks it is still good law. {2) As to who is a holder iiwiue course, sue sees. '.'9 and M Hills of Exchange Act, ISUO, 4. There is a class of cases which hold that even a holder in due course cannot recover on a note obtained by fraud ; for instance, where a person is induced by fraud to sign a bill or note, under the belief that he is signing a wholly di(i"erent instrument. (1) Banque Jac- ques Cartier vs Lescard, Q. B. 1886, Hi Q. L. R. ;{9, 15 R. L. 14; U Mbe vs. Nor- mawliit, C. Ct. 1888, ;r2 L. C. J. 103 ; Ford vs. Auger, S. C. 1874, 18 L. C. J. 290 ; Waters vs. ,s7. On(/c, S. C. Montreal, 31 March, 1881. 5- But it has now been lield liy the Court of Appeal, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court {M. L. R., S. C. -'17;, that a party who, before matiiriir, ha- 'i come the holder of a promissory nute, in j^ou'i failli and without notice of any objection, fur valuable cunsideration, is (ntitled to recover the amount thereof from the person uiiosij signature apjiears on the imte as maker, even where it is proveil thrt the signature was ol'- taiiied liy artilicc and fraud, and wilhuut am ciinsidi'ration being received by the promissor. Banque Jacques Cartier vs. Jjchlanr, (J. I!, 1892, 1 Que. 128, and see Bank of Xora ^r„li., vs. Lepa!, who does .i-o without reading it, the lender iiiu-t reimliurse the liiirereneo to ihc borrower who paid ihe note to a holder in good laitli. Tiie lender could not claim the S> 'is interest t iio specially ftipiilated for. Lemire vs. Gn a no the firsi uiily fo' each of debt. Kev. di 11. 11) .See: rc- BILLS AND NOTES. 225 oven wlien it is jiroved that the consideration of the draft was tlie value of goods sold and delivered in New York at prices payalile in United States currency. Copcuit vs. Mc}faK- /a;C.C. ISCS, 7 L. (".J.;i40. 3. -^— The maker of a boa made in the United States payable on demand, if sued in Canada, will be comlemned to pay the full atnount of the bon in Canadian currency. Daly vs. Gni/nim, C. C. 18GI, 8 L. C. J. :i40, 15 L. C. It. i:!7 ; Chapman vs. McFer, C. H. 18G9, 1 R. L. 192. 4. A note maile and dated at Malone, N.Y., lietween American citizens, hut payable to bearer, and held by a Canadian, must be paid in Canadian currency if sued hero. Mc- Coy vs. Dinnn, C. C. 1864, 8 L. C. J. 3H9. 5. Delay to present.— .■V. bill made on the 27th Aui^ust, indorsed by the payee on the 2'.'th, presented liy the holder on the 1st Se|iteniber and protested on the 8tb of that month — Held, not a reasonaiile time, llarri.ss vs. Srliirob, Q. 13. 1871, I'. U. L. 453. 6. Demand of.— Paiiial jiayment is a waiver of all objections as to ;i want of de- inand. (1) Jiice vs. /JoK-Zcer, S. C. 1853, .3 ]..C..1!.305, 4R.J.H.Q. 23. 7. The cliniand of payment of a pro- nii-siiry note nnist be aecomijanieii by u tender (if thill pmniissoiy note tn the debtor, and .s\ich ileuKUid of jiayment cannot be made publicly at the cliurch door immediately after Divine serviee, either on ii Sunday or a feast of obli- gation. (1) Dr. 1(1, C/ierrotirrc vs. Guilmet, (.'. V. 188G, '.I ].. X. 412. 8. Demiui'l of )iayment must be ac- • ■umpaiiied by an exhibition of the note. Cun- slneaii vs. Lecours, S. C. 1888, 4 M. L. II. 249. 9. Costs of Action.— A nuie was made payalile at plaintitf'.s house, but subsequently plaintilt gave the note to his attorney, and it was nut in his hands to return it to defendant, who, on suit without any demand, paid the money into court with iiis plea — IIcliI, not liable for the costs of the action. Liss'inl vs. Gcmst, Q. B., Que. 8 Oct., 1883. 10. Instalment Note.— An action lies ou a note payable by instalments iis soon as the tirat day of jiayment is passed, but it lies unly for tlu amount of the first instalment, each of them being considered as a separate debt. Clearihut vs. MovrU, K. Ji. 1820, 2 Rev. de Leg. 30. 11. Presentment for. (See also Puo- U) S«(' sees. 5J and S6 DilU of Kxeliaiige Aot, 18!)0. TEST). — In action on a promissory note payable on demand by a Lower Canada debtor to a foreign creditor, a previous demand need not bo jiroved, and the amount thereof will be covered witli ccjsts, notwithstanding a tender of such amount witli |)lea. Shelter \ a. Paxtou, C.C. ISOO, 5L. C. J..^. 12. On an appeal from a judgment condemning the defendants jointly and sever- ally to pay the amount of the promissory note sued uj)on — Held, reversing the judgment of the court lielow, that a promise to pay at a specified place is; not a promise to pay gener- ally, and there is no liability on the part of the maker of a promissory note payable at a specified place unless proof be maile of a }iresentment and of demand of payment at such K])ecified ])lace, and of neglect or refusal thereto pay the amount of such note. (1) O'liri'ii vs. Stereiison, Q. B. 18(15, 15 L. C. K. 2(15, 13. The defendant pleaded that no proper presentation for payment had been made — Jleld, that presentation at the closed d(jnrs of the bank after its usual office hours is not such a iiresentation for payment as is necessary for protest. Waiterx vs. Reiffen- shin, C.C. IPfitJ, If, L. C. R. 297. 14. Costs. — In an action against the nuiker of a note paynble on demand, and gen- erally, want of presentment is ncit a ground of demurrer. But if the defendant tender the debt and interest before plea liled, and bring the money into Court, the jilaintill' will be condemneil to pay costs. AixJur vs. LortU:. C. R. 1877, 3 Q. l". R. 1,-,9. 15. A note jiayaMe generally should be presei. ;m1 for payment at the maker's domicile before action thereon, otherwise the plaintifl' will not get his costs if the defendant tenders the debt in court. Mir/nault vs. Lajoie, C. Ct. 1877, 9 R. L. 382. 16. Where plea of payment is spe- cified — Held, non-presentation not a giound for demurrer unless pleaded and proved that there was provision at the place named to meet the note when it became due, and (hat it would have been paid if presented. (2) Ci<. Dufour, C. Ct. 1800, 10 L. ('. R. 21)4. 3. Agreement.— Action was brought, a= on a promis.sury note, on an agreement in the following terms; — '• Nous promettoiis soliuai- " rement et conjointement de payer a Amabie •' Cote la somnie de vingt-ciufi louis courani, " pour une jumcnt th(tm, K. B. 1813,2 Rev. de Leg. 28. 9. A note jiayable "five dius after •.iiiiing of vessel " is not a negotiable ]>romis- -(iry note. Duchainn vs. Matjuire, C. Ct. 1882, >i Q. L. R. 295; Dooley vs. Ri/nrson, C. Ct. isvi;, 1 Q. L. R. 219. 10. Given as Collateral Security by Buildiag Society.— .\ mite given hy a liiiildiiig society as cDllateral security for an aihance to the society is not an ordinary no- gdlialile note, and if lost the iioldcr is not rninpt'lled to give security before he can i\acl repayment of the advance. CooJey y<. The Damininn Bitihiing Societi/, Q. B. 1S78, 1 L. N. 19,% 2t I.. C.J. 111. ' 11. I. O- U.— or Bon.— An acknowledge- iiicnt in the following letters and words, ■' I. 0. U. twenty-five pounds," is a negotiable pr.i'iii-?ory note. (1) Benudrij vs. Lu/liimmc, S. ('. 18(12", G L. C. .1. 307. 12. No set form of words is requisite In coMslitiite a promissory note, and an instru- iin'iit called a writing obligatory or a lion pay- able 111 order f.ji' value receivecl may be con - >iilered as a note in writing within the intent of the Provincial Statute 34 Geo. III., cap. 2, tliougli it do Uiit fi^llow the very words of that Act, and tlmugli it be merely descriiied ami liesignated in the plaintitl's declaration as a writing obli^aiory or 6oH. (1) Hull vs. /irad- hnrij. Q. B. 1845, 1 Rev. de Leg. 180. 13. Municipal Debentures. -Deben- tures issued under the authority of cii. 25 of the Consolidated StatutiM of Lower Canada ;ire negntiable securities, anil pass from iiiind to hand by mere delivery, anil the holder may declare upon them as u])on promissory notes, under the Municipal Code. (2) Eastern Townships Ihuik vs. Corporation of Conipton, S. C. 1871,7 R. L. Ut). 14. Notarial Deed.— A note signed before 11 notary in the notarial form, although made payable to order, is not a prmnissoi'v note (1) See sees. ,3 iind 82 Bills of KxclianRo Act, IS!K). Note nhouM contain v,oril8 of pronilse to imy. See OirouiirJ on Hilis and Noti's, \\ i;i. (2) Si-e sei.'tiono 4C2S-4031 of It. S. emenl in the ordinary way. (1) Morin vs. Legault, C, Ct. 1859, 3 L. C. J. 55. Crerier vs. Saiiriule, C. Ct. 1862, 6 L. C. .1. 257. Marc Aurele \'». Duroc/ier, C. R. 187ii, 5 R. L. 165. 16. But Held — That a note en brevet p.ayable to A B, or order, cannot be indnrsed in blank. (1) Semble: That it may be by mdorsi'ment in full. Brunei vs. Lalonde, C. Ct. 18(;0, 16 L. C. R. 347. 17. Note to order of Maker— Not in- dorsed. — In an action prior to tlie Bills of E.xchange .Vet — Held, that a note whereby tlie maker promises to pay a certain sum of money to his own order, and not indorsed Ia' liim, is not a promissory note within the meaning of Arts. 2344, 2345 C. Code, and therefore the indorser tlioreon cannot be held liable as such or as warrantors jioitr aoal fur the payment of the note. Trenholme vs. Co((/«,' Q. H. 1893, 2 Que. 387. Reversing S. C, M. L. K., 7 S. C. 14ti. 18. Part Cash, part Goods.— A paper writing, undertaKing ti^ )iay A B, or bearer, a certain sum of money, une half in cash and tlic other lialf in grain, is not a promissory note, and tiierefore not negotiable. Oilliii vs. Cutler, C. R. 1857, 1 L. C. J. 277. 19. Premium Note.— A promissory note payable to the order of a ^lutual Insurance ("ompany, and given in payment of premium of insurance, is negotiable. M ooci vs. Shaw, S.C. 1858, 3L. C. J. 169. 20. .V memorandum at the foot of such a note indicating its consideration does not limit its negotiability. (Ih.) 21. Receipt for Loan.— .V letter acknow- ledging the receipt of a sum of money as a loan, and promising to repay it on demanil, with interest, is not a promissory note, within the meaning of the Statute 12th Victoria, ch. 22, sec. .31. Wkishaw vs. Gilmour, S. C. 1862, 6 L. C. ,1.319; 13 L. C. R. 94. 22. The following receipt: "Received (1 Sou tiirouard, Bills ami Notex, p. 66. 11 228 BILLS AND NOTES. ^11 from Mrs. llacliel Asclier loun of eight Imn- Ared doUarc, to lie returned when required," is not a note. (1) DeSolii vs. Aschcr, Q. B. 1889, 17 R. L. 315. XXXIV. PROTEST. 1. By Notary Holder of Note— A notary wlio is indor.-^er o a iiniini.sao'y note cannot a" notary protest sucli note, even wliere, beiiij; bearer of tlie note, lie erased his name and transferred the note to & prele-nom, under whose name tlie ])rotest was made; such a protest is null and void and discharges the indorsers. I'elle(ii:r v.s. Brasseint, 1890, M. ].. n., GS. C. 3;51. 2. Notice of— Address.— A notice of protest of a note adilrcssed to a lady as " Sir," instead nf " Madam," is sutHcient, if duly served ujion her. (2) MitchvU vs. Browne, S. C. 18GJ, 15 L. C. 1!. 425, 9 L. C. J. 108. 3. — But in an earlier case, where the notice was similarly addressel, it was held to be insufficient, another party havinj,' received the notice. (.'!^ "-i/mour vs. Wri maker of a note was described in the protest and also in the writ and declaration as E. B. P. instead of Joseph B. P. — Held, that a plea by the indor.ser to the ellect that lie never in dorsed the note described by i)!aintill', and that a protest of E. H. P.'.s note was not a legal pro- test of J. B. P.'s note, was bad, and would be dismissed bacause he did not put in the afli(hi- vit required by the Statute. Scullion vs. I'crry etal., S."c. 18G5, 9 L. C. J. 174, 1 L. C. L. J. (14. 7. of Note. — In an action against indorser of a note payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed by him to such indo.ser, the following notice of disiionour addressed to maker and indorser conjointly is sutli- cient in the absence of anv proof by the defendant of the existence of iinother note, "Your promissory note for jE30 cy., dated at Montreal the 2nd September, 1850, payable three months after date to you or order, and indorsed by yon, was this day, at the re quest of Messrs. Handyside, Sinclair & Com- pany, of this city, merchants, duly protested fur iicin-payment." Handyside vs. Conrtne;/, S. C. 1857, 1 L. C). 2.50. 8. Bill of Exchange.— The indorser of a bill of exchange is in all cases entitled te notice whether the di'awer have or have no ef- fe(.'ts ill his hands, and oh this ground theeoiiri non-siiited the plaintitl'and refused his motion for a ne IV trial. Griffin vs. P/iillips, K. I!. 1821,2Rev. deLeg. 30. 9- Niitice of protest i~ not sutficieiilly given to an indorser, when siieli notice is seni to an erroneous address of siieli indorser, given by the maker at the time begot the note dis- counted. Mcrc/ianls Bank of Canada vs. (Jnnningliani, Q. B. 1892, 1 Que. 33. 10. Verbal.— By sec. -19 {<•) Bills of Exchange .-Vet, 1890, notice ofdishonour may be given in writing or by personal ci nimuiii- cation. But in the province of Quebec it iniisi be given by a notary. 11. Waiver. — .V promise to pay a protested bill of exchange, of which no notie? of ])rotesi has been given, if made with a knowledge of that fact, is a waiver of want of notice. Ross vs. Wilson, K. B. 1812, 2 Rev. de Leg. 28 ; Johnson vs. Geofl'rion, C. Ct, 1863, 7 L. C. J. 125, 13 L. C. R. 161 ; Cit'/ Bank vs. EuntcrJ; Maill'ind.Q. B. 1847, 2 K. deL. 171. 1. ivhere iiewal t it, aiKJ accept i)e hell local in reiie tills' nt •lu agi( S. C. li 2. renewal tion, nil ellect sj C. 1800 S. C. 1^ "oTsTe (-') Bui BILLS AND NOTES. 229 my a olic>' iili ii ■nt of Rev. . Ct. Citu i. 2 K. 12. Tln' liuaband beini; tiniverHal legutoeofliit- wifc,iiid(jrs('(l for her a promissory note — Held, tlmt lio wan boiiiul to pii.y the aiiioiint of ilic note, notwithstandiiig therouas 110 protect, it being sntKciently estabiishcil tiiat I lie had consented in tlie naino cf liis wife to waive protest, in ortler to avoid costs, and that in fact the wife was only & pr6tc-nom to eover the trading of the liusband. Jiciiau vs. Mc- Corkill, Q. B. IHM, 14 L. C. II. tOO. 13. Proof of. (1)— In an action a.L'ainst the indorser of a promissory note — ^eZ(/, the du. plicate notice of protest must be produced and filed, and that (lie certificate of the notary that he had serveil due notice upon the indorser was in.'^iitliciont. Seed v.s. Courlenay, S. C. m:i, 3 ].. C. R. .-^03, 4 R. J. R. Q. 21. 14. Regularity of- Non Exhibition of the Note.— ^e?(?,that the non-exhiliition of the '< note to tlie maker at the time of protest, the maker being notoriously insolvent, will not invalidate the protc', and notice of protest to i the indorsers will hold them liable, notwitli- [ standing sucdi non-e.\iiibition. (2) \'enner vs. • Futro;/\; S. C. 1803, l.'! L. ('. R. 307. 15. Mention of Time of Protest. ' —In an action againsi the maker and indor- ', -er — Held, that the omis.sion to state in a no- tarial protest that it wiiS made in the f(jrenoon of the day of protest was fatal, and the indor- ser was discharged. Joseph y^. Velisle et al., ; S. (;. 1851, 1 L. ('. R. 244, 3 R.J. R. Q. ,;. 3. — — This intention is presumed from the su-render of the original note. Jirewnter vs. Chapman, Q.B. 1875, 19 L.C. J. .301. XXXV. RLi>IE\VAL. (.See al.so under title '•Novation." .See " iKDoasKiis, Liaiiii.ity oi-.") 1. Agreement. — In an action on a note where delendant pleads that he had sent in a re- newal to plaiutilfs and that they never returned it, and plaintiffs reply that they had refused to accept tne note as a renewal, defendant will be held to have been bound, oii sich refusal, to call and take away the note he had so sent in rene'al ; anil that the mere fact of plain- tills' not returning it will not be construed into :\a agreement to renew. Li/inaa vs. Chamard, S. C.1857, 1 L. C. J. 285. 2. Effect of. — The acceptance of a note in renewal of one previously made is not a nova- lion, unless there be an e.xpress intention to efl'ect such novation. Xixul vs. Bouchara, S» C. 1800, 10 L. C. 11. 47(J ; Brown vs. Maillunx, S. U. 1859, 9 L. ('. R. 252. (1) Si'c sec. 93 (,■>) Bills of Exclian«e .Vet, 18!)0. (■.!) But see ger. 45 Bills of Kxohange -■Vet, ISltO, XXXVI. RIGHTS OF HOLDERS. (Se,. also " Obtainki) by I'hai'd," also " CONSIDKRATIOX. "t 1. Accommodation Note.— .Vn accom- modation i)arty is liable on the bill to a holder for vahie ; and it is immaterial whether, when such holder took the bill, lie knew such party to be an accommodation parly or not. Beiqiie vs. Bury, S. C. 1880, 3 L. N. 160. Bills of Exchange Aet, 1800, sec. 28 (2). 2. Partners— Renewal.— In an ac- tion on a promissory note, the defence was that the note of which it was a renewal was given for the accommodation of the payee by tlie defen- dant's partner, who had no authority to make it, and that the jilaintitFs, when they took the renewal, knew its defective character— i/c7 diiiwcr, Imt to whiidi tlic |,!iiiiiti(r wrts iioi privv. Si/lrttin vs. F/an- uch hoin'ifiih; holder for value. Dancin vs. Tliomnif)!. Q.]], 18(19, IH L. C.,I.2t)2. 2. Aval. — A siiinatiire subscribed to a negotiable note, by a person otiier than the maker of the note, is eipiivalent to an aoal. (1) Narhoiun' V.-. IVIrcau, C. C IHii.'!, 9 L.C.J. 80. (1) See 91'C. 66 Dills of Kxclianne Act. I.SflO, Hiiil re ninrks of M. Cirouard tliereoii relative Xn oral, at p. 189. off Roh( trndil L CI Colli iif \\§ signfl sigi. ^:\ BILLS AND NOTES. 3. By Agents. (Sec Auknts.)— Vvheti a proiiii^^'iiy note i^ sigiu'.! by procurntioti, i.ruufof tlio cinccxccution (pf ^iiuli iii'iiciinitidii iiiii"t be iiiiulc I'l ciilille the plaiiidll to n cover )ii(lj;ineiit in uti e.rpurlc ."iiit on tlic note. 'Kthier vs. Tlwmax, Q.R. 1S7S, ir> L. C. J. 22,'i. 4. ' And tliiit even wliere tlic defendant is in default 10 ufipcar. Jh, q.n.,lT L.C. .1. 71). 5. By Mark— Sufficiency.— .V pimnis- -oiy note to iiidef eannol b'> Iran-iferreil b_v an indorsement made liy tlie maik of the indov- ser, altiiouixli so made in presenee of two wit- nes^e.". Lai/in'ii.r vs. Ca.^ault, K. B. 181:5, 2 Krv.d. Leg. 28, •.' I!.. I. II. Q. l.'ifi. 8. A note of hand executed by the iiiakerV mark, if iiulorst'd, j^ives no action tn the indorsee ajiainsi the maker, but the iiidor.ser is answerable for money iiad and re- ceived. June." vs. n.irl, K. n. 18i;), 2 l{ev. de Leg. 29, .VS, 2 11. J. K. Q. l;;7 and 1 H». 7. Tlie indorsement by mark in pre- sence of the two witnesses of a promissory ndte t;ives a riijht ot action to the IkjIiKt against the maker and indorser. Noad vs. Chatetntv.rl, Q. 15. IslC, 1 Rev. ,le Lej;. 22!>, 2 K. .I.K. Q. l:». 8. Where the del'endant hail sij^ned a note [Xiur acal by making lier mark of a croas in the presence of witnesses — //eJ;/, reversing the judgment of tln'conrt below, that the sig- nature was good, wdiere the subject malterof the coniract was of a commercial nature. Pat- temmvA. Pi'in, S. 0.18,11, 1 L. C. R. 21'.), 2 R.J.R.Q. -1(;7. 9. An action lies iigain.st the indorser of a note payable to order and indorsed with his cross. T/tuiher vs. Desire, (J. Ct. 18.')4, Robertson's Dig. 4.'!, Montreal Condensed Re- port-; r2")- 10. Maker's signature by cross gooil, maker, indnrsiu- and trader being described as traders. Aiidcrsmi vs. I'arlc, S. C. I8,'j5, G L.C. R. 47',). 11. — A promissory note signed by a cross in presence of a witnes.s is good ami valid. OjIUiis vs. Btad.slimc. C. C. KStiO, 10 L. C. R. 3GG ; Difiiiiie vs. Tulbid, \H'2, not reported. 12. A note made with mark in presence uf witness may be proved by one witne.ss. Bhtckburn vs. Decelles, S.C. 1871, 15 L. C. J. 260. 13. Defendant was sued on a note r-igne 1 with a cross, and pleaded, denying the sigi:ature, and plaintiU' failed to prove the pigi/mg — Held, that the action must be dis- 'in 187H, .-. s, bcf .re missed, ('oiipn/ vs. Coii/ml, ('. K K. L. 465. 14. A receipt signed by cr( Iwii witnesses, one of whom, in iii:'n, signed by cro.iS. i< valid. Latalijipi' vs. licniind, Q. 15. 1S80, 1 Dorion's R..p. Oil. (1) 15. .V note signed with a cro-s dm.- not make proof nf itself, and proof must be nuido of the signature in order to obtain judg- ment thcrenn. Finit vs. I'iloii, ('. C. HSii. !) L.N. ;!S0. 16. A |)r()miss(jry note signe 1 witli a cross is not a private writing, which make-^ proof between the parties withcjiit evidence of its execution, llitmine Xatimmle vs. Churettf. S. v.. 18S7. 10 L. N. 85, and see Oitimel \-. M!:/iuroii, S. C. 18;i0, 20 R. L. :?57. 17. Promissory notes signed byacro.-s are, in matters of proof, subject to the same rules as where the maker signs his own name. .S7/a'i.s' vs. Gilhcrt. C, Ct. 18S!i, 15 Q. I R. .50. 18. Amendment— Pleading— To an action on a note signed with a cross the defendant lirst pleaded forgery but was after- wards allowed to amend this and plead that he had made the mark under the impression that he was signing areceiptfor a like amount. On i)roof of amemled plea action dismissed. nenoit vs. nniis, Q. 1!. 1883, fi L, N. 842. 19. A receipt signed by cross, in the ])resence of a single witness, is valid, but is not a ]irivate writing which makes proof betwr'en the parties without evidence of it-^ e.xecutioi., and only constitutes a commence- ment of proof in writing. (2) Trudenu v.^. Vincent, S.C. 1892, 1 Que. 2.31. 20. In Blank.— Where a person gives to another a promissory note signed in blank, with the intention that the latter shall fill it in for a certain sunt, lie is liable to a third party for the full amount wliich appears on the face of the note, even where it is beyond the amount agreed upon. Hank of N'ora Scotia vs. Lepaije, 1889, M. L. R., 6 S. C. .321. 21. A note signed in blank may be legally filled u]> by the holder thereof in any way he pleases. Gnaedinger vs. Bcr'rand, S.C. 1879,24 L. CI. 8. 22. Proof of.— If a defendant by excej)- tion admits hi.s signature to a note of hand. (1) In tlie report it is s.iid thatU!»in8fty,.T.. diifered, but it \Vii8 not on tlio ca-se as reported. Tlie ilissent went only so far as this that tliere must be a eross made by the party, otherwise there wiig iiotUing done. (See Ilain. Dig., p. TA.) (2) Preceding authorities collected in this case. H^ L E ' I! "i T 232 BILLS AND NOTES. and picnd a term for jiaytiuMit, it is not iieccs- Bary for the iiliiiiili.*!' to pruvc the sij;iuituro, even tliougli tiie excojitioii be (liciiiissed unJ there is u plea of general licninl to tlie action. ValUires vs. Roy, 2 Rev. do Leg. 3;)5, K. ]i. 23. Held, that the genuineness of the Bignature to or indorsenlent of u note ceases to be presumed the moment llie defendant denies it in liis plea snpjxirted by atlidavit, and the plainlirt' mu.'o(//c vs. Chment, S. C. ,Iu L. C. J. 332 ; Shefler vs. Fautau); S. C. 1^7:;, 5R. L. 351, 18 L. C. J. 210. Insufficient Stamps. — Sterenaon vs. Kimpton, 12 L. C. J. 291 ; Dhum vs. Norman- deau,tj ]j. N. 136; Filioii vs. Hoy, 6 L. N'. 175 ; Cimon vs. Thompson, 3 L. N. 194 ; L- mnrche vs. Banque ViUe Marie, M. L. H.. 1 S. C. 203. Omission to Stamp.— C/(r/s//// v>. .ir- cliambaHlt,C. R., 30 L. C. J. 237 ; (,'ilmiin v-. Kxchuvr/e Jhiiilc,'M L. C.J. 320; Atircli \-<. Duroclier, IH L. C. J. 197 ; Richard vs. Hois, vert, 3 R, L. 7 ; Sheffcr vs. Fautcur, IS L. C. J. 216 ; Hiidon vs. Girowird, 21 L. (.'. J. 15. Affixing Double Stamps.— /7jv7('(/(;/' Bank VH. Gilman,:U L.C.J. 120;7>?i'/»- court V!*. 'Jrahan, '} R. L. C87 ; Quebec Hunk vs. Seivell, 17 L. C. R. 1 ; Societii dcConslrw ■ tion vs. Banque Nationale, 24 L, C. J. 226 : Baxter vs. IMU, 9 Q. L. R. 174 ; Lepa'jr \ s. Brassard, 6 Q. L. R. 194 ; Falardcaii vs. Smith, 2 L. N. 162. Cancellation. — Delbar vs. Landa, 22 L. C J. 46; Fausse vs. Brien, .i L. N. 213. BILLS AND NOTES. 233 XX.XIX. TO AIJSENTEE. \ nule to one who is iiLsont uiid who (as it happens) is ileail, in nut void, and liis I'xeuu- cutoM may niiiintain urlioii upon it. Gi'onI vs. Wilsoii, K. JJ. 1S14, 2 l!ev. de lii'ir. 2!t. XL. TUANSFLlll OF. (.See Hi. hits of THIRD Hol.DKIlS. ) 1. Action on by Transferrer.— L. & M. liuviiig hi'cn ill co-partiicishii) in tlio lirni of VVni. M. «k Co., ami K. liuvin^ Hiilisoqinntly entered into jiai-tnership willi other parties under ilie liriii name of " J. E. «.fe Co.," i)y iin agreement passed in Jiilv. IH;)'), M. a;,'reed with J. !•).& Co. to assume all tin; liaiiilities ofWm.M.ife Co., to pay the sum due E. & Co., ill four instahuenls, and to <;ive security un condition that lie siiould he allowed to cut tiniher on certain timlur limits of I'], it Co. He sMliseipiciitly cut timlcr without giving seciuity, and the tim'.ier was traiisferivd lotiie firm ofSy mes \, Co., which hail iiiiitions which might have arisen in the meantime between himself and tiie payee. Dni/nai/ vs. SiUit'cal, Ct. of Kev. 1865, 1 L. C. I., d. 2t). 6. Insolvency of Maker— I>efcndaiit was sued on ;i i)romiss(i]-y note iiiid pleadeil that the note had been made by him in favour of a commercial linn since insolvent, that it hail passed into the iiaiids of the assignees of said firm, that it did not apjiear that the insolvent had ever legally recovered possessimi of It, and that the plaintilfliinl iioinierot, but was merely pre/e-noni for the creditors to whom it belongeij. Ifi/il, that the defendant could not plead the rights of the creditors, but was bound to pay the amount of the note to the holier. Lt'inni/ vs. /io/.s.v/jc/, S. C. 1883, 10 Q. L. 1{. 90. 7. Negotiability.— Since the coming into force of the Bills of Exciiange Act, 1890, a bill or note, wiiich is made ])aya\)le to a parti- cular jierson, is negotiable unless it contains words iirohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it should not be traiisfcral)le. Wardv>'. Qtirbec 7i«n7., Q. B. 1891, :) Que. 122. 8. Non Negotiable Note.— Art. 1670- 1571 C. C— Signification. — .V non-negoti- able note indorsed by jiayee in full, and trans- ferred to a third jiarty, may be collected by the latter in his own name from the maker, if signilkation of the transfer is duly made upon him. And su(di signification of transfer need not be in authentic form, but may be under private signature. McCorkill vs. Barrabd, C, R. 1885, M. L. K., 1 S. C. 819. 9. Indorsement in Blank.— A jiro- missory note not made to payee or order can- not be transferred by indorsement in blank, and the li'lder of such note cannot recover on it from the maker. Jlanquc dn I'eiiple vs. Eihier, C. Ct. 1868, 20 ILL. 520. And see Vandal vs. Dourille, S. C. 1890, 20 K. L. 305. supra. m ■ 9 1 1 1 Mb i )i ^l^Tl'' 3):f 234 JiOAUl) OF HKALTH. 10. Noto for tho Payment of Money under Art. 1573 C. C. and Art. 1574— A |)li>rni-(Vrieil willioiil -i;,'riillciilinii (('. ('. l.'iTH), »'i'l -ii''li Iriiiisfcr will iiiclmlc the liy|uiliicc u> ivii iii:ci-^- sory .r the d.l.l (('. V. l')T4). Qiii-hrc Bunk \-^.'ji,'r:/rrni,,q. n. \X!^-,, II (J. K. U.:i(is, 14 U. 1-. 17(1. 10a. 'I'lie llUll-ri'lCC nf.sLlcIl nillC, Ufl( T fniill"Hs (li.scii.'^-ii.iii of !lit' iiiakcr iiini iiildr-crs, iniiy take iiii liy|i(j| licoiiiy iictinn «>.'iiiii.-l tiic holder of the iminoviihii' |in>|icrly. (///.) 11. A //■'/( lol.eiii'ci' C'lru Mini ofiiioiiey (inyiihle when llic si^rner shiill hnvi' ei, Heeled two iiole-< |Hi( iriln hi- haiidsi, cun lie li'iinsfeiTed by delivery iilime. fjiiiiiinivcn.i- \^. I'";/, <'. II. IHSit. 18 It, 1,. (iHO. 12. Notarial Noto— Indorsement in Blank. — Ill an action Id recover $(iO.()0, iiiMoiiiil of a note or ohli^iilion pa-^.-^ed lielore nolarie.-;— 7A7'/. lliat it, could not lie traii-feired hy iiiiliir~eiiiciil ill hliink thoils Q. L. 11. 2W. 14. Property in — Tlie property in a pro- ini.ssory note to hearer or indorsed in Idank can only he transferred hy delivery to the transferee, and tlie plaintill, never havin;: had either acnial or implied delivery of tlie note on which lie .seeks to recover, cantiot he rei|;.'(. of the Iraii-lerrer. f.fwii vs. Ji'(fi-ni, \h;:k M.L. K.,7 <.l. 15. 111. 17. If It he prov<>il that the maker of the Hole wa.s insolvent to the knowled;;e of the transferrer, the party who received it is entitled to oU'er it hack and (daim the amoiiiil from the transferrer without askiiijj for the rescis-ioii of the conliact /// Into. (//') 18. Art. l.'i.'iO ('. C. does not apply lu such a ca-e, and tiierc' hein;; no time ti\ed hy linv for oUciinij hack such note, it is in the ihseretioii of liie Court to cietermiiie ■ ler there was Idclii'.s, and whether the tr r Was prejudiced hy the delay. ( III.) BILLS OF LADING. (I) See .\|.-rni:ii;ilTMi'.NT. BIRTH. See KviDKNCK. A person has a rii;ht to hring an action |i. eslahlish the date of his hirlh, alt]u)ii)^li hi- .v/((/i(.s' as the lawful issue of cci tain parents be admitted. Lmir vs. Cmnphell, t}. 15. IH6.1, S L. ('. .J.(;8. BOARD OP HEALTH. (2) 1. Local Board— Appointment— Con- flict of Powers— Quo Warranto.— Where in default of action hy the city council, tlic liieiitenant (lovcrnor in council appointed a local hoard of health for the cily of Qiiehec, the city council could not legally thereafter appoint another local board of liealth for tin- said city. Jiinjrit vs. I'o/ir, Q. H. 1S80, 12 Q. L.H H03, 11 IJ. L. (!0o. A member of the board so afterwards ap- pointed by the city council may be ousted on (jnii inin-diilo, and such proceeding may he 'akeii upon the complaint of any burgess or in- habitant of the mid city, and not necessarily hy the Attorney-General. But, Ilelil, tli.it in the present case, the appellant, in accepting such I charge as a gratuitous one and having acted in good faith, and having done nothing prejii- (DSeo an Act rulatiiiK toBillsot I/iiliiij;, 1889(1).). ch. ao. CJ) R. S. Q. -Art. SCI.M, Provincial Board of Health Amended, ,54 Vic. eh. iT. ,'-.7 Vic, eh. .11 ; K. S. Q. Art, 3089. Central Hoard of Health: U, S. Q. Art. 30T3, Local Boards of liealth. BONDS. •235 ,|i.ial 111 till' iiii('i'('S(> (if llic r<'-i|i()iiil(iii or of till' |iiililiL', llic jiiil'.'iiiriil of ilifCMurl lip'oiv, OMnilclnniiijr liiin tn ii (liic of $11(11, slimilil l»' ,rv,l-.ll. li'illhrt V-. I'npf, Q. H. IHSC, 12 Q. I,. K. in:;. II I!. I, iio.'i. 2 Powers of Provincos rjlating to Public Hfialth. -All imiiti'i- cniiccriiiiij.' |iiiMic lii;i Ml, « iili I In' cxL'ciitii'ii (if iniaiMiitiiic -tiitioii-i iiii'l iimrliii' lios|ii(ii!s, iirt' widiin tlio i\. Iu'Im' I'liiiirnl uf l'i(H iiicial III! 1 mil Doini- iiioii !i';:isi;iiii.iti. III. uipI MniiirifiiiUhj III Mill' Eii.l V-. Cilii of Mniilieiil, S. ('. issj, H L. X. :;:;:,, <,.iliniifii in l.'cvicw, M. Ii. U.,2 S. C. 21H, 3. Liability of City ol' Montreal. —.\n ailioii will Mol lif ii;.;aiii~l llic Cily uf Miiutrcal liiract- (Imic liy llif rcini'iil uiiij Ini'iil lioanl^ 1. 1' liiiiltli c-lalili-'iiPil iitiilcr lln' iintluirily (if llir |pro\ iiii'iiil Iciii-ilalmr. Mitiili ijnilHn uf SI. I.niii.- 1,1 .)//,'.■ luiil V-. rifi/ ,./ M,mlrc;l, C K. i-r'i. .\i. 1, i:.. 2 s. c. 2i«. BOARD OP TRADE. (1) Altliou.'li llic Qiic'ln'i: IJoinl nf Ti'a'lo cviiiiot lc;;al|y llx llip lanll' of (•liar;{f< for |ilai'in^ (iiniicr ill liiii>tii'< at l^ni'lioc, ^\u-\\ larilfwill. iicvetlli('lc-i>', III' |>r('^iini('il lr.:iliiniii<' ami rca- •.onaiilc. Sli'rcii!ii;»(;nge un'l furniture ' ■ if liie \v-.iv fill' llic priri' of tlic ri'iil. I'lcmil V-. aiiii/iu; Mil;:. Ci. IHsy. 12 L. N. MS; ' Flenri/ V-. .SV. /niiiire.il. Ct. I^SS, 11 L. X, ! 171 ; lliiijii- V-. Ri.ss. 11 May. ISSO. Coiifinn- til ill llcvicw. .\iiil. /((7(/tlins, when tlic loil^icr cook-i iier niciiU in Iht room. Liilmide vs. ' MrGhiiii, cct. i--!ii, :; L. N. '.n. \ 2 A lioiii'iiiiis-lioiisc KocpLT I'aii. uftfr tlircr ^ iiiiiiiih-^. ^('ll lii- Itoanli'r'.s elftn'ts for boanl iiwini.' l>v llif latter. Mini such riylit exists in- 1 pt'iiiieiilly of ill! other IcL'al recourse. Muni-r V-. Wiillici. ('. Ct. ISDI), ::! L, N.:!14. 3. The keeper of a lionrilini|-honse has a lien fur the iiniiiiint ilui' tor board on a piano liroiiL'lit into the house liy a loii^ier as p;irt of his ctiecls, ami iiseil l>y him durin^^a residence there of four years in the exercise of liis call- iiiLT as a teiiclierof music, and this lien may he iiifureed even after reinovai of the piano, ns a^^ainst the owner and lessor thereof, of whose ownership the keeper of tlie li.iiirdiiig-lioiise had not received any notice. Fulsi/ vs. Culvin, ■S. C. 1801, 5 Que. .Ti.;. BOARD OP REVISORS. .*^i 1 aj-.i ,Vl'fi;.M,-SK( I iilTY l\. C.vi-I.v.s. ClUMlNAI. \iK\\. (!oi I'oss. " .SuKKTVSilll'. StoI'Mi Railroad Bonds— Where hold to be Negotiable Instruments and Good in Hands of ' bona tide " Holder for Value— English Case. Vnmlilis vs. tlirimj liros. .(■ I'll., <"liy. Div. 1892. Keport.'d 1') L. X. 2.'! I. Bond to keep the Peace— Subsequent Conviction of Person under Bond— Ac- tioii against Bondsmen— Dofenc3.— //'/*. The Life Assn rialion nfSrollanil,Q. B. 18sG,;!0 L. C J. HO:?. (1) See an Act autlioriziuK the Montreal Board of Trade to liolil imiiiovealiU' prr.iierty and to ii' . amended M-59 Vic. (1>.), ch. U. (2) See .\rt9. 145 C.I'.<'. and li'.'S C. Cod*. I ■ii iM\ I % II I I t 236 BOUNDAEIES. Foreign. — A bond given for salvage in an AJniiralty court in Nova Scotia can be re. covered in Canada. Moore vf>. ilitre, K. B. 181S, 2 Rev. de Leg. 207 and I Rev. Je Log. 35:]. Detention of— Condemnation in event of failure to deliver.— Upon the facts of the case, the Court was of opinion (con- firming tiie judgment cf tlie Court jjelow) that t.ie deefndant (appellant) was boimd to return certain railway t'onds which bad beon I placed in his bands by the plaiiitilP.'^ as.'-ignor. — //eW, reforming the judgment of the Court j below (G L. N. 220), that the condemnation ! against the deleudant, in default of returning the bonds, should be to pay the actual value | thereof as establislied in evidence and not the ] par or nominal value. Sen^cal vs. Haltoii, • 1884, M. L. 11., I Q. B.ir2, atHrmed by rbe Privy Council, 10 L. N. ;")0. BOOMAGE. 1. Estopped by Conduct. — F. McC. brought an action against G. B. for ij'4,4G4, as due him for charges wiiich he was authori/.cil to collect under IW Vic., ch. 81 (Que.), for the use by G. B. >-if certain booms in the Nicolet River during the years 1887 and isss. G. B. pleaded that under certain contracts entered into between F. McC. and G. B. and his an- teurs, and tlie interpretation jnil upon them by F, McC, tlie repairs to the booms were to be and were, in fact, made by him, and that in consideration thereof he was to be allowed to pass his logs free ; and also pleaded compen- sation of a sum of §9,620 for use by F. McC. of other booms, and repairs made by G. B. on F. McC.'a booms, and which liy law he was bound to make. Held, — reversing the judgment of the Coi'v' below, tiiat there was evidence that F. McC. had led G. B. to believe that under the con- tracts he was to have the use of the booms free in consideration for the rejjaiis made by him to piers, etc., and that F. McC. was estop])ed by conduct from claiming the dues he might otherwise have been authorized to collect. Held, further, that even if F. McC.'s right of action was authorized by the Statute, the amount claimed was fully conipensateil for ■ - the amount e.xpendcil in repairs for him iiy B. (1) Ball vs. McCaffrqi, Supreme Ct. 18i 20 Can. S. C. R. 31!).' Re -ersing Q. B. and Soperior Ct. 34 L. C. J. 91 (S. C), and see 0' Shaughnesserj vs. Ball, Supreme Ci. 1892, (1) See Queddy River Driving Uoom Co. !•<. David- Bon, 10 Can. S. C. K. '.'2.'. 21 Can. S. C. H. 415, where the facts were substantially the same. 2. Constitutional Law.— The Statut/> ;!6 Vic, ch. 81 (1"), IS not ultrnvircs of the provin. cial legislature. McCoJfrc}/ vs. Ball, S. C. i891,35L. C. J.:!8. 3. But while a provincial legislature can incorporate boom companies, it cannot give them the power to obstruct a tidal, navigable river. Qncddi/ River Boom Drivinrj Co. v=, Davidson, Supreme Ct. b«83, 10 Can. S. C. R. 222 (Case from New Brunswick). 4. Rights of Parties.— Where tlie proprie- tor of a Ixiom for the purpose of bis own bu- sine-^s extends it across a rjavigable river in the face of a previou'; protest from the nwnei- of logs up the river that he wouW require a clear passage in the spring to let his logs down, with the result that the delay of the logs in the boom caused tn plaiiilitt a large loss, the defendant will lie liable for such lo^s, but nil! be allowed to cnmpeu'ateajtainst it any benetil which plaintilf may have receiveil by the boom- ing of his logs on this case the c(jncentration of plaintiff's lugs in a pocket which facilitaled their construction into a raft). Tourrille v-, Bilclue, Q. 1!. l>s<), 31 L. C .1. 2(3 ami 312. BOBNAGE. .See BoiND.U!ii;s. BOUNDARIES. I. Action to Detkumini; Boi noariios. Co III prom iff. I. Comjnil.sioii. 2. Misdescription. 3. Notice of Motion to Iiomoloi/aic Re- port of Surci'i/or. 4. Production ol^ Titles. 5. Bl!)ht to. (^-9. Witness. 10. II. BOLNDAIilES. Agreement as to. 1. niazcd Trees. 2. Crown Lands. 3. Ditches. 4. Eridencc oj Acceptunrc. 5-6. Estoppel— Lease of Mining Right— Option of fjocatiiig. Ga. Fences. 1. How determined. De.'ds. 8-14. Fences and Ditches. 15. Posts. 16-17. (1) Act 3(! Vic, ell. .St, continued in favor of Clmrli'J McCatt'rey and tieoijie Ball by r*i-8G Vic. oli. 72 (Quo.). BOUNDARIES. 237 III IV V VI. VII. Prescription. 18-24. Surveyor's Line — Ti)\vnsliip Line. 2.j. Injuring or liemotimj. 2t>-2S. Landiunrks. 2!t. New lioundarij. ,30. J'o'cers of Court. ;il-;')l. I'liivers of Court to refer to Suroci/or. Tutor. :W. L'iKcriaiu Jiounils — Claim for Tree.i cul- — Eridcnci:. 4U. Co.sTs OF Action to Dktehmixk Boixd- .VBIK.-;. I-l'l. , N.ITIIIK OF ACTIO.V TO DKTliltMIXi: BoUXI(.\ltIES. .Si isvEvoii'.s DiTiE.s. 2-4. See also un- der title " Expert i.'^e." .Sfl! VKYOKS' UeI OIl'I ■; . Formnlities. 1-2. Ilomoloijation. '.). Where tu-o Survqioia (iji/ioinieJ. 4. WiiKN Neckssakv to r>ETi;i!MiNi:. l-]iicro. ,1/c /■'(/»/,«. C. 18('.4, 12 II. L. .VJ7. 2. Compulsion.— The defendant in an i!':lion to e:^tablisli a honnilary eannot he con- dciniifd til ccnijiid his nei.L'hl ir to enter itito Mich ])roeeeiiini»s with him. and i "iiclusinn.* to that ellecl will he luld bad mi demurrer. Fradtt \~. Lotn-eninc. S. (". !!-,").<, ,>-! L. C. R. •il-.t; U. .1. I{. Q. 214. (.See Art. ."i(l4 (". ("ode. i 3. Misdescription.— Where in an action ill lioiindary it i-- alleiied ihii' tlie defendant is a lU'ighhour on a certain side, the action will he maintained although it is proveil that the neighbour adjnins aiioihei- .side of plaintill's kiid. lluH'iinl \-<. Xti'le.aii. (}. B. 18TG. H R. l..;!21.' 4. Notice of Motion to homologate Eeport of Surveyor.— In an action in boundary if the defendant hag ajipeared, he is entitled to ijOtiee of uiotioii to have tjie ex- pert'.s report homologated, as well as of the Hifcourso l),v 1!. A, Kuinsay o. 'I'li^aties alToi'.tin(j ihit Imundaries ami llslieiii'S hI' > anailn, ^1.. N. at pp. S4 mill 91. motion to homologata the proci.i-verhal of the surveyor whc made the boundary. Black- burn V8. Blackburn, Q. B. 1885, 19 R. L. 481, 11 Q. L. R. 305. 5- Production of Titles. Art. 945 C. C. P.— The person bringing an action in boundary iiiu.st allege and jToduce his titlci?, as the fixing of liound-s is ordered in conform- ity with the rights and titles of the parties. Dufait.i- vp. Liimontaijne, S. C. 1893, 4 Que. 126. 6. Right to. Akt. 504 — An action in boundary cannot lie maintained if the lands of the jjlaintill and defendant are separated by a highway. Blanchet vs. Jobiniind I'/n^riauU vf. Lec'lerc, K. B. 1817, 1 Rev. de Leg. 354. 7. A mitciycn wall erected by agree- ment by two proprietors of ■•djoining lots of land is a bar to an action in bonmiary institut- ed by either of iheiii. Fortier vs. Rhinharf, K. 13. 1817, 1 Rev. de Leg. 354. 8- AnT. 504 C. C— If the deelarf.tion sliiiws that the estates of the plaintiff and de- fendant are noncontiguous, the action must be dismissed. Theriaull vs. Lcclerr, K. B. 1817, I R. de L. 354. 9. In order to bring .ind maintain an ai'tion in boundary, it is necessary to be ill posscssimi under claim of owner.ship, or at least nf civil possession of the Ijody of the prii)ierty foi' wiiich a boundary is soiiirht. L'n-ell y.McAinlrruu'ii. C. 18^7, 11 L.N. 3(12; ^fnull \f.lfor/, thence across the river to the east side, thence down the river far enough from the river to huild a fence to be safe, to a small spruce tree, spotted, and with a pile of stones, thence northwest 15 rotis to a spotted birch, thence about north-west 13 roiis to a spruce tree on the biiidc of the upper end of the mill-pond, thence cm siiid bank to the north end of the sai.l Jot, the said line to be established as a division line of said lot between tiie parties. Thai, therefore, either party is entitleil to demand the establishment of a boundary, and in case of its being refused by the other parly the costs of the suit, if suc- cessful, will be borne by the ]iarty refusing to bound. Libby vs. Wyiiian, Montreal, Q. B., March, 1875. 2. Blazed Trees.— A lino indicated by blazed trees will not be a sullicient reason for laying down the bou.idary line between the parties otherwise than in accordance with the title deetjs of the jiarties. Grciiicr vi<. Glroux, Que., Q. B., G Sept., 1877. 3. Crown Lands. It. S. Q. 41515, 4154, 4155. — Where there is a dispute as to the Iwundary line betw^een two lots granted by patents from the Crown, ami it has been found impossilile to identify the original line, but two certain points have been recorded in the Crown Lands Department, the jiroper course is to run a straight line between the two certain point-. Bell's Asbestos Co. vs. The Johnson Co., Supreme Ct. 1894, ;^'^ Can. >S. C. R. 225. 4. Ditchea.—Semble : Tiiat the owners of contiguous lands can accept a boumliiry ditch as a legal boundary. Nadeau vs. Cheval (lit St. Jacques, S. C. 1884, i;{ R. L. 321. 5. Evidence of Acceptance.— The ac- ceptance of division line between two pro- perties cannot be proved by parol test'-iiony. Nadeau vs. .S7. Jdcqiies, S. C. 1884, 13 R. L. 321. 6. — Unless there is a conwnenceinent of proof in writing. Daveluy vs. Vujncau, Q. B. 1890, IG Q. L. R. 2G1. ea. Estoppel.— Option of locating Boundai'y.— Lease of Mining Rights. — Where the parties from whom the appel- lants derived their title liad purchased certain mining lots described in the deed by superficies and by metes and boiuids " witli power to change the direction of the lines and boundarie- according to the course cf the quai'tz veins, but without e.xtending the superficies."— 7/e/f7,thiit if ajipellaiit's auteur.'i exercised their power to change the course of said lines and Ijoundario-, anil drew np a plan and placed boundaries, in con>equence the surveyor-experts ajipuinled by the Court t" define such lots must follow the lines so laid down. McArt/utr vs. Ihriipn. Q. B. 1887, i;! Q. L. R. 1G8. Atlirn.e.l bv S. Ct. 1888,17.S. C. R. 61. 7. Fences. — In an action in boundary, where it was proved that no trace of a pre- vious establishment of bounds remained, the land being only divided by a fence— //./i/, that the aci;ion w.is properly brought. Xi/- noitclte vs. Jdcksoii, Q. B. 1857, 7 L. C. It. j 3G2, 5 11. J. R. Q. 300. I 7a. The C. S. L. C, cap. 2il, see. :rj,art. s, with respect to boundaries b'''ween iieigbbnur- in country places and the rights and obliga- tions of such, is still in force. Malhun m^, rellmd, C. Ct. ls:7l,5 R. L. 27',t. 7b. Noiwithsiamling section 5.i of the Act incorporating the *own of Iberville (22 Vic., c. Gl), the inspector is not a judge as to the bounds between the road and the adjoining proprietors. There must be a formal li'iriitir/i . Ex parte Lanier, (i R. L. .'!."iO. 7c. Where part of a property is sold uiuici- condition that the ]iurchaser shall niiiintain the line fence between the property sold and the neighbouring property, the maintenance of which was formerly wholly at the charge of the vendor, does not entitle the owner of the neighbouring property, whose position is not changed, to call upon the vendor to maintain one half of the remainder of the fence dividin;; their properties. llandfield vs. liicnvenu. S. C. 1880, 17 R. L. 5G0. 7d. A road not fenced at either .side and closed at each end liy gates, is not a public road, and the as an interested party. Jioitlit vs. Bourdoiii, S. C. 1882, 12 U. L. "l2l. 11. R. S(dd to I., the res|)ondent, in 1857, lot 104 of the 8lh ccnicessim of the parish of iSte. Brigitte, district of Iberville, as " containing .'5 ariients of fro.itage, by SO ar- pents in de|)th, moie or less, bounded in front by the 7th concession, in rear liy the lands of tbc9lh concession, on one side by the bind of W.McG.,and on tlie other side by M. D." McG,, the apjKdlant's autiior, bought from S., in 1854, the lots, numbered 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, in the same concession. In 1877, after 20 yeiirs of peaceful jiossession by defendant, he brouglit a petitory action, ard Irter, an action in boundary, claiming the respondent's lot, alleging it was his own lot (103). The Superior Court of Iberville held that the Kit possessed by L. was 103. 'J'he Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that Ij. was in possession of 104, and even if lot jiossessed by him was wrongly described as lot 104, it was the lot intended to be sold, and sold by the deed of 18th March, 1857, \inder an accurate description by metis and bounds, and that L. ac(|nired the same in good faith under a trans- latory title, and had before the commencement of the action an ellective possession thereof during ten years. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was coiifirmed by the Privy Council — Jleld, that the lot conveyed to the respon- dent was specifically described, not with reference to numbers, but with reference to the actual state iind position of tlie surround- ing lots. Dunn vs. Lareaii, P. C 1888, 32 I.. C.J. 227. 12. The respondent's possession, which was in in'rfect good faith, must be as- cribed to his title, and the lapse of ten years bad perfected his right in competition with the appellant (2251 C. C). (Ih.) \2a. — - Where establishment of bonndarii- shows an excels uf land over and ai,ove the (|i.antitii s allotted to the ]iarties according to their titles, the party who is in legal possession of the surplus should be con- flrnied in his possession thereof according to the maxim in pari cansd tmiior est can.fa pnsf^identis. Murcoux vs. lii'lanijey, S. C. 1884, 5 Que. 538. 13. Where an estate is described in a deed as having an api)roximate extent, but as bei'g contained witliiu juecise and clearly defined limits the e.xtentof the estate must be determined according to such limits. Tc- iraxilt V.S. Paqiiette, S. C. 1891, 21 R. L. t)2. 14. In the absence of title derived from the common profirietor of the now separated lands, the boundary will be as- certained from the possession of the parties, and it is for the party who claims a boundary other than that indicated by the jiossession, to establish his right by suflicient titles. {Ih.) 15. Fences and Ditches— An ac- tion in boumlary, where the plaintill's title showed a deficiency in superficies and the defendant's title showed a uiiifiu'iii width throughout the wliole depth of his property, and where line fences and ditches were proved to have e.visted, to a certain extent, between the two propertiee, — the division line shotihi n» i 240 BOUNDARIES. I ! be run in the direction of tiie said fences and ditches, Imt fo as in any case to give tiie de- fendant his full breadtli and depth, according to iiis title. Lambert vf. Berlrami, S. C. 1858, 3 L.C.J. 115. 16. Posts.— On the contestation of an opposition of the apj)eliant,as representing the estate McTavisii, and the re.spondent, as re- presenting the (jorj)onit'on of Portuguese Jews of Montreal, from \vhoni the land had been purchased some time jireviously to be used as a cemetery — Held, confirming the jiKlgment of the oourt below, that, as there were no fences, the posts were still available as land- marks, and the f.ict of the fences having ilis- appear ' gave the appellant no title to the j)roperty. Taylor vs. Buchanan, Q. B. 1865, 1 L.C. L.J.58. 17. i'lie placing by a surveyor of two landmarks with proccs rerbal,on a line to indicate ils direction, indicates permanently the boundary line dividing the jirojierties, and this not only for the part wliere the land- marks ore placed, but for the whole extent of the contiguous pro])erties, and, unless a con- trary po-session is proved, the possession of the land from landmark to landmark implies the possessifin of the whole length of the lot, uikI this possession will ser\e as a basis for prescription. Cuvniicr vs. Le.hlunc, (). 1!. 1888, 14Q. L. U. 247, IC R.I.. 288. 18. Prescription.— In an action iti boundary the defendant may claim and prove title by prescription and possession apart - from that conferred by his title, but he cannot claim as against his title deed. T/ieri'aulf vs. Lrclcrr, K.B. 1S20, 1 Rev. de Leg. 354. 19. Evidence of an existing boundary, witlMjiit further testimony, affords no proof of title of any description. Thlbault vs. Eancourl, K. B. 1820, 1 Rev. de Ijeg.354. 20. Boundaries will be establish- ed according to the existing fences where tbev \ have existed for a period sutHcient to acquire by prescription the land on which they are constructed. Rivard vs. Fdbriqite de Ste. ' Jeanne de Vhantel, Q. B. 18G8, i R. L. 713. 21. By law, a peaceable posses- sion, as proprietor, for thirty years, prevails over the limits indicated by title, or by mea- surement, and also over posts or boundary j marks lietween lots and other tracts of land, I and confers ownership of the land .so possessed i upon the possessor. Cosi/rore vs. Mar/urn, I Q.B. ISG8, lOL.N. 162. " ' I 22. In an action to establish a boundary, the existence of a fence between the two properties for upwards of 30 years before action brought, entitles the defendant to claim such fence as the legal boundary or division ; line between the propertie.s. And although such 1 fence be .so constructed as to form an irrecular I encroachment on the plaintifTs land tothe deirth ' of about 7 feet by about 48 feet onlv in loni'th j along a portion of the line of division between j the properties, and although the title deed of ■■ the defendant and the title deeds of all his I predecessors show the line of division between I the propertie.-i to be a siraii/hf line throutihont ils entire hnijt/i, and are silent as to the ej;- I croacltmcnt, and, although defendant's posises- 1 sion only dates back a little over 1 years, he nevertheless can avail himself of the possession uj) to the fence, of all those from whom he derives title to the property described in the deeds. .\nd verbal evidence, to the effect that the fence bad been upwards of 30 years in the same line as it was at the time of the .action, is I sufiicieiit, although it be proved that such fence i was rntirclij distrayeil hij firv, and rnnainnl.io destroyeil Jor upwards of a i/ear, and none of the witnesses testify to having seen a vesti.re : of the eld fence after the lire, or to having been present when tiie new fence was made. (I) /■Ji/laui/U vs. The S<,ricty „J Ih, Montreal General Hospital, Q. B. ]8ri8, 12 L. C J :!9 4L. C.L.J. 61. 23. In an action en hornnije, where a division fence is [iroved to have ex- isted for upwards of 30 years Ijetween the contiguous properties, and one of the parties has enjoyed his possession " franciiement, liubli()uement et sans equitation" for that period, such party is entitled to demand that the boundary be drawn according to this line. (1) Patenande vs. Charron, S. C. 1870, 17 L. C. J. 85, 2 1{. L. 624. 24. Contra. (1) CareetMari/uil- Iters de IHlc Pcrrot\'s>. rirard,S. C, 9 L.C..I. 99 (40 years) ; Maejarlane vs. Thayer, S. C. 1858, 2 L. C.J. 204 (10 years); Deroi/eau vs. Watsnn, Q.B. 1857. 1 L.C. J. 137 (2o'yeais). 25. Surveyor's Line — Town- ship Line.— The plaintiff's title gave him a lot of land in the township of Uirtoii and the defendant's title gave him one in the contiguous township of Grantham. Both titles were posterior to the verification of tin township line by a government surveyor and to a statute confirming the line surveyed and (1) See Art. 2212 C. C. coinini nmii land by sn tween Aufiiii, 29. 57.-J deterin lioiiriiii liuv wi the coi 1384, 30. lias air pense i signed demanc has not dean vt S.C. ,30 31. judgmc placing Jiartics, the repi BOUNDARIES. 241 niarked oul by him, and in each title tlie rear bonmliiry (.where the lots adjoined) was stated to bo tlie township line, held, that in tlie abscnci- of any right acquired by either of the parties liy prescription beyond the township j liiip, that line must he their boundary without i rej.'.'iid t'> iiieawurenicnt given in the titles. Dugunn vs. Vincent, Q. B. 1S93, 2 Que. 407. I 26. Injuring or removing Bound aries. CitiM. Coui:, Art. r>05.—" Every one 1 is "inlly of an intlictal)le otroiice and liable to i seven voars' imprisonment, who wilfully pulls I down, ilefiices, alters or removes any mound, land mark, post or inonument lawfully orect- t'J, iiliiiitcd or placed to mark or determine the boiitidiiries of any province, county, ciiy, town, towiHliij), pari'h or other mnnicipiil division." 27. Am'. 50b. — " Eveiy one is guilty of iui imlictable oll'onco and liable to five years' ini|iri-oniMrnl, who »•/(/'((//(/ defaces, alters or rcMUivcs any mound, landmark, jiost or inDniunriit hiwfiilhj placed by any land siir- vcvor to mark any li?iiit, boundary or angle of any concession, lange, bit or ]iai'cel of land." (2) '-It is not an oilence for any land surveyor ii, bis (ijierations to take up such posts or .itber bnundary marks, when !ifce».-savy, if he carefully replaces them, as tbey were before." 28. The misdemeanor mentioned in sci-tiiiii 107 of Chap. 77 ofC. .S. C. can oidy bt coniinilti'd in relation to bonndaries or land- nmiks which have been legally placed by a land s\irveyor with all the formalities reipiired bv said statute, to mark the limit or line be- tween two ad.ioining lots of land. lien. \s. Ji/.s'^,Vi, Q. B. 1885, 11 Q. L. li. 70. 29. Landmarks. 15 Vic, Cii. 10, Skc. ;"i7. — The hinilmarks recognizoil by law as determining the botmdaries between neigh- bouring properties must be of stone, and the law will recognize no ntbers fur landmarks in tlio country. Nadcau vs. St. Jacqtie.i, S. C. 1384, i;{ R.L. :i2l. 30. New Boundary. — Where a jiroperty lias already been bounded at the common ex- pense and by consent of the parties who have signed the proccs-vcrbal, one of them cannot demand a new bounding so long as the first has not been set aside for insutbciency. Ka- deati vs. St. Jacques, C. R. 1884, M. L. R., 1 S.C. ;i02, 1.3 R. 1.. 322. 31. Powers of Court. — An interlocutory judgiricnt is irregular where it orders the placing of bounds between the properties of the parties, where they have not been heard upon the report of the stirveyor's preliminary oper- ations, and where it does not indicate where the hounds shoidd be jilaced. Brown vs. Perkins, Q. B. 1880, 6 Q. R. 1.. 143, 10 R. L. 428. 32. The proceedings of a purveyor in obedience to such a judgment cannot be ren- dered valid even by the stibsequent homologa- tion of the proccs-vcrhal of survey. ( lb.) 33. The court cannot order the placing of bounds where the judgment does not designate the division line whereun the bounds are to be placed. Loiselle vs. Paradis, Q. B. 1881,1 Dorioirs Rep. 204; Desvoyeaux \s. Tart,', Q.B. IBOO. I'.t R. L. 407. 34. In such ca~e the Court in appeal will order a new survey and the production of extracts from the (ini(!iiil i>lans and books of reference and (ither titles such as extracts from the books of the registration office con- cerning the land-i in (piestion whereon to base the new boundary, and this although there were two previous surveys. Lnlselle v!^. Pa- radi.s; (J. B. 1881, 1 Dorion's Rep. 204. 35. To refer to Surveyor. 942 C. C. P. — In an action in boundary v.here the court cannot correctly know the limits of the land of plaintiff and defendant, according to their titles and po-session from the evidence of record, it may order a ]dan to be made by a surveyor, showing the pretensions of the parties, ^foineaa vs. Cnrhcillr, S.C. 1870, 14 LCI. 2.3G. 36. —^ The appointment of a surveyor to visit the premises and indicate the line of separation between the parties, is a pre- liminary operation tliat mu't jirecede the placing of bounds. Brown v.-. I'erkins, Q. B. 1880, i; Q. L. 11. 143. 37. In an action in boundary the court ordered a surveyor to visit the [dace to es- tablish whether, as pretended by defendant, a ])ublic liighway intervened between his land and that of plaintiff, and if not, to make a re- port of the state of the jireiuises to the court. Leave to appeal was applied for on the ground that the court had no right to refer the case to a surveyor, for that was to delegate its authority, anrovinco of Ontario. Skeiid vs. McDunnclI, y. 15. 1872, .•{ li C. 42. 39. Tutor. — A tutor cannot consent to an amii'able e.italilishmcnt of bonndaiies, and in an action in boundary a>;ainst a tutor, tlie costs both of the action and the bounding will be ilivided evenly between liie jiarlics. Parent vs. Fareni, Q.k lys;), 21 R. h. 21-1. 40. Uncertam Bounds— Claim for Trees cut— Evidence— U' lure jiersons are (riMijiyiiig lands which have never been marked ull by a rigular survey, and one ol them, instead of bringing an .iction in bo\iiid- aiT to settle the limits of his iiriiperly, sues u neighljor tor the value of trees alk^ed to liave lieen cut by him upcui plainliM's land, it is incumbent on the pluintilf to nudve it clear by positive trslimouy tlial tlu' trees were in fact cut upon his land; and if, upon the le- jiorts of surveyors, uncertainly exi>ts as to the limits of the respective |»r,^iperties, the doubt must be interpreted against the ]ilaintitf. In the present case, monover, the weight of evidence was in favor (j| the defendant. MilU- ken. vs. Bonn/el, Q. B. l^r^'.i, .M. L, 1!., .'. '.^B. :100 and .s'ee/)i//(i No. V'll. 111. COSTS OF ACTIO.V. 1. In an action in boundary when defendant pleads thai he has been always ready lo bound, and prays acie of bis willingness so to do, but also prays that plaint ij}' a action may tie tlis- 7)iinscd ivit/i fivstn, delendaiit luu-t pay the costB of the suit, altliough the costs of the bounding are divided. Van/tercutl vs. I'rivc, S. C. 1857, 1 L.C.J. 2S;i. 2. VVlien defendant pleads his willinirness to bound, and prays rd'/c thereof, and the action has bei II brought without previous notification, the jilaintill will be condemned to jiay th(.' cofts of his action. Slack vs. S/iort, Q. B. 1857, 2 L, C. J.Kl. (Judges in appeal evenly divided in opinion.) 3. Where the defendant prays for the dig- missal of the aetion on otFering to re-establish the old boundaries, he will be condemned in costs. Thibaiilt vs. Larallie, S. C. 1874, 6 R. L. 80. 4. In an action in boundary if the defiii Innt deny the plaiiitilt's right of action, he must he condemned to ])ay costs. WeijmenK vs. Coo/,-, Q. B. 18,V2, 2 L. C. R. 48G, SR. J. H. Q. :;29 ; Orenier vs. Girnu.r, Que., 8Sept.,lH77, (.>.ll, ; Boujfard vs. iXaileaii, Q. H. 187C, S R L. :',•>[ ; Libhi/ vs. Wijmitn, Montreal, March, 1~-T,'i, Q. B. 5. Where an action in boundary is bioii^'lu without previous demand with a claim for lo the boundary between their properties, and that in the interests of both it was neies>ary that one of them should take an aclioii in boundary, the costs of such action slioiiM In' considered as made in ilio interest of holli parlies, and lie eijually divitied bilwecii (hem. (1) Tliis is nbiler ilirlnm as to oosts in Supi rior Court lis jiiilgnieiiti on tlieni was reserved. See re- marks of casault, J., in Jtilani/ir vs. (iiniii.r, 9 Q. Ii. K. at p. 'ii>". BOUNDAKIES. 243 Cnrmi,r vs. Lchlaiu; Q. B. 1888, U Q. 11. L. 247, 10 It. L. 288. 11 .Villi ill Miicli acliiiM when the lU'femlaiif (ioiiit- all llie iillcj^iitiims of iilaiiitilT's ileclara- tioii.ainl tlie plaiiitiU'diMiicM all the allegations ot'dclViiilaiit's picas, anil llio court orders pro- CPi'din;;- tenilini; to tlie e-sialilislmienl of a lioiiiiduiT, each pariy must pay his owii cost-'. Pnlni'iH'li \^. C/i'irrail, S.C. 187(1, I7L. C.J-. 8.'i. 12. Wiierc an aclion in boundary is brought on iii-nlli.'ient ;;round.s, the piaiiitill' will Se condcnini-d to pay all the costs of the action, but llic costs (iC the fixini^of the honndary will lip ti|ualiy divided lictwecn the parlies. (1) X,i,l.,i,i vs. Ch, nil ,lit SI. Jacijiic.t, V. R. 1S,^4, llili.L. at pp. :!2i)-;!;!'2 ami M. L. R., 1 S.C. ;i(i2 ; ( 'ns./roru vs. .Wti/iirii, S. C. ISSO, 10 I.. N. li'iL' . (The hitler case rel'onned in Review, each ji;irlv liciiiir declared lialile for the cosis in •Siiiieiiur Cimrt : deleiidant liable tor costs in Ki'view. See K; R. L. at p. 2'.»1 note.) 1:3. I'l l-r .\.rt. jill (V C.,not only the cusls uf .-^ellliii-' hoiiiidili'lcs -should lie loiniieni to lliP p-irlic-, bill als ) the cosH of the .siiil when ills in! ciin!e-icd. Only in c.i-e uf contesla- ticii iiic Ihc c(,-i< (.f the suit in the di-cietioii of tlaiMuri. Dr^n,,/,!,!..: vs. 7',//7r, Q. It, 1S!I0, .M. I,. 1!., t; Q. 1!. 177, !'.» R. L. Ia7. 1<1. While li.e phiiMdl' ill an iu;li(>ii in boundaiy lia-^e'^ hi- aclioii on exatr'-'craled eliiilii- a~ lo I he e,\ I cut of land, he in list pay the cii-t> i.r cuiiie-tatioii ir the defendant, whose plea- a., uiaiiila iied, diadares his willingness 111 liaM' a lionndary lixed in accordance with the title deed nf both parties, iind usk-s the ili>ini>sal of the action as to the sii^'plns. rrlniiillv^. I'wjiicllc ihl Li(ViiUt'e,S.C.lS'n, 21 i; 1.. (12. IV. NATUR1-; OF. (2) A demand lor a legal e.stablisliincnt of boiin- ihirics is the deniaii I for an expculi(.iii of the ehliuMtiiin resnliing from the legal servitndcof boundary, and d les not give rise to an action in warranty. Bunliii/ \ s, ]'ii/ii(in(, Q. B. 1811(1, lfiQ.i.."R. 2(;i. The establishment of boundaries i:^ merely the delimitation of iidjoiiiing properties, and the app ireiil bonn'arv between .such pro]ierties |l) fill appeilt totlii^ (). H. on qnt'Stiim of posts, tlie 'oun wliilc lielievliig tiiat tlio jiiilgment of tho Ct. of lit^v. wim eriiiiiL'oiis in tliis ri'Siiect, yet- rBliise'l to alliuv tim ajipeal, as .xiieli matters «re iliBoretionary tt-ltlitlie,iuil!,'i'bolo\v, 15 15. I... '232. (■J) See also 2 Themis, p. 108, 0'//trtr vs. I.ulaUh-, Loiaugei , J. wliere changed by a legal establishment of boundaries fubseijiient to the sale thereof, cannotgive ri.se to an action of d-.-najie^ except where such boundary has been guaranteed n,n to its correctness, or where there has been a guarantee as to the contents uf the immoveable sold. (III.) V. SUilVi:Y()R-S Dl'TIK.S. (See al.'o under title " E.ki'krti.sk."') 1. Til a proci'.-i-rciii((l n( .survey in a city, it is not necessary lo iiieiitinii the true magnelic course iif til? lines laid out by the .-iirveyor, and the day, the hour and place where the in-triinieiit'^i deviation "as last determined by him. Ei-'i,i.-< V--. /../;;)/-, (,). B. 1881), b-^ R. L. 2. A survey. ir in layiiii^duwn the lionndary line belw een pr.i|ic!tie- in an action in b(jniidai'y should proceed wiih the consent uf the parties, and oli~erve the tui'iiKiiitie.^ reipiireil by iaw, where the Jndgiiienl omiis to deliiie where the boundary .^^iiould be laid and where there has lieen no pieumis lepurt deterinining where sncli boiind-'.i'y si o ihl be made. Jirnwii vs. I\rh-iii.-.;(lli. IS,>^0, 10 R.L. 427. 3. -V .-nr\cyiii- ii|ipi.iiited by ilie court before the bnuiiilary line is settled is only an expert whose oliii e ii is to report on the locality and indicate wdiere, in bis oi.iinioii, the boundary line should be drawn, l\ir the guidance of the (■oiirt ill settling the boimdarie-. iJesroynx v.s. T'h-I-, (I B. isyo, (1 M.L. R. 177. 4. .\. surveyor appoint(>d by the Court to carry out the definite instructions contained in the judgment is not bound to be >worn anew, but may jiroceed under his oath of office. Forfsl vs. J[,:alh>i:-i, S. C. l-^si ,111!. L. 7. 5. Notice. — Return of service of surveyor's notice to the parties, .stating that the service was made between one and four o'clock of the afternoon, is siillicient, and .siilliciently deg- crihes the hour of service Forisl vs. Heather, 11 R. L. 7. VI. SURVEYOR'S RI'Jl'ORTS. 1. Formalities.— 1 1 is not necea.-ary tli.-it the surveyor should state in his report that the parties to the action have signed it, or have been requested to do so. Bonff'iird ts. A''/- (/e«u, Q.B. 187(i, 8 R. L. 321. 2. The oniission to atlix to the report of a surveyor appointed to deterniiae the boundary of ai)joinin}» estates the docu- ments produced by the parties to an action in fii'; f ji'' :■!"■■■ r;f;is'*^ . 244 BOUNDAEIES. partition, is nota cnnae of nullity, anil the hut- veyor can be oniered to 8upj)ly the omiHsion, or the parties themselves can file the docu- ments with the record. Siicli reports are not definitive, and either of tiie partiei can con- tinue the cnquilc tlicreiiflcr. Pucaw/ vp. Fahriqve SI. Euslbe dc Stnnfohl, Q. If. IHB", 16 R. L. 104. 3. Homologation.— A motion denumding LonioloKatioii of a surveyor's report in iiii action in boundary, ns ueil as llic motion demanding homologalion of liie proclx-verlal, eliould be notilieil to tlie (jjipo-iti' party witliin the ordinary delay, even where tiic ojjportito party lias not jileadeii to tlie action. lUarkhiini vs. BJackburn, Q. B. 1888, 11 Q. L. K. 305. 4. Objection to the a))pointment of a surveyor is made too late wlien his report 'm* being homologated. Fori. it vs. Ikalhn-s, S. C. 1881, 11 11. Ij. '■ 6. Where two Surveyors appointed. — Where, in an 'iction in boundary, two sur- veyors are named experts to maUe a plan of the properties of the disputants and describe their respective claims, one of sncii surveyors can, in addition to liis joint report made with tlie other surveyor, make a special report, and Buch special report will not be rejected as irregular, because it contains information necessary for the guidance of the court in determining the position of the division line between the properties. Cormier vs. Lcblanc, Q. 15. 188H. 14 Q. L. R. 247, IG R. L- 28S. VII. WHEN NECESSARY TO DETERMINE. 1. Encroachment.— Hiid, that neighbor- ing proprietors between wiiom no boun lary has ever been (i.xed are not entitled the one to bring a petitory action iiv'.'iinst the other, under jjrete.xt that there has been cncroiieliment, without first taking measures to estaiilish the boundary between their rc^jieetive jirojiorlies. Harbour Cotnwi.^.-^ioncr.f nf Montreal \s. Hill, 8. C. 1861 , r. L. C. J. l.'.'j ; R<,l,ert!ton vs. Stwirt, 13L.C. R. 462. 2. A petitory action will not lie for an al'.eged eneroachment in thi' erection of a dwelling, shed and fence, on the line of di\i- sion between the plaintiff's and defendant's lots, acquired by them from a common auleur, when such erection has been etfected with the knowledge and consent of the party complain- ing, and specially eo in the absence of any legal establishment of the boundaries of the respective properties. Martin vs. Joiick, C. R. 1869, 15 L.C.J. 6. 3. Where A sells to U " half an acre " of a lot owned by him, without having the piece sold surveyel or divided ofl' by propi p metes and bounds, tiid B takes possession of more land than A con^iiders him ''itiiled to, A cannot sueB by a petitoiy action for the recov- ery of the allegeil encroachment, but should have recourse to an action in bonndarv, Graliam vs. KempJey, C. R. 1871, 16 L. C. J, 56, :i R. L. 440. 4. An action for cutting wood on tlie limits of contiguous lands cannot lie main- tained if there has been no legal establishment of the boundaries of the projierlies. Verroncan vs. Pcrnj, S. C. 1872, 28 L. C.J. 25;t; Four- nier vs. Lnvoie, C. R. 1871, 15 L. C. J. 270. 5. In an action for cncroMchmcnt on a lot of land, by building beyond the line of division between it and the adjoinitiL', lot, where the encroachment is clearly jiroved, judgment may be rendered accordingly with- out the necessity of a legal establishment of boundaries. Levesque vs. McCrraiJi/, t}. li. 1876,21 L.C.J. 70. 6. A jtroprietor cannot bring a petitory action against his neighbor without putting him in defatilt to contest Iiis riglits of owner- shiji. And as it is a f Con trarliii-s. 1 0- 1 2 . WIki (trr linildcis. 1.!. IV. l'l;lVll,K(iK OK. CoiiiUrt lirlwiii, liaiUriir ,/,; Fiiinlsiiii'/ Huihhr. 1. N(i/iir(' iif. 2. I'fvsi'ri'iifioii iij'. ,'!-,y, \'. Kiiiins OK. l-.'l. See also AuciiiTKcr. '■ COXTUACTOIIS. I. .\(:('i;i>TAN'CH OF WORK. Whcic II conlrartor lias iinilcrlalicn to ooin- [ilflca l.nildiM'.' (luring the sunimer, Imt is only na.iy to deliver it in the month cf Xo- veniher, ami the architect, owin;; to tlie ad- viuieed i)eriodof the sea.soii, declines to aecept the work until the spring,', the owner is entitled to retain a sum sudicient to ^'uarantee him HL-anist loss, and if, in the si)rin^', the work staiuU in need of repairs, the owner, after pnttiii;; the contractor in default, may cause (1) See nil Ai-t to iircvent briliery anil corruiition in luuniciinil and civic coriM)r«tion.>i, 58 Vic , can 4'' (yue.). ' (i) SCO an Act re.specting the protection of coloiii- zatiuii anil ntlu^r liridKes. reiating pupecially to tlip driviii|?of tim'jer down streams. Stat. Que. 1890,63 \ ii'.i cli. 37. Hucli repairs to lie made, and deduct the ccst from the .sum so retained hy him. Boismeivi vs. Fiibriquc lie St, Uuiin/mulr, S. C. 188^, M.L.K., IS. C. 80. ir. KXTUA WORK— l(;:iOC. ('. 1. Where a pi'opriefor, sued hv a builder for the value of extra works lieyond those meiiiioiipd in the eontract and speciticrtlioiis, viiluiiliifHij adniitv on oath, when rxaiiiincd as a witness, certain items of sueii extra works for which no authority in writin;; had been j^ranled by or with the sanction of the proprietor (as reipiired by Art. lO'JH of the Civil Code), the value of siicii ilenis so admitted may be recovered in the suit. IWkltniii \ s. Funne.r, Q. li. 1^78, 22 L. C. J. 2i;i, 1 J.. N. 116. Ue- versini,' .^. C , 21 L. C. .f. 1(U, 7 U. L. (ii.'!. 2. Sub Contractor.— Article KiiMj c. C, whirh reijuires an aul liori/.ation in writiiiL' til estalilish a claim arisiii;: fruni any cliansie in plan or incrrase in iiliir and materials, applies only between llie proprietor and liis architect or contractor, and not lietweeu a contractoi- and hi- sub contrai.'tor. Rolieif vs. Cli.iilnuiil, S. C. l-iU:i. ;i Que. li.'l'J. 3. A ciiiitract \'"V the constrinlinn of a biiildiiji: which stipulates ilu't the work is to bedone according to " plans and s pec ilicat ions and til such descriptions and details as may be siibnntled to the contractors liy the archi- tect in the course of the works"' constitutes a contract at a lixe.l )ii-;ce and fails within Art. 101)0 C. C. Bni-yidnu vs. M^inrHI,, S. C. 18!):!, I Qui'. :!((). 1I[. JUIi.DHR-LIABiiJTY Or. (.Seeal-o under title '■ A iicillTKir.") 1. After Work accepted— In an action hv a conlrai'tor for money due iindi-r a con- tract — Ildd, on the (ilea of the defendant that the work bad been badly done, ami contirm- inj; tlie,iuilf;-nicnt of the court below, that, after the acce|itance of the work, lbe> could iml (•oniplain of defects therein which did not re- sult from defects of the^^round, unless there be fraud or deceptiun. Murrisnii vs. Dii- r/iarmc. <,>. iJ. ISG.J, ID L. C. it. ti.J and 1 L. C. L. .]. :,:>. 2. Exemption from.— A contract. ir may by his conti'act slipulale lliat he shall iiol be , liable for the plan of works he is to execute. Sf. I'africl;'.^ Jlntl Assorialidii vs. (iillnri, i^ ! H. 1878, 1 L. N. 110, 21! L. C. J. 1,'.' " L. G12, 3. Defective Wall.— Where ti hcuse wa.- . badlv built si:i that one side of it iiivi to 1><^ \ Mt If' "' the value of the lund as determined by ilir '//"■(•'■'-■■ Ihnili-e vs. Grei'ii, S. C. 1^01, ,^ I,. ('..!. 1.12. 2. Nature of. — A builder who has ob- ii'rved the fornnilities required by Art. 2013 C. C. Ills u pri\ ihj^f only upon the additional valui- given lo the immoveable by the works pirfornu'd by him ; he has no privilejre or hvpothec upon the whole immoveable. (2) Corpuriitioii du Si'uiinairc df SI. Ilyacinthc d'Yumm^kii vs. Ln Jimi'iue de St. Hj/acini/ie, Q. B. l^^So, 2'.i L. U.J. 201. 3. Preservation of. — Privile<;e cannot be prt>>erved otherwise liian by strict compliance with liie formalities of sections ;)1 and ,'i2 of the Itli Vic, ch. ;!(). Clapiii vs. Xtat'iiient. Roherl V". liieutord, Montreal, May 2i;,Q. B. lss;{. 5. Experts. — It is not necessary for an exjjeri ii|. pointed under Article 20i;i_C. C. lo -iTiire a builder's privilei'e on an immovefcble to ;;i\e notices of his j)roceedinga to the pro- pricior's creditors, .-iicii proceed in ji;s not being reL'iilated by Arts. :i:2 ef .wj.il. C. P.(l) Z^it- fn.ine vs. Prifi >taiiie and Vallie. vs. I'rt. ". III. LOTTERIKP. IV. PoWKIlS OK. Tobornno Monoj. 1. To discount Xdlfs—Eni/ngiiig in BanJcinij. 2. To liijpothecdtc Uciil Estate us Se- curity for Adcuncfs. W. To make Bills and Notes. 4. J'o [mrrhusr Jmmovealdes. 5-7. v. RiiiiiTS or. Loans — Treatment of Hijimllici: 1 . Loans — I'ririlegc. 2. VI. RifiiiTS OF Mkmbkiis— Mandamus. 1-2. VII. Rri.ES— IlUiKC.lI.AlUTY. ]-'!. VIII. SnARES. Con fiscu linn. 1-4. Held by Minors — Conjiscution. .">. Transfer— liijhts of Creditors — Insolvent— Pledge. 6. IX. SnAHEHOI.DKRS. X. Seccrity for Ai'i'itontiATioNS. See alHo Company and Coupokation Law. BYLAWS— MEETINGS— ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. (1) 1. The right to suniinon .'i society organized under the 12 Vict., ch. 57, 1 1 iimi 15 Vii't., cli. 23, nnd 18 Vic, oii. IKi, is in tiie Pri'sideiit or Secretary. (1) Jodoin vs. Dubois, S. C. 1859, 3 L.C.J. 325. 2. The requisition fm- inoeting of building societies ouglit to be iiddresscd to tiie presi- dent and directors, and ought also to intlieatc specially the object of the meeting. (I) (lb.) 3. The 1st section uf the IS Vic, ch. IKi. has not abrogated tlie (lis|Kisitioiis contained in the 7th section of lUv 12th Vic.,cli. 67. [lb.) 4. The by-laws of a building society ought to be snregistered, as required by the 5th sec- tion of 12 Vic, ch. 57 ; the election of direc- tors ought to be made singly and not collect- ively ; and the president ought to presiile at all meetings, and all by-laws ought to be pas.sed and amended under his presidency. (lb.) (1) Sse "An Act to amend the law respecting Build- ing Societies," 52 Vic. (Que.), cli. 45, amending Art. 6430B.S.Q. II. LIQUIDATION. (1) 1. Action to annul Sale in Liqui I dation— Interest in.— In an action to ».ot aside a sale of the assets of a iJcfunct liuiMing soi'iety, the plaintill' was siiown only to own four shares wiiich stood in the name of another who had jmrchascd iiu'n\ aftrr tin; society iiad gone into li(iui iation and after it was in fact wound up. Ifeld, to have nn ,n- terest to bring the acfioi . Brldngrr vs Can- ' tliier.S. C. 1SS2, 5 L. N. 171. ' 2. Assessment. -Pleading want of Account. — A member of a building ^orjiiv sut'd for tlie recovery of ati assessment ri'.|uir(d to li(|uidate the atTairs of the Society, laiiinit |)leQd tliat no account has been rendend Inm anil that he has not been otlered any explana- tion why the !iqui'i,./<7i' , de CnnstrurJion Mulnd des .irtismi-f \ >. Lr- febrre,ii. C 18-:hasrl from the (luteitr of the appellants certain immoveable |iroperly situate! in .Monlreal for »!2,20(\. and the same dav leasr i ii fir twelve years to the vendors for f4,.'ir)l).>0,payaMi> in l.j4 |)iivments. This lease lii'inL' transferri'j to appellants they souL'ht to have it set aside on the jrround that the liuildiui: '-.le.i'ly had im rijiht to pureh;"^e the jirf ('. S. L. C, cap. 69, sec. 10. tl.at the purclia-i' wa- .piite within the powers of the society un i jndirment cnnlirined. Jj(irr-i(i vs. L(i Sucirlr r-'fiiiiiiii'iili ill' Conylruction .hi<'^iii.-< CarU'r. Q. B. issl, 1- ];. N. MX 0. Dominion Incorporation —.1 budilimr society iiieoipurated under tlie Dom- ini'ii Statute, I!" \"\c.. which cnnleis (i?i sni'h socii ty |iowcr ti> buy, sell ..r hold real estate in tiie d.tlcfcnt !':'i\ inccs of Canada, is never- theless subject to the liiw~ of the I'rovui 'c of (Quebec as ; 'irar.i- I'u' holdinjj; of real estate in the l*''(jvincc of tjuebec, and particularly to the provisions of Arts. 864, 116.') and StKi ('. C. In the pres<'nt case the society iilaintid" had no powci to acquire, liold or sell real estate in the I'l'ovini'f' of Quebec, i.'nopcr vs. Mclnloc, Q. B. iJ-s;. Wl I.. ('. ,1. 210, .M. L. H,, T Q. B. 4SI. Chap. (IK C. .S. L. C— La Cie. de \ .. a liuilditij^ society incorpornted under ch. ii9 Con. Slat. L. ('., by its bydaws on the 21s| .August declared that the principal object of the pociety wa.i to piirchase buildiiii; lots, and to build on such lots cottages cost- ini; about $1,000 each for every one of its luemliers. In order to attain its object, the company, through its directors, obeying the m. Ptnictiotis of the slui.eliolders, oii the Tih October, 1874, purclui'^ed the particular lots describeii in the by-laws, and contracted for th« building of twenty -four cottages at $l,2r>0 uioh, the amount that each of the shareholders bal agreed to pay. A year elapsetl, during which the collages were luiilt and drawn by lot for distribution among the members. Un the 11th October, 1S75, the vendors of the lots and con- tractors for the building of the cottages bor- rowed money from the Dominion Budiiiu.' Society, and transferred to tlie .same as colla- teral security the money due them by the appellants, in virtue of the deed (pf purchase and builijing coi'lract. The ajipelUnt com- pany .accepted the transfer and paid some monies on account, and finally aileed of settle- ment was execute I between tiic two companies, upon which was based the suit by II., then's- jioinleiit, as assignee of the Doininion Mortgage Loan Company (which ntime was snbstUnteJ for that of " Ihe Dominion Building Society," by 40 Vic, cb. 80, D.), against the appellants. The ipH'siion argued on the appeal was whe- ther the purchase of the lots anil contract for building entered into |py the diiectois was itilra rires of the appellant comiiany. Held, it was. Ci(.', lie Villas ilii Cap (iihrallur vs. nwjhts, Siiiireme Ct. 1884, 11 Can. S. ('. R. 51)7, confirming Q. B., li Dorion's l!ep. 17."). V. RIGHTS OF. I. Loans. — The dehmdant borripweil a siun of money iVcpin a building sipciety u\\\\ in the morti:age deed gave them power to sell, without any formality, the pripperty in det'ault of pay- meni, whiidi they dill. 'Ihe ))l.iintill was the purchaser. Ilchl, that this did not authuri/.e them to sell without the necessary formalities and oi'dinary prudcice. Gi'Uiias \ s. .l/iov/cDe/. Q. If. ist^.i";) Q. L. R. 120. 2. trivilegS. — The money advanced tn the owner of a property by a building society be(^)mes the money of t hi; borrower, and the building society cannot therefore claim any privilege for improvements made with such money by the owner of the property, so as to defeat or retard the claim of die unpaid vendor for which cluim the owner i.s personally re- sponsible. (Irani vs. La Soci^li' Perwanenti' de Constrnrtion, Q. B., Monlreal, dan. 2.'), 1883. by tl the the iiiein Wolll jiaid nunl not' s. c. 2. liscat the ri clarei resoh BUILDING SOCIETIES. 251 VI. RIGHTS OF MEMBERS. 1. Mandamus. — A memlx'r of an incorpo- rated liiiililiii): society i.siuit oiititled to demand an iii<[icctit)ii of the iiiiiuUcs kept b)- the liirirturs of llie iissociiitioii, uiile.s.s there be a n:irli;nnentivry direction to ihat cfl'ect, or he iliow that he has an interest nr is under the influejice of hnvful motive in demanding the iii-|)i.'i;liiiii. Laiii/tJicr \^. Laroclie,Si.C, 1877, ?,Q.[..li.'i:VJ. 2. 'I'lie f^ict of taking a reasonable time (three days, e. g.) to eimsideriiiiil take advice liefuri- lOinplying witli tlie demand, is not a refiisiil snilicient to jusiify a resort to the reniedv ly niandanjus. (76.) VII. RULES OF. 1. Irregularity. — The i)laintitr claimed under a rule of a building Pociety, wliich had heen cliaiigeil and eubstitnted prior to his he- coming a member, but wliich it was shown was siib-tit\it('d hy one adopted at a meeting irregu- laris i'alK'd—//e?rf, tliat as it was not shown that lie was aware r,{ the new rule at the time that he invested, lie would not be bound by it. Prcvuxt vs. .'^ociiStt! Canadienne Franfai.\-e ile Covitrvciion de Monirial, S- C. 1879,2 L. N. ill. 2. —— The plaintifl claimed under a rule of a I'uilding society which had been clianged, and substituted the riglit to retire and get back his iiumey when lie pleased. //eW, following Pr^vot't v.J. tiocii'ti Canadienne Franoaixe de Muntri'il, supra No. 1, that he was- not bound by the change, but wcmld have to pay what he (jwed in doiluction. liobillard vs. Societe Canadienne Franraisedc Conatruetion, S. C. 1-79, 1 L. N. n.3. VIII. SHARES 1. Confiscation— How made. Cn. CO i'..S. 1. C— The entry of tlie w(n-il " forfeited"' hy the secri'ti'ry of a builiiing societj', opposite the iii.inee of certain members in the books nf tile -u'iety, is not euliicient evidence ihat such liieiiihers receiveii due notice that their .shares wuuld be forfeited if their arrears were not jiaid.— more especially wliere the entry wt,s niadf lung after the date uf such alleged nut' e. lliiji/ins v.s. Potvcr, 188'), M. R. L., 1 S. C. 208. 2. Under C. S. L. C, cli. (li), s. 15, con- llscation of shares for non-compliance with the rules of tbo building society must be de- clared. Such declaration may be made by if-olutiuu of the board of directors. (76.) Stewart vs. Charhonncau, Q. B. 1884, 13 R. L. 290. 3. Where such conliscation has not been declared previous to the li, [nidation of the .society, the liquidators liave no authority to pronounce tlie confiscation, {lb.) 4. The forfeiture of shares under the by-laws of a build ng society is an act of administration within the power.s of the board of directors, and need not be pronounced by the society itself. Dnraii vs. McXnlly, S. 0. 1884, M. L.R., 1 S. C.21. 5. Held by Minor— Conflacation.— A minor may hold shure.s in the stock of a build- ing societv incorporated under C .S. L. C, ch. 69, and such shari s are subject to forfeiture in accordance with the by-laws of the society. Dornn vs. IdcNnllij, s'. V.. 18St, M. L. R.,'l S. C. 21. 6. Transfer of— Rights of Creduors— Insolvent— Pledge.— A by-law of liuilding society (appellants) required that a sharelicdder should have satisfied all his obligations to the society before he should be at liberty to transfer his shares. One P., a director, in contraven- tion of the by-laws, induced the secretary to countersign a transfer of bis shares to the lianqiie Ville Marie as collateral security for an amount lie borrowed from the bank, and it was not till P.'s abandonment or assignment for the benefit of bis creditors that the oflior directors knew of the transfer to the bunk, altiioiigh, at the time of his as.oignment, P. was indebted to the appellant society in a sum of $;i,71l, for which amount under the by laxv his shares were chargeil as betwten P. and the society. The society immediately paiii the bank the amount duo by P., and took an assignment of the shares and of P.'s debt. The shares being worth more than the amount due to the bank, the curator to tlie insolvent estate of 1'. brought an action claiming the shares as forming part of the insolvent's estate, and with the action tendercii the amount due by P. to the bank. Tlie society claimed the f^bares were pledged to them for the whole amount of P.'s itidclitedneps to them under the by-laws. Hdd, reversing Q. H. (M. L. R., 7 Q. li. 417), and restoring the judgment of the Superior Court, that the shivres in (piestion must be held as having always been chargcil under the by-laws with the amount of P.'s indebtedness to the society, and that his creditors iiad only the same rights in respect of these shares as P. himself had when he Tiiade the abandonmeat of liis property, viz., to get the shares upon pavment of P.'s indebtedness to tlie society. ^11 M ifn \' i:il'-| - M 1 i' 252 BY-LAWS. Socim Canadienne Frniifaisc ilc Comirudion vs. Davelu;/, Supreme Ct. IS'Jl, 20 Can. S. C. R. 449. IX. SHAREHOLDEUS, RIGHTS OF. A shareholder in a Imikling fociety who has approved of an arrangement witli a creditor of the society, wliereby ihc creditor is granted delay on condition that the Fuciety should not sell its real estate, waives thereby his right to bring the real estate of the society to sale in satisfaction of his claim as a shareholder. Champonx vs. Lapienr, Q. 1!. 1880, 3 L. N. 302. X. SECURITY FOR ArPROPRIATION. Tiie defendants, a building society, refused to pay over an ajiproiiriation which BURIAL. (1) See Manoamus. " Cemeteries. Roman Catholic— Mandamus.— Ho I body of a Roman Catholic not actually i \- I communicalod nomlnatim, nor adjudfred ii,-ion of cadastral lots. 58 ^'ic.,cll. 40 (Que.). (^adiistral ])lans for Haihvay." Act, amending Art. ;''(;(i8 It. S. Q., 57 Vic, ch. 42. lOricfion (.f Parishes, with a view to facilita- tinir flic conipilatiiiii of cadast'-al idans. U. S. Q.. An. XiK',. Prc|iaration of cada-tral )rlun-. W. .S. Q., All. ."itltll. Cuniini into force of cadastre. 11. .^. Q., An. .".-II. C. .^. 1>. C, ch. 41, sec 18 — A cadastre duly liepii-ittd and closed, and as to which no ap- peal wiis taken liefore the Seigniorial Court of Revision, i.s linal, and a defendant cannot aslc its rfCorumtion upon the alleged ground that llic rdniiuissioncr was led in'o error owing to llie non-production of d<'ed-. E/lirc v-. ]?<- mnul^.C. ISC'.I,, Hi L.C.J, if, I. CAPIAS 1. AiisKXcr oi- 1)^:^■l:^ riiKTKi) i!V Tin-: ( II. Al'IMlAVIT. By If hum mndr. Book-keeper. NT — How IXTKIl- \'-. 708C.C.P. I Legal Attorney. '1. I Must state capacity in which I nuide. .'i. President of Corporation. 4. Description of Parties. ,>. form of—Curnnnj. fi. Jurat.' 7-10. Sitfficienaj of. 11-118. III. AvTKR JiDiiMKNT. 1 'J. (See alco COXTKSTATIOX IlK. ) IV. AciAtNar. Husband — Hail 1. Minor. 2 4 Person actiui/ undir another's In- fluenre. 6. Septuayenariu.i. 0. 253 Bail. Bail to Sheriff. 1. Bail under Art. B'-iS C. C. P.— In- solvent Act 1875. 2. Bond — Breach of — Nature of Bond — Snretie.i. 8-4. Bond under Art. 824 C. C. P.— Sufficiency of. 5. Boti'i — Forfeiture — Notice of Transfer — Provisional Discharge —Art. 828 C. C. P. G. Bond under Art. 825 (\ C. P.— Su/ficirncy of. 7-0. Form of Judge's Order under Art. 801 (\ ('. P. 10. Special Bail, Art. 825 C. C. P.— Provi.iional Di.'^charge—Art. 828 CO. P. II. Special Pail, vl/7.<. 824-825 C.C. P. 12-i;i. Special Bail tinder Art. 824 C. C. /'. — Statement and Declaration under Art. 7G(! C. C P. 14-lG. Special Bail vndcr An. 824 C. C r — Imprisonment. 17. Special Bail under Art. 824 C. C. P. — Provisional Discharge, Art, 82S r. c. p. 18. Special Bail — Impri.ionmcni — .'^'!(- reties. I'J. Surd ie.-<— Justification —Art. S27 C.C. P. 2o! Sureties — Judicial Abandonment — Effect of. 21. Sureties — Deposit in lieu of Bail. 22. Sureties— Liability of. 23. Sureties — Liability of to Impri- sonment. 24 25. .Sureties — Liability of — IT/ie/i ab solute. 2G. Sureties— Liability of — Discharge. 27. Sureties — What Amount liable for. 28-20. Sureties — Liability of — Provisional Discharge, Art. 828 C. C. P. 30. Sun ties — Liability of — Surrender. Art. 825 C. C. P. " ?,].. Sureties— When liable. .■!2. Sureties— Release of. 33. Sureties under Art. 828 C. C. P 34. Surrender, Art. >25 C. C P. 35. When it may be put in. 3o-43. 1^ i ^U: 254 CAPIAS. VI. ("O.HTESTATHIN' (IK. Adminxiun nf Kt^iilcnrc, !• lifl I'elilion. •-'. Jiiirdm of Proof. '.)■'>. Capias after Jud(jmnit. 07. JJcf'enddiif ixamining Vhdiiliff, ^■ Di'lirionitiiiij /lyjiol/ierutrd Im- inorcablf. 'J. ]:.ctc)ilion to the For'ii— Delay to File. 1(1. //) Ajipeal ■ 1 1. J'etitioii to (Ji(n.s/i—Jiid:/c ill Chain- In I' rctilion to Qiiash — nilai/. \-\l'. Fell I ion to Quash. lii-'2l. The I), J, lire. Vir. Dam.u;ks roi! !•' Ai;i!i:sT. (fic'e al-o iiM'icr tillr '• Da.mai KS. ) Denartmr icIHi JnUiil I" Defraud epa -h'i Cans ddc d J'roliable Fll'rut ol' l.-'.-iiiiiiii a. Caida-:. •'!. J-'raudiildil Coiirtahiient ol .Mo/•^ '^rcseriidion I" sinn/di .'i-C. )/ Mali' Selllr it ol Drill irl/hctil Fi serve Vlir. l»iMiiAi:.ir. FJlJ-ut of ,Si I'oii I CV il ol Arn.- ■■ r.i. DisjKjsiiifj of Pro|it'rly. .jn. Fiaudiik'iit I'rcforciiL-o in Crc- (iiloiv. .J1G2. .Making' X.itos—Frau'i — l'r.'te- noiu. (ili. Plcilgcf- liivi'i'tini; I'r.iri'i il- o;' Guiiils |ileili:('i| t(i llin:. ij I. lMcil'_'iiij.' iin|).'iiil (idoil-. iTi. l!cfii-al to lioliver W'nn.l a,'. i.'oriiint; to ('(■iilrai't. iJii. liiiTiinill of (j(n»l^ tiv Ttnaht at iiiulit. G7-t'i.'^. .'»ii'rrtii)<: aiiotiuM's Gcio I-. (i'j- 7(1. S'.'llin;! (Mit at 11 Saci'lliic. 71- 72. .Si llill^ nut lill>ill('.->. 7i>. Sl.'llill,L' out to .^Iillnr HI |,.|i,' Crc.lit. 71. Suspensliiii of J'lii/iiii lit. 7.'i. Unliijuidated Ihiinai/es. 7iiT''. Where J)' lit see a red Inj llyp"lhi'r. Impiu^onmknt. JfDICIAI. AllAXnoNMKNT. Delai/ to make Slateinent. i . Eifect oj. 210. Refusal to Make. 1 ! . Ji'etroaetire Fjlrrt 0/4^ Vic.^rh. ■>->,ser. :i. 12 Hi. ' XV. .Il lU'-IlKTION. ]•;!. XVI. Lis Fkm)i:ns. XVII. OiiDi;it idR. XVIII. PlKvikw— Dki.av. i-2. XIX. RtcTfUN- Ol- Witir. 1-2. X.\'. WUIT. .Ir/.s-. 80.-^,, SIO, Sll C. C. F. 1. Art. so:{ 0. a F. 2. Declaration, .'i. Several Defendant.'!. 4. CAPIAS. 255 I. ABSENCE OP DEFENDANT. How interpreted by the Court.— The prpteii>ioMS of a ilelVmlivrit, wlio, lifter hoiiiL' Bri'e.'rteil under a writ of cajiias, k'ave^l tlie country ami refusi's toajipear for exaniiiialiot), will Mut 111' favoralily ri';r:ink"l by ilie court. Moh-'n^ llnik v^. Citiiqihcll, S. U. 1877, 21 L.C.I.li'^O. II. AFFIDAVIT. 1. By whom made— Aiir. 7'JS V. c. P.— Bookkeeper. — An atliilavit inutle liy ilie Ijookkcc-piT nt .'. tiraiicli of tlic Ujipor Canaila bank w;w liold to liesullicieiit. linnk of Uppo- CiVKfhi vs. AlUiin, S^ C. 1.SJ5, 5 L. ('. U. :ilS,4 2. Legal Attorney.- .Vn aUorucy ad litem, cvi'u wluMi lie lioMs a |n.ucr of attorney *' to take all such .-^teps oy lethal |)ruceeilii);^>or odicrwisc as he iiii^ht think necessary," is not autlii'ri/.fil, under Art. iO.*^ C. (/. P., to make the atiila\ It for (V(;)(((.s', the " leiral attorney" referri'il to in the article liein^ not the |iror,u- rator ii'l lilcin hut the procurator ivl hoc ni'ijo- Hum Boslon W(ir'')i Jln.ie Co. v-. Fciitrick, C. H. IJS'.KI.M. L.ll,, t; S. C.487. ;i. Must state capacity in which made. — An atlidavil for ra/iid.^ niad>' hy a jjcrMiii other than the plaintiti', wiiieli does not sta'e whrther the dejionent is the plaintid's liookk(e|iei', clerk or legal attorney, is iiisiitll- eieiit. JJctnrr.t vn. Lamnlhc, S, C. ISDii, -I- Que. lUO. 4. • President of Corporation.— The President of an Incorporated CoMi|iaiiy i~ c.ini- jieteiit to make the allidavit for cupias. Muisic Iron C... vs. Ol.sxii, Q. H. isTli, Is L. C. d. 2'J. fi. Description of Parties. — In an atli- ilavit for fiipltt.i where the credilor's nanie was wrilliii " dustras " instead of " Joutras "" — Held, to he ,L'(xid. Joiilrds \<. JJiinlop, S. C. \K)1, 7 L. ('. 11. 12(1, ,■) li. J. R. Q. :i:!0. 6. Form of— Currency.— On a motion to (|iiiish a writ of ciipitis, on the grouail that there wa-^ no sullieient statement of the debt, iiiasniuch as it was stated to be due in >terliiig uKnwy—JJcld, that the amount due may be le;;ally So stateil, as the value of tiie pound sterliiitr was defined by the Canada Currency Act. B. ink of Montreal S!'. Brown, 'A. Vj. 18()7, 17 L. C. li. 11 1. 7. Jurat. — On a motion to quash a nipum on tlie t;rouiid that the iillidavit did not show tliat it had been nworn to by the plaintill', or by bis bookkeeper, clerk or legal attorney, as required liy 25 Geo. 3, cap. 2 — Held, confirm- ing the decision of tlio court below, that tlie rule obtained on such motion should he dis- missed. Coatex vs. The. Bunk of Montreal, Q. B. 1-tO, 2 Rev. de Leg. ;!28. 8. The alliilavit for ciijda.i may he sworn before the Depul_\- Frothoiiotaiy. Q, R. 187:!, IS k. C.J. 2!t. 9. The defendant iietitioned to quash the »v(^//(/.v. One of the gronnd.s wa< that the allidavit was sworn before a person wIiom- figbt, to receive it did not appear. It was signed sim|)ly '• commissioner," wilhont si;iti.i;_r ^t length tiiat he was a commissioner to ree'eive allidavits tor the court — Ildd, that this was not an adeipiale rea.son. The court knows its own otiicers, and the allidavit m iinesiion wa^ swiirn before one of then;, .fosi p/i \<.J)ono- ran. S. ('. 1(^77. 10. Where the jiroliionotiiry or his deputy, before \vli('im an alii iavit for c ipias or uttauhment before judgineni is sworn, limits to t-ign the /■|(/■«^ the eoiii't will not grant leave to affix the -ignatiu'e after the i.-siie and ser- vice of the writ. l)iili(,i.i vs. I'crsilliir, A. C. If^'Jd, M. k. R., i; .S. C. 2i;!i. 11. Sufficiency of— Dcfectivo in Part. Arts. 7!)S and 7'.i;i C. (.'. 1'. — .Vn allidavit |o hold lo bail tlioiigh bail in part may be clli.;ient for the rema'iider. l'attcr. Clarke, S. C. 1854, Montreal Condensed Re- ports s;;, 4 R. J. R. Q. 212, 4 L. C. R. 402. See also Hartuhise vs. Bourret, infra No. S.'i, 25. Establishing Fraud.- Wlirr, anadidavit stated that the deponent's grounds for believing that the defendant was about to leave the jirovince with intent to defraud lii..i creditors, were tbat the defendant's vessel was loaded ami ready for sea, and that he, the d^'fendant, inlendecl sailing in her, and hiid told the deponent tbat be would not ret\irnto Canada — Held,, to b;^ Mitficient. Wil.fon vs. L'eid.S.C. 18,54, I L. C. R. 157; /i.Tn/ vs. J)i.rnn, S. C 1854, 4 I.. C. 1!., 218, 4 R. J. R. Q. 12() and iiK! ; and see llnrtuhi.ie vs. Baiir- ret, inj'ra No. s;;. 26. Personally indebted.— Alli- davit for ra/iia.i must eoiuaiu the .•ille'^atinn n( ]ier.'ioii(d ind(diledness by defendant. Ahr- andcr vs. MrLavlilaii, S. C. 185(1, 1 L. C. J, 5. ^ec infra Sliiridaa vs. Jfinne-'o^nj So. 1^. 27. "May lose Hecourso."- Rut it is not necessary tjiat the deponent shouhi swear that without the benelitof a writ of capias the plaintitl' may be depriveil of lii-* remedy auainst tbedihtor. [.■lii'rre v^. Don- nelly, S. (J. ISjG, C L. C. R. 247. 5 R. .1. U. Q. 100. See Picht; vs. Bernier, infra No. 101. 28- Held, that in such atfuhivil it is not necessary tbat it be sworn that (lie plaintiff, witbout the benefit of a writ of attaeh- renii'il 33. tion r| to tiie for til eiirnc. defend .'tii(e, or re. Dn„h. R. (.1 : infra . 34. partii I lint II feiidun a frail I llie 111 icddy and th was iiii CAPIAS. 257 iiient against the body of the ilercn.iant, may ' he deprived of his remedy. Tt'lil vs. rd/ctier, S, C. ISJG, G L. C. II. 32, 4 1{. ,1. R. Q. tso. ' 29. Personally indebted—" May lose Hecourse. "—//v sutler damage, and the uniis-i(,iii (if the words "will lt,s<- his remedy" is nut fatal. {lb.) 33. Cause of Debt.— '{'he allej:a- tiuM that the defendant is personally iiidcdited to tiie ]ilaiiitill for work dune hy tjie plainlilf tor the defendant, anil for wajres and salary earned hy the plaintitf in the service of the defendant, i-" sullieient, altlmu^h it is not stated tlmt the work was done at the instance or rei|iie.-l (if the (h'fendant. Joii/ra.'' vs. /)(Oi/i./i, .S. C. Is.'i7, 7 L. ('. R. .pill. 5I{..I. R. tJ.:!:Ui. See ulsi. Iliirtuhise vs. Iluiinrt, iii/ra Xu. sll. 34. Establishing fraudulent De- partuee.— An aliidavit in which it is state! tliat the nasdus for helieving that liie de- fendant is ahout to leave the province with ' a I'landulent intent, are that the defendant is the master of a vessel which is loaded and ready for sen, with tiie defendant as master, and the defendant himself liad stated that he was iiiiiuediately about to sail to parts beyond 1' tlie sea, is sufficient. Qiilnit vs. Alche.ioii, S- C. 1854, 4 1.. U. R. :i7s, 4 R. ,1. R. Q. 20:i. 35. Establishing fraudulent la- tent. — A capias cannot he ((iiashed hy motiuu oil the f»round that tiie reasons of belief m the affidavit (hi not sjiecineally alle>;e any Iraudn- lent intent on the part of the defendant. IJeii'lerson vs. Eimiyy, S. C. l!^58, 2 L. C. J. IKG, i;R. d. R. Q.4G7. 36. AtiT. 79!) ('. C. P.— An affi- davit to liold to hail which does neit disclose any ground for the alleL'ation that the det'en- (lanl is a trader, and that he is notoriously in- s(dveiit, and has refu-^ed to cotnpioniise or ari'ange with his crediuirs, and does not allege that lie has I'efused to make a cct-xioii ih: liirti-t to them, i< had, even although it he alleged, ar< reipiii-eil, that he had secreted his estate, debts and ell'ects with intent to defraud, and the capias issued in virtue of .-uch adidaxit will he quashed on motion. ]\'. Miii'(jan, il B. i^.v.i, 9 L. c. u. :;(i,'-). See ci<. ,riii'ij.fi- iiirrie I'l Miii immediately about to secrete his estate, debt-^ and eflects with intent todefrand — lIcU, to be sullieient, and a motion to quash d.s- mi>sed. Macfarl'iiir vs. Ddiveau, S. C. 18.V.I, L. C. R. 2G1. 38 Description of Domicile— In an action commenced by i-npins where motion was nuide to quash the writ on the ground of irregularities in the alliilavit — Held, that where the plaintiti was des(;ribed as " of the city of Ring^ti.iM, Canada West," it was a suthcient indication of his domicile. Bcrri/ vs. May, S.C. 1«0, Ki L.C.R. 1. 39. Establishing fraudulent De- parture.— An alliilavit for capiax, which alleg/'S "that the defendant is about to leave the provin.;e and tlmt the b(dief of the depon- ent thai he is about to leave the [irovinec- wilii intent to detraud, is founded, etc.," i> insullicienl, as the alHdavit must specifically allege that the defendant is about to leave the province with intent lo defraud. L'lloisi vs. Buit.i,^ C. 18G0, 10 L. C. R. 204. 40. " Or.'"— An affidavit to hold to bail, which sets forth the essential obligalions as required by the 12 Vic, cap. 42, in the di.5- jiinctive instead of in the conjunctive form is bad, and the capias must be (juashed. TaViot w V M liii ,1 M II \m I hi ■li'li; L'58 cAriAs. VH. DonneUij, S. C. 1800, 11 L. C. It. :.. S.i' MoHl(/nmiri/ vs. Li/ndr, iiijra Nu. ItT. 41. Art. 71)9 C. ('. P.— In iui alii hivit for a wTilof i(i]iias againnl a trailer it is ikti's- sary to allcf,'-' the in^clvi'ii«y of tiic lielitor, aiii] that sue!) ilclitor Iiciiig insolvent refuses to make an assii^tmient of liis estate for tiie iiene- lit (fills ereditor-. llaniel vs. Cvte, iKUl, 11 L.C. ]{. 110. 42. An ulliiliivit cfniiinericinL' '' T. S., (if the City of M(jii'real, liookkeeper cf II. 11., jilaintiir, liein;; duly sworn, dolli depose and say'" — was lull tn be siillicient \vitli(jut any .'latenient in tlie body of the adidavil tijat he was sucli liO(ikkeej)Cr. lloijan vs. llnskinst .S C. 18G1, 12 L.C. 11.84. 43. Deterioration of Property.— An allidavit fur cdjilns in case uf deterioi'alion «if jir(^p|ierly, under llje iirovisicins of ehapter 'IT of the Ci'iisolidaled Sialnles of L. ('., need not cotitain iheword "willfully," nor the allega- tiiin, that without the benetit of the writ the npplieani will sutler (laiiuij;e ; and on a con- lewtatioii of the ctipiiis, the alKlavi; i.s prima Jacii' evidence of the allegations eoutained tiierein f-ufliciciit to oblige the parly C(.iute.stinj^ to adduce evidence to the contrary. Duutrc vs. McGiiltinis, S. C. 1801, 5 L. C. J. IJS. 44. Where Debt eontracteti.— Capi'ts will be cpiaslied on UKilion if the ]iluce where the debt was coniracled be not men. lioned in the allidavit. (1) Bfinsoii vs. JJc- Qii<,>i,S.V. 1S02, 7 L.C). 7(1. 45- Allegations of Indebtedness. — An atlidavit may contain several dill'erenl averments of debt, iucon-istent with one an- other, and is not void because one of them is inFullicieiit. Green \fi. Jldljichl, H.C 1802, 12 L. C. U. 115. See I'Ike River Mills ('o. vs. }'ricsf, infra No. 117. 46. Cause of Debt— Wherj Debt contracted.— 7/(.W, that the debt wa^ sulli- ciently .set forth in the allidavit by statintr that the defendant wa.s imlebted to the ijlaintill in the sum (-if X.'li), without stating the cause of debt or the place where it was contracted- Velien vs. Mar.san, S. C. 18011, U L. C. H. 81). See also Jliirluhiie vs. Jioiirret, infra Xo. 83. 47. Reasons of Belief —Jlrltl, also, that the grounds of tlie deponent'.s belief are fiufficiently set forth by a statement to the ertect that defendant slated lo dejjonent, at a time and plar:e mentioned, that he wa- about to (1) This liiiiaiii); is iiiconvft. See Uiirliihhc vs. JUmrrct, Q. B. ISTU, at p. 131) of ■:3 ],. C. J., pur Monk, ■ go to California, one of the United States of America, to make money, nndnskt,; liie dejio- neiit to procure him money for llie voyage, and by at'terward.-i making tb.e same statement- to persons named in the allidavit. (//)) 48. By several Plaintififs— Adion ii{ capiai was taken l.y several iilaintills f.r debts due to each of iliein, and the alHiJavit was made by one of them, setting out that the defendant was indeb'.eJ to iiim in a sum i x- ceeding XIO currency, and action was iirouLrht for the whole .'iinount due— //c/lied, the deponent iidt ap- pearing to act a.- the agent or legal allorn"_\ 04, D L. C. J. 10 1. See also llartuhi!^e vs. Jionrrel, infra Xo. ^.l. 50. Order of Allegations — .\n allidavit for capiax is sullicient if it contains all tlie allegitions re^piired by the Statute, although in a dilferent order, (ireijonj v-. Ireland, Q. H. 1804, 9 L. C. J. 131. 51. Cause of Debt.— The cause of action is siitlicienlly set forth in an allidivit for cap/((.v where it allege.s that the deponent was agent at Montreal of tlie plaintills, an I that the defendant was justly, truly and \w\-- Konaliy indebted to the )>laiiitill's in a sum ex- ceeding fijity dollars, to wit, in the sum of §2,500, being as and for the price and value ol a large cjuantity of glass sold by the deponeiit, a.s agent of the ]ilainli!ls, to the defendant. Grcgnrij vs. Boston (& Sandwich Glass Co., Q. 13. 1 864, 9 L. C. J. 134. See also JLirlubl.i vs. liourrct, infra Xo. 83. 52. Names of Informants.— In in alliilavit for capias it is nem-ssary to (li~clo-e the uaiiie.s of the persons fioin whom the iri- formatio'i that defendant was immediately about to abscond, etc., was obtained. Cam- eron vs. Brega, S. C. 1805, 10 L. C. J. 8-<. See Milligan vs. Mason, infra Xo. 57. See Cornell vs. Merrill, snpra No. 20. 53. Cause of Debt —The artidavit for capiat must set forth the cause of action 57.1 Ih.'if III iiol liej if il a)| (lavii to lei fai.ad Miltia l.V,). 58.1 partiJ <'!> OlllJ felidail is deal faviiiji lie" is tinli. 59.1 I'laiiitil veiulici k- 1 CAPIAS. 259 iiiil (lie nature of defendant'H indebtedtiess. ]{„ll,iiid V!'. OaUb(iull,S.C. 18G8, 12 L- C. J. 2TG. See also llarlubiae vh. Bourrct, injra Nu. s;i. 54. Establishing Sacretion— " Mo- veable Property." — In tlie case of a capias on llio ^'rouiul of fraudulent Hecrelioii it is not Hiillicient to swear timt deponent " is credibly inrurnicd, iiiitli every reason to believe, and doili verilv and in his conscience believe," aiK the (^ecri'tion must be alHnned of the pro- ])f-riv and I'lli'Cts generally of the debtor, and niii niciely of liis " moveable ])roperty or ellt'it-." llurtabiao vs. Leric/ie, S. C. 18G8, 1,") L. C.J. 8.'!. See also Croteau vs. Demers, infra No. HO. 51), "May be deprived."— An afli- diivit for capias grounded un the departure of till' di'fenilunt, wliicli doe.s not allege that the dt]iurlure of defendant wiU deprive jilaintitl iif hi" rci'oiirse, but is worded ''whereby tiie jihuiilill maij be deprived of iiis remedy, etc.," i.^ lnd,aiid will be set aside. Jioyd vs. Freer, S (,'. 1S71,15 Jj.C. J. 101). See also Slcvensoii vs. RobcrUiDt, infra No. (J7. 56. Establishing Fraud — Where the plainliil slates in his allidavit lov capias ix^ rcasun for his belief that the defendant who is (liiiniciled oiitsiile the province is about to leave the province with intention, etc., " that the defendant is about to sail on his vessel for Kiirupe or oilier parts of the world," is insuf- licii'nt, and capias ([uashed. J'aqitct v.i. Mc- Xiib, S. C. 1871, ;! 11. L. 45G, and sec Ilurlubisc vs. Bourn/, infra No. 83. 57. Name of Informant.— /AZJ, ihal the mere factoftlie name of the informant mil lieiiijr given will not invalidate the affidavit ilii appear fi'uni other facts related in the afh- | (huil l.iat the defendant is iniinedialely about lo have the limits of tiie old Province of Canaila without any intention (.if returning. Milliyan vs. Mason, C. U. 1872, 17 L. C. J. I,V,i. S^e Cameron vs. Breja, supra No. 52. 58. Establishing fraudulent De- parture. — That it i.s siillicient thai depouMit as one uf his grounds Swears directly tiiat de- ri'inlaiit is master of a ship, and that said ship is i;ieared at custom iiouse, though without .siyiiig that this is done by defendant or tiiat hi' i-i going with her, or naming llie dcstina- tii'ii. {lb.) 59. In the case above referred to the jilaiiiiilt was not limited to the remedy by re- veiulication but was entitled to capias, (,1b-) 60. "Province Of Canada."— Tlitt in an atKdavit mide since confederation, the allegation that defendant is about to leave the " Province of Canada" will be held to mean that part of the Doininion formerly called the Province of Canada, {lb.) See contra Lejcb- vrc V8, DeLoriinier, infra No. Gl. 61. Establishing fraudulent De- parture. — It is not necessary that it should be positively sworn that at the time of the making of the affidavit the debtor is actually within the limits of the former Province of Canada. Moisic Iron Co. vs. Olsen, Q. B. 1873, 18 L.C.J. 29. 62. The allidavit for capias i^ not bad because it states that the debtor is about to leave the " Dominion of Canada," when it can be gathered from the other allegations of the atlilavit that the departure is really from a point within the limits of the former Province of Canada. (lb.) 63. Reasons for Belief, etc.— Time. — In an atHdavit the deponent must state specially the rea-^ons that lead him to lielicve that the debtor is makiiu away with or secreting his goods with the intention of defrauding his creditors, without being obliged, however, to stale who gave him the information or when he received it, provided that it ajipear by the terms of the affidavit and the circiimstanjes therein related that the in- formation was given to him at a lime sutli- cienlly recent to support an atfi luvit. Jiellvs. Viijneaidt, S. C. 1874,5 R. L. G'J7. But see Drapeau vs. Pacaiid, inJra No. 8',). MonU (jomcri/ vs. Lyster, infra No. 'J7. Iloitc vs. Ciirrie, infra No. 70. 64. " Province of Canada."— An atlidavit for capias made since Confederation, alleging that the d'feiidant is immediately about to leave the " Province of Canada," is bad, and a writ issued on such an atHdavit will be quashed. Lefebvrc vs. Delorimier, C. R. 1875, 19 L. C. J. 102. Si-e contra MiUi(jan vs. Mason, supra No. 57. 65. "Or,"— An affidavit for capias alleging in the alternative that the defendant has secreted or ma le away with his property and efleots is insufficient. OsteUvi'. I'dloquin, S. C. 1875, 20 ii. C. J. 48. Sec Gannon vs. Wriijlit, infra No. 94. 66. An alfidavit for capias which deposes in the alternative, that " the defen- dant has secreted or made away with or is about immediately to secrete or make away with liis property, etc.," is defective. Mc- m p I 1 1 '•' . ' li t 260 CAl'IAS. Master VH. Uohwtxon, S. C. 187T, 21 L. C. J. 161. Sre Gannon vs. Wrira No. ."m. 68. " May be deprived."— An affidavit for c(ipia-> is ilefoctivc which used tiie words '• iriiiy be deprived of his reconr-e " in piaee(]f the words '■ will lio deiirived," etc., ond which oMiilleil to do|iiiceas lu tiie intent to defrand- /'oc/ vs. Ijijer, >.V.. )H77, 21 L. I'. J. 1!)1. See Stcrcnaon \i>. Jltibcrtsoii, supra No. C7. 69. ■ "About to secrete '-Rea- sons for Belief. — 'i'ho ulle;.'ation in an iilli- davit fur r(iiiiii.< that deponent helievts iind is inforn;ed that llie liefendant is aliont ti> secrete " his inovealile property and ellects " is de- fective, and theallidavit is aUo had on account of the fiilnre to stale therein the special {.'rounds and rea-ons (if such belief. Aii>_,i vs. Mai/rantX. K. 1S7.;,21 L.C. J. 2!G. 70. Reasons for Belief— Sc ce- tion. — The allidavit for C(i/ii(ia nee 1 not mc- cify the s])ecial rea-ons in sniijiort of the I'idief Ptateii in the allidavit, nor the name of the informant, when the writ is issued o' ihc charue of secreting pi iperty. JlofI vs. Ciirrie, S. C 1H77, 22 L. C. .1. ;'.l. C'ls ant vp. Patenatulc, 'fi,.C.\^l\, :\K. \j. ^W^. Sri. also Mdnt'imncr;/ vs. T.i/nti'r, intra .Vo, 117. See Drapeau vs. l\i,uiicl, intra Xo. sl>. 71. In the ahsenee of tlie alHhi\ ii for fa;)(V/9 the court caiinul declare the writ lod ami valid. (//).) 72. Time of Debt, etc.— Name of Informant.— An allidavit fir capiu.. ail respon'hndinn, !ille-ini.'a dcht to c\i-t, ■ vd not . state when the .same was oontiaeted lor show that it w;is contracted within live \ o-s next proceeilini;. Ma'/iiin' vs. J^ockcH. ■-, C. 1877, ;! Q. I.. K. ;M7. See JInrliihi.se vs. JJ„nr- ret, in/r No. .'^1!. 73. Nor, tliat the sale and delivery were inade to the defendant, when tin y are alleged to have lieen made "at his ii;s(;uice and reijue.st. (Ilj.) 74. When the farts, upon whic'i 'lis belief isi based, are sworn to directly, and not as hearsay, the depo.sant is not bound t dis- close the name of any informant. {10.) 75. Currency — Description of Defendant— Cause of Action— In an alli- davit for capias it is sullicient to state the amount in "dollars" without any qualitiea- tion as to a particular currency. Whei'i' the initial only of defenilant's Christian name is jriven, this is no {ground of petition to (|ua-li. Hull v.s. Zn-nichon, S.C. 1S78, 4 Q. L. K. %•<. IQ. Tlie cans.' of action was not -nlli- ciently stated in the alii'iavit in Ih- eau-e, wliich did not show a personal liability of ihe defendant, or the nature of that liability. [It,.) 77. The fo.'in of afildavit given in ijie aiipendi.\ (Xo. 42) to articles 812 and SI. I ,,f the Code of Civil Procedure is Hullicient fir the arrest of a ■. r under Art. 788. lUn.'la vs. naUin.ion, S. v.'. 1871>, 2:i L. (!. d. M':. 2 L. N. 21(i. 78. Personally indebted.— Tl omission to stuli', in an allidavit for (■i/^//,/,y. that the deliiidanl is pcr^nnatlij iiidchlid l, the plaintill is not fatal if the alii lavil olh.-r- wise tlisclo-^e a personal indebteijness. .s,.//. . lio.slmi if- s.iiiihric/i Gld^a <'"., tiiprn No. .">!. Ddiitii \ -. M'lr.iati, sujird Xo. (li. Ki'iuiy vs. Mr. K" I'll, ■fiipi'd No. \'K Jiinlrds vs. JJuiiloji, siijira No. •)■!. J'ol/dn'l vs. Giiillniull, .■'iipra Nil. •'■:«. Jl'ill vs. Zi:rnic/ioii, .siipni N'o. ".'i 83. — Establishing Fraud. — And wli'ic the uflidavit allrgcd iiii lely tliiit tlic difrii laiif rcsiiiid at New York and had no doniicile in Ciuiada ; that lie rcfuseil ti> pay till' (k'ht, althon^ii he hail means tu do so ; liial he connled on escaping payment iiy liis ah-encp, and by I lie fact that he liiid no pro- perly in this country tiiat phiintitrcould seize; thill he was in .Montreal on family alliiirs wiirh would only detain him a few Ikhhs, and tliiii he was aliout to leave imuiediately for New York, where lie carried on iiii-liiess — y/-''/, that this was nut sullicient of itself to e^I;llilis|l ihat it was wilh the inlentiun of de- fraii liii;; hi- creditors that he was on the |iwiiit of leaving the country, and the ciipi'i.t mu-i tliev fiire he ipiashed. 1^^*.) See also //<■(■(■(/ V-. I)i.vi>ii, .^iijira No. 2.'). I'n'ji' i vs, .VcXnh, .■•■('/''■'( No. •"''!. J.diocipie vs. i.'/arkc, .<»?';''i N. J I, sy. — - Reasons for Belief —,\n aili- iliuil fur i(ipi i.< alle^'inj^ that tlu' U'|Hiiiciit is iuli Miir.l thai me deft-nduiu is .-ecri'iiiij:. or is al'uut In secri'i. us propeily, is insullicient, if 1.1' dues mil V his reasons forswearing so, i_ir iiieiiliun til'' names of the persuiis from whc 111 111 recen'd the iii '"urnialion, in order to pliiie the defeiidiini in a pusition to contradict them if he can do .. Mtillarki/ vs. I'lKiiuuf, S. C. 1-71), '.I H. L. .Vil), and >ee Bdl vs. Vi- giiiiiilf, .iiipra No. li.'!. But see Drupean vs. I'di'iiiKl, infra No. -'.•, and case-s there noted. 87. Province of Canada.— And will re an aUidavit i t cdjiin.i set out that de- feiidiuit ■KHH about ininediately to leave the " I'ruvince of Qiuliec "—Bell, iiisullicieiit. Botja- vs. Walsh, S. C. 1880, 3 L. N. 304. 88. Reasons lor Belief.— Ci/yxat where founded on lieliel, it is sullicient to >;ivo the name of an inforriiant w illioiit s()ee t'yin>» oilier reasons of belief. MclkUn vs. Miller, C 11. 1881, 2y L. C. J. 208. 89. In an allidavit for citpiaa where the deposant alle;j;es that he believes the defendant Is secreting liis ]iroperty with intent to defraud, it is not necesi-ary to slate the grounds of such lulief. (!) /''"/((-an \s. I'dcawl, C. U, 18S0, tm I. K. K. An 1 see Miditi/nimri/ vs. Lystir, injin No. '.•7, and No/te yf. C'iirri<, .iiipra So. T'l. iJut see jVh/- larky vs. I'liaitiiiJ. /tiipra No. sii. Jidl vs. Vil/llidull, SUpl'l No. (iii, 90. Establishing Secretion.— An allidavit tor a Cdpias ml rcipoiiilnnluiii, under lUtiele 7'JS Code of I'rocedure, in uhich, as to the alle;:eii secreting, the dep iiieiit swears: Qii'il est iiifuniii: d'diie mdii< n' rroyithlc, a titiile raixiiii ilr croirc, el croil vraimcnl en na cousriciwi/, etc., and gives th' names of liid "informants." — Ihl'hiipwX. Ileference mado to I'.iool-e vs. JJalliidiire, ti I!. L. 057, and Grij/illi vs. j1/eGo(''/'/( (reported ;ii appeal in Montreal Herald, June, 1.S7:!. Andse. li L. N.at p. 1. .See Koran's Code of Procedure, p. 4'J2 for decision of Court of iteview which was reversed) in which i.ttiiiavits tor atiachmenl before judg- ment, tinder imicle 81)4 ol the Code of I'roce- dure, in the -nine form as to the secreting, >\ere iield giiod by Court of Apjieals. CruI'dHM', Ihnur.'f, b. C. 1881,7 Q. L. K. 277. See also lliirtubisc vs. Lerichi', snprd No. .Jt. 91. Reasons for Belief— Leaving Canada.— On appeal from a judgment inain- laiiiing a cdpid.f. I'cr cdridiii. — I'he alliduMt ill this eii-e sets out no fact leyoiid the de- liartui" of the defendanl aii'l his failure Ui pay what he owes. It has now been so often laid duwn that this is not sutiicieiil that the jurispriideiice must be considered settled on tin point, ilow a departure is to become "with iiiiiiit to defraud" otherwise than by the nonpayment of the debtor's liability it is not easy to under-tand ; but the law would cease to be inii lesting if it had not its little mysteries. I take it, liowever, that the recent rulings have completely aiiniiiilated "the sea- faring man doctrine." Cdljrry vs. Liijhthall, Q. B. 1881,4 L.N. 282, 2 liunon'sQ. B. Uep. 10. See also Milchdl vs. Bmn, infra Nu. HI. 92. Time of Debt.— Petition to I quash a capias on the gr"iin 1 that theaflida- I (1) Tlii3 case refers to enntlictiiit; cases on the sub- ■ jcct. 1 .iSt-U ■ -i. 262 CAPIAS. vit (lid not ftllppp tie .-ecretion to hare taken pliice Hiiice tiie imlciilcilnessi, It ciiil that in Febnmry, 1879, tlicrt' liml been a oonver.fiition between the iiartiec, and fince tliiU tiincllie (lefeiiiinnt liivii secreted. The debt wns con- tracted fionie mohtlis after that. It was nut exjircs^ly mid tiiat there wan a, dchl at tiie moment of necrelion. Held, lliat tlie iitli lavit was wnntinK in |ireci-ioi) and tiiertfnre Iceh- nically deficient. McAUeuy. A^hhij, C. 1{. 18Sl,.l L. N. 50. See Ttwleau y^.'lirwiwl, infra No. 112. 93. An atlidavit for capias, nml' r C. C. P. 1W, in which as to the allegeil secretin:: the deponeiil swears; "the deponent is ere- (lilily iiifurmed, and in iiis conscience dotli verily helieve tliat ihe Faid 0. H. has secreted and made away wilh, and is aliout immediate- ly to secrele and make awuy with his proijerty with intentViii,'' etc., is sutlicicnt. lilnkr vs. Wwlhi;ih, Q. 15. l.y^L', i; L X. :!. 94. "Or."— .An aflidavit for capias, al- legini: in theallertiiitive that the ilefendant is secreting or is on llie |oitil of ^ecretinj: his proiierty and efl'ecis, etc., is institlicient. Gan- non vs. Wriiihl, .S. C. 1SH2, 5 L. N. 40 J. See Ostell vs. PeAoqnin, siipm No. (i.'i. ,Sec Mi; Masirr vs. Bohcrl.ioii, siijira No. CiO. 95. Province of Canada.— An atli- davit is insnfficienf whicli allejres that the de- fendant is .TJioMt to depart frrmi " the province of Queliec ; " it siioiild he from " tie province of Canada." ^f»)•«»(/. S. C. 1882, M. L. R.. 1 S. C. .IIT. 90. Heasons for Belief —An affida- rit for capiim made after the in-titntion of an action for Ihe recovery of ihedeht nnd contain- ing only the allrrration, that since ihe iii-titu- tion of l!ie action the defetnlanl has secreted and made away with his trood.s, delils nnd ef- fects, with the intention of defrauding his ,.rp. ilitors in general and the plaiiitill's in iiarticn- lar, is sufficiont and legal, and it is not neces- sary in such adidavit to give the ".'roniids of deponent's helief. DWnjoii vs. Tliiliamlemt, Q. B. 1882, 11 R. L. -A-l 97. " Or "— Reasons for Belief— The allegation in an atRdavit for capias that "the defendant is secreting his property with the intention of defrunding his creditors in ;;en- eral r/rthe depo.^aiit in particular," as al-n that the defendant has secreted and is ahoiit to se- crete his])ropcrty are .-ufJiciently positive, nor is it neces.«nry for the deponent to enumerate the reasons which he has for so helieving, Montui h secretion or alisconditig ha- taken place. i< insutlicient, and does not comply with article 8;ilC. C.P. Weiurohe vs. ,V„/„y/;.,),, S. C. 1881, 7 L. N. lO'J. See TrwUau v.. Ifrniiiiil, infra No. 112. 100. AriT. :W r. C. p.— An affidavit for capias, under .Art. 799 C. C. P.. allegirn' that the defendant is a trader, that he is nntu- riously insolvent, that he has refused to inako terms with his credit rs or to make an a-si;.rii. tnent of his property for their ln'tielit, that lie continues to trade although insolvmt, is insufficient. Cie- . Sie Warren vs. Morgan, supra No. ISi'i. 101. " Will loso Eecourse."— The staleinent that the departure of the defendant will cause the plaintid' to lose his dehl and to sutl'er damages, is e(|iiivaleiit to the allegation that it will nuike him lose his recourse, and, therefore, sutlices. I'iclii: vs. Bcrnier, ('. I!. 18«l, II) Q. L. R. .^,-)l. See also Lditcrc vs. Donnelly, supra No. 27. See also Lampsoii vs. Sniilli, siijira No. 29. 102. Erasures and Marginal Notes. — One atlidavit which contains all the necessary averment^, sullices for the issuance ol'a writ of capias ami of a writ iif atlacliin(iit in the same case ; and the fact thai the w.irds which inav have li( en erased and the inarjiiial notes which may have heen ailded to the atli- davit are not summarized at the end thereof, does not make it null. ^7. Michel vs. Vi'ldler, S. C. I880, M. L. R., 1 S. C. !(;:{. 103. Pleadings.— Where the jilain- lid in such case prayed for no further coa- dernnation in the decdaration attached to the attachment hefore judgment than what he ha I (daiired in the declaration attached to llie capias, the defemiant was not allowed to tile two sets ofjjleadings {Ih.) 104. "Or."— An allegation in an atli- davit for capias " that the defendant has se- creted and made way wilh his property, and is about to secrete or make away with his pro- perty with intent to defraud his creditors in CAPIAS. 2C:^ u'cricrul or l)ie plaintiff in pnrticulnr " i« Hiifli- (MrMil. Si'iiiU-al vH. Hart, S. C. 1HH5, M. L. II., I S. (". 371. 105. Noil lipr iM (lipfp liny iinccrtnintv ill the alli'){iitlf)ii " tlmt tlie ilcffhilant In aliimt til li'avf iniiiiciliatcly tlif Province ofCanmla, roniprisin^' llic I'roviiici'H fif Ontario ami Que- hi'c, uitli tli(- intention of ilcl'randin;; lii.- crcil- iloi-' in I'dioriil or ilic ili'fpnilaiit in partitiu- III!' i " .iiicli alif.;ation in Hiidioicnt. (Ih.) 100. Art. TH'.i C. C. P.— In onier to nliiiiin a citpiuH (id rmpotKliiulinii, it is only iHx'cfi-ai'y that, in mlilitioii lotlid di'lit, tlic alli- iliivit fhoiijil ^tat(• tlmt tlie (Icfi'inliint in a trad- er, tlmt lie 1ms cpasc'il liij juyniontH and lia^ rrfii-((l to iiiakp an assi^iniiicnl of liiH iirnpi'rty I'.r ilic licnelit of his crpditors. I'arcnl vs. Tni>le!,C. \l IHK7, 13 Q. L, U. i;!i;. 107. Time. — .\u alN'.'alii II in nn atli davit for riipias tlmt llu' difi-ndant lias spcrctpd mid mall' away willi lii.s properly >vitli tlie in- tention oi'di IVaildin^' llic pluintitt, liis ciedilor, i< siitlicieni, and need not Piinnuialp the lime when llip .'^(■(•relion took ]ilace. 7Vf/i//i»//«« vs. JI,ir/,S.<'. 18S8, 16 U L. ;U8; Lchlaiir vs. F„rt;ii. s. c. isin, II L. X. 90. 108. -"May lose Recourse. "—In such ; H*' 12, which requires the nffldavit to esiahlish that the defendant has ceased his payments. Xerdle vs. CarrU'rr, S. C. iHSli, 10 1,'. N. 2-*. 111. Reasons for Belief.— An atli- davit tor rdpids whieli alleges that the defend- ant is aliout to leave immediately the former Province of f'aiiada, with the intention td' de- fraudin>; his creditors, liul which does not slate the deponent's reasons for so lielievinj.'. is irrei;nlar. MilchtU vs. licnii, S. C. 1.>'l ; Weiiirnhi' vs. Siildiwiii, siipni No. !ti'. 113. Clerical Error.— Where the afKdavit iille;'i's that the |)laintill is spcretiiiii, etc., instead (d'that the defeielant is secretin^', the I'djiidK will lie quashcil. lilondui vs. Dcs- Janliii!', S.C. IsOO, M. L. I! , S, C. 2!t;, 1 1 It. L. ;i 1 1. 110. AuT. -W C. C. P.— An alle-^a- tioii in an alliilavit for capids, that the defend- ant is notoriotisly insolvent, is insntlicient un- der C. C. P. 7!)y and -Sx \'ict. (Q.). ch, 22, e. 1 It is not necessary, in an allidavit lor cipids alleginj: fraudulent secretion, to indicate the I mole in which the deponent win informed if I the facts of secrelioii allej^ed, nor to give the names of the persons who furnished the in- formation, as is required in an allidavit for Cdi'id.^ em Ihe L'ronnd that the defendant is aljoiit to leave immediately ihe heretnforr pin- vince of Canada, with intent to defraud his creditors. jMr/idwe vf. (Iduihlur, S.C. IS'.HS M. L. H., S. C. 27'.t.con(iriiied in Review, :,» June, iN'.tO. 115. Allegations of Indebtedness. — In an allidavit for rdpids, it is uiA necessary to allr;.'e specially that the delit was coiilracl- ed wilhin the ]irovin(!P ; luit, in the present case, the receipt and fraudulent conversion of f.'0ods I ly the defendants in Montreal liein^ al- leged, a personal imlehte Iness here was snfli (deiitly discloseil. Iletiikni vs. .S7f(y/o», C . I?. : ISltn.M. L. H., 7 S. V. 118. 116. Fiat. — An appearance an 1 Jidt for the issue of a writ of cdinan are not essen- tial where the issue of the writ i.s ai-ked liy the ! atiidavit. {lb.) 117. Allegations of Indebtednsss —Account annexed.— An affidavit for ca- [ pidii is not void for uncerininty hecause it .set.s I out several causes of indehteilness for a like ■3 vfl Ir ,; W\ fl" 264 CAPIAS. m -M'M iuiiount (a.« ill a doclnriitiuii willi llic coiniiioii founts), 8(j loiij,' a-^ ii is i:l«ir that tho allc^^a- tioiiM all relate in oiip iind iLc hmiih' sum fif money. I'ihe L'inr ^^lls Co- v.«. I'l-icst, C. 11. ls:il,'ir)l.. N. liiio. 118. Tlie omission to am ex nn ae- loiml refei-reij to in tlie alli'lavit is not niater- iiil, llie low rei|nirinf: (lily tlie nath of the ore- ililor or liis H;;ent. ( Pl ) HI. AM'Elt ,Jri)f;MK\T. (Seealso " CONTIv'l ATIOS 0|-,") 1. A writ of riijiiiis may i--ue after Ju(Il' iiieiil, aiiil in a !iew inlidM, aiei in i-ni;li a ea-e it is oonijielpiit In I lie (iefen lant, on the merits lained. ']'he atli davit men ly referred lo this Jndirnient, and the de- riaruli.pii nieridy nilcL'ed lliat the iimoiint df the Jill Jinn lit was still iin|itiid and di'inandin^ !i riijii'1.1 — III hi. thitt, as ii nipi.is is~iiin;i after .jndf;inenl was nut n demand in tiie -^en-e of Art.. 'ill C (". 1'., l.iit niily a mean- nf jirevent- itij.' the defendant fniin leaviiiir the emintrv mlil thedidit should ln' paid, that a reference toihe jiilLrment as a ;ri'oiind of i-njiins was .-Mllicient. Trii.l ,r- l,e is no iiHin' neces-;iiy (Inin ii' the fn/u'ds Ini 1 i-sned iief.ii'e jn iLrment. Dnipinii \ -, l'iir,iiii/, (Ml. issd, OQ, i,.lt. lie, 4. The issue (,f n ritpiiix after jiid^'iieiit does not result in a neu imLoiient coihh'iiiniim the defendant to piiy what he has already lieen ordered to pay hy the jiidirnient on uhicli llii' rapiiis is linked, hut the elleci i- simply to join i\\e rjipidn to Mich judL'Uieiit and have it de- clared valid. /' ,■; • //( vs. I'uniud, C !!. \>*>[\, i; ' |{. I,, 7, comirmin;,' S. C, is.m, .| L. X. :u>; also flay v.s. Cctilih/, 1 K. H., ,T I{. deL. HOC, holding "a raplns ad respiiiidendiim caimot he olitained (in the dis- trict of (Juehec) in an action founded on a judf!inent of Kini;'is Bench, Montreal, 6. A cajiiih'i may iHsu" in a weparute action for a deht composed in pai't of the amount of a Judj^ment previously ohtained a;_'ainst the defendant, .such C(ij)ius heiiiir a proceediii..' entirely distinct and sejiarate from the jud.'- meiit. Si'iii'i-iil vs. /flirt, H.C. Iss'i, Jl. |,. i;^ 1 S. r. :171. 7. It i.s Hot necessary that a C((y//i/s is-iie.l after jiidirment slioiiM he i-sned ,i- nn inci- dent o[' the aclion L'iviiis; rise lo suidi jiid'_'- ment, and liear the same numlier as su.-h uc- lion. 7'riidi;;n vs. lii'iniiid, ,'>, (", |~~'', 17 Ii. !,. i;i7. 8. 'J'he defendant arrc-tei on a u rlt of r-r jiiii.-; issued afti'f jnd;;mcnl, cannot, iipirii p,.- litioii In (juash, have it deidarcd void, heciuise the phiintid .■ lucludi'd for a cnndemiiation fu- tile amoiini , if the deht for uliich hea!iialy had jiidL'ment. {III.) 9. Res Judicata.— Wheii" a nipiui h hased on a jiidirmeiit, I he i|ne.-tion of ii del il ni- nes,- as fi.M'd ny the jud;;meiit is c///i.o' jn'ii'i', and ilic delVn iani is preclude. 1 from ipie-i ..u in<; the correcl ne.-s of the am iiiut so foun I In he line \i\ him ('iis/iin^/ vs. f'lnliii. ^. (.. 1."^''-, I (^iie. ol'J, coniiruied in l;e\ieu, p. IV. Ad A I N.ST. 1. Hiisbanci— Bail,— A wife s,.p;iiiiied hs to hid an 1 lioiird can nipiii.-: ler hii-hiuid where he is d:spo-in_' ( l' lii-^ pioprily uilh a \ iew Ii; depriviii;Z her of the aliiiienliiiy iillnw- mice chiimed hy her ill an aclion then I'nr. iiii I ill such cii-^e the deteiidaiil mii-I ;.'i\c sccniily for hail loihe extiiil of the jud;:mciil lli:il may he r'lidcrcl, the enurl imt li;niii_' lie' power In liinii the ainniini in such i ;i- ■. n'/ii,l,r V-. ,sw////, S. C. I>S7, l:t II. L. r.Mi. 2. Minor.S— .\ (•,/;//■/,■; will iml lie lojiiiii-l a ■ niiior even lnr necsfaries. Muy^iaii \-. !.■ hi,i,i;ilii;-,^.V. Is7'.l. a Q. !,. R. 'JIJ. 3. Hul, lii.ld, il minor ciirryiii;.' on trade may lcL;ally hind himself I'or hi-^ hoiird .nid h)d;.'in.L', and in such case may he arre-n-d under riipiiis ltd 1 1 spiiiidritil mil . Iliiil.-lliih/ vs. )'«/c, .S. C, l.s(12, 12 L. U. 1!. 2!fJ. 4. The defendant, a music teacher, hein;i arrested hy nipias for a liidit due l^r clothes, pleaded hy exception to the t'oriii that lie was a minor, and on the same ^^roniid prc- senled a petition under Art. 8111 of the (Vulo CAPIAS. 2G5 ,,f I'PK'filr'e for liis disL'liiirse. The pliiiiitiil' ' 3a. A liiiil huud is e^uM.-i.lercd t.i Ik- a jiri-wcn il timt, altlioiigh lie was a minor, lie jiiJiciiil (irooei'iling in tiio interc^tH nf ju^tico, Hiis plili sulijcot to capian, iimsinncli us lie uml not a lucre contnict between iiidiviiliiaU ua>< a trailer, anil the IhiiiL's I'or which he uiis ^ to he con-lrueil in favor of the pluintill, no- inclrlilcil were necessaries— //e/r/, that the |je- cording to the letter >.f tlie 'locunient. (lb.) i,ii,,„ under \rt. SlU oftlie Cde of Procedure ^ Contra.— Where the defendant ,i:ive.-) ua- indepeiidentof all other iiroeeedings, even , |,,,|i^ (lie condition of llie l.md heing that he tl.^iigh hascd on tlie same grounds. .V-/'^((;i ,i,,i|i ,,^i jravethe I'rwvince of Canada, he V-. [,,l,n,ilillier, S. ('. 1-7:1, '. t>. L. li. 2rj. ^ ^j^,^^ u,,, thereto cease to he under detention ; S. Person acting under another's such hail has meiely the eliect of .nlargmg Influence. — A ciip'Ki.-t will he set aside on tlu' linvs within wliich he i.s coiitined, and of eMderii'elhal the party arresteil was young, 1 sulistinitiniZ the sureties as guardian insteavi thill lie luied uiidertlie iiillueiice of his father, ofilu' slienll'; tlierelore, evi :i tlie temporary ir llioiijjh he, lieiii^' lioukUeeprr of the coiieern uhsenee of the defemlant IVoni the province (ilWhirii he was a piulner, made fraudulent coistitutes a liremdi of the condilioiis of the 1 iiiiir-- in llie hooks lo the ihimage of the ere- hond, and gi\es the creditor recourse against ditors. I.i'iliiin' \^. /'if.s7o(/.v, t^. 15 , Montreal, iIk.. sureties, 'rhciiipxnn \^. L^icroix. S. U. r.nddv.l at Quehec, •^ O.'t., l.^^.'i. p--7,^, .1 Q. L. R. Ur.'. G. Sopfuagonarian.— A -epiuagenarian, 1 5 gQQjj under Art. 824 C. C. P.— »hn iM'rriorair- hypoll.ecaled properly, is ,„ » Sufficiency of.— Thr hail aulhori/ed hy Ar' rxcmpl from arre-t under r,;y./„.v. <)iiiw'!\>. ,^oK',c, 1>. rail I c fiii'iiishi'd ly iiiorr I liaii .I/,,/,,;,/', .S. ('. l-!i:!, :i Qur. 1:;, conlMmed in ,^^.,, .,„,.,,||,.s i,, dillcivnt amouni-, j.rovidrd i;e\!eu J- I'eli., I -'.M. Ihc .— Miilicicni sur.nr-. J!,!, I. vs. (.'los/. S. ('. -s, Tiie li.nl given to the ~lierili in a ca~e ipf cii/iii/.v I'l H- I.. •'•77. i- iiiili ii it eoni.iin a elan e that the parly 0. Bond— Forfeiture— Notico ot' Trans- siiuiild fill iiish a .-pecial hai on the day oi the for. — Provisional DlKChargC. Aki. !-'JS ic 1:11 II. an 1 in I al any liiii' hel'ore or •irtir C.C.I'. Whei c ihe dcli.ir ha- I'ui I'l iled hi-^ Jiid.Miienl, h'lii/iinniJ \-. \\'((lki 1; H- V>. l-ls, l„,ni| L'iv.i. lollm shcritf under Art. !~2S :; V,f\. lie l.i''g. li'.»7, -J I ;. ,1. 1 :.«.>. -Jill. C. C. l'. loolilam ins provl-ioiial di-^(diarge, it li. Bail under Art. 825 C. C.P.— In- i-^ not nee.— -ary llml ihelr.oi-f.M- of the hond SOlv.Mlt Act, 1875. d'iie lii-.ilvent Ael, hy ihr -Infill 10 llie eivdiior -ii. mid he signi- l-;."i. -. l:'7. .hd not repeal Arl.-J.". C.-C 1', li. d 10 he a.,npl,d i.y I h.' - irely . (jo,i,n.r,r. 1;. iMi:;, .! (til. 11:!. '■ 7. Bond under Art. 825 C. C. P.— d Boijd—Brcach— Nature of Bond— SutFciency.— (Ii> ihr Comi oi Ih \ icu, eon- Surotics.— 1 he plailililf having caii-co llic lirmin.; llii' indL'iinhl 1 f ihe Superior Court, arie-l hy r.i/iid.i ml ii.-^jmn'/'iiilinii o| mii' 'ra-r'n'ri'mi .1 ., •//.^■>( ////'//''. 1 .\ hail hoinl gi\ en .M.iiiii, llin drleiidaiil- hicaiiie .-pedal hiiil, ihc in -al i-f, irl ion ol'lln ahove provisional liail,aiiil lull 1 imii C'f liie hond hciiii; liial .Nloiiii -lioiil.l icadiiiLra- folluw-: "Kin.u that W', Chas. ill I \ave the I'i'ovinrn of Canada. .Moriii, himieux and llavid la iiiieu.x, hind oursih cs dniiiii a hiiniiiig e.\i-iir.--ioii. unwiltinglv toward- V. H. Scot t, shei ill ot' the di-triei, in iii'--i d llie frotilier into Ihe I'm led Slal<'s, Imt the sum of ;i<:i."i(l, lo he paid to the .-aid slier ill' or alii'iward- ri'turiied III hi-^ residener in (Canada, lo his allorin'V, adiuiiii-lralor, etc. U'herea-', nil I vol- siihsi ipmnlly ~iirr''iidered hv his hail. the said Charles 1 .ciiiiriix u a- arir~lcd hy the Tne piaiiilill' thin. Moriii In iiig snHii, naol, s^id -lieiill at llie in-lanne of Joseph (J nil- hrniighl -nit again-l llie pre-ent drf. ndanls h't, and siirii'inleied iiilo the hinds of the said iipiin Ihe hond. 7/(7./, that Murln's ahsen.'e. sherill, aeeordiiig lo law ; the present ohliga- iiiidrr the ciriMimstiinres, \\a- '1..I a breach of tioli piovi.les llialth.' said Charles Lemieii.v: llie eoiiilil;oi|s of iln' hail hoii.l, and lh.il, in shall, at any lime hetween now and tin' len- iinyiase, his sui render hy li|.< Imil di.-idiarged , deriiig of the jiiilgiuenl in this mailer, surren- ihcin fr.ini (he hciiid. Vi'i/y v-. Hrdiidil et al., .ler himself into llie hands ol'ihe sherill' when S. ('. is^."), U Q. L. It. I'.V.i ; Thciiijison vs. so reipiired hy an order of the Court or a J,iirii,i'.v, I tj. 1j. 11. Ill 2, ipiestioiied, .jii'lge in the terms of the law, and, in default *5e i if i^ ill 1 f 'I f t ! ,1 h 111 I. I i! 2C;6 CAPIAS. of .'o doif];:, 1k' ^l.all pay tlic ^a'ul ^^iiin vl' '■ Ifamcl, Q. B. 181"., 1 Itcv. ,1,. I,,'.^-. jij. J.'iaO. In that event ilie |.re?-eiit olilij-'iition ' 2 K. J- H. Q. 12. shall lie voiil aini of tm cfTect, Imt, in the con- 13. A defendant wlio lias given ><.. .-[-.il trarv event, it .«lmll remain r, fciji I'oree, vi;_'or lifiil is not bound to tile a sliueiiKTit anl i. ilsc and ethi.'t"'— ?ati.-fie3 the '•eiiaiienr'Mts of Art. tlie declaralioii mentioned in Article :•.■', ,.f M2.5 C. ('. P. the Godo of Procedure. J'onlet vs. Li,',.;; ,-f, 8. At all events the |; --ence of the S. C 18V2, G Q. L. K. 'Mi. |)laintifT"s attorney when >ucli liond was i.'iven, 14. Special Bail under Art. 824 and the failure of |)lainiitr to riii~e ol.JM-tions q c. P.— Statament and Declaration thereto, either ihen .') and IM C. C P. within l.'> .|,uv meni, whicdi lui 1 not heen cfMitesled.— jirevent |V(,in service of the .jud):inent, which h.' i:, ,,| the iihiinlill from now claiming' that ihe second , to do. and 1p.\ anollier judL'UU'iil wa- dei .i. i hond was null, and that tlie surely has iKcmie to he in coniem|it of Ccjurt, and eondeuih. i m ills per.sonal dehtor under the '.lond for ]i\\f he " detained in .jail until othei'wise ordeir, I I, v vi.sional di-charL'e, on the irroiind that tlie this Court''— /AV./, in Suijen,,r (\mri. i,,;i-, surety wu< not renmvc; within the proper under Art. "OCif. C. P., tlu' .lehlor who i- at tiniehya re,i.'ulai' hond uiHlcr Art-. 824 and liherty on 1 ail is olilijji'd t,, lurni-h a-i,i.- .''2.J C. C. P. (Ih.) ment within .'!() dav.s of ihe iud<'meni iii i',.' 9. The fact thut such hfmd was '.^iven s\iit, and that lhei-<' is no distinclioi, in il,,.: in fav(]r of the sherill'does not render it null, respect helween the ca-es in which - : li thesherill heinj; for the purfiosfs of the sui'e- ' S|ecialhail i- ^iven an I olhevj. V:„.l,,ri . -, tysliip iheaL'ent (if plaintitr. (Ih.) \ h'nn.soii, <) . II. l.-^-i;, ;i:! L. C. .1. l:i2. 10. Forraof Judge's order under Art. 15- ■'"' /"/"', ni .ipptal. that :i (.>■, 801 C. C. P.— '["he f.dlowiii.L' form of the niitmcMt lor cnnlompi mu-l he for a .-iv. „ iudf:("< order, re.piired hy r<0\ (pf I he CoJe ..I lime, ,c- until the per-^on inconWmpI d-r- ,.r C. P.. i« -ulliei'-nt :— " Seein- the lorci.ifi- is willing' to conform to ih d.|' ,. r 1 1,,. ('..■,■, al'ldavil, the ai mt of had to he -i\ m under '''I'!"' ii coiniinimeni which i~ LTcncial ;,!, | A.-I.s(ll ,.r ijie Cnic ofr.P. 1- hcivl.y lixed duriii- ph'asure will he .plashed and set :i -il^. at ■' Mols/r rrnii r,,. V-. 0/,w;/, (>. I!. W'-) 16. And //'/./. hy Cio--: ,!., ;,|,|,:,,^. inj- I'niil,/ V-. Liiii!:ri. (i; (). I,. \[. :;l |), Ihat a defendant, who ha- u'iven special hall under f. C. P. ^'J I. is iidt hniin I lo li',. a stali'inent and make tin' dc(dai'al;on nn iii • ic 1 In aiiiide- 7(11 7(lil C. ('. P., an I lie dd-a. laal ill this ca-e, not hciiiL' houn I hv law to tile 1S7:1. 1.-^ P. C. .1. -iw 11. Special Bail, Art. 825 C. C P.— Provisional Discharge. Art. 828 C C. P.--\\'lie;c .iud;;mi'nt was renderci in Ihe Superior Court, mainlniniuL' a wril ol' c.apia-. and the ilet'cndant pre-i-ntcd a petition siip- ]iorleil hv atlidavit, praviici to hi' allowed I liutin hi'iilor.-ecuntv.that he would -ur.'cnder •^"cli -talenicnl. , oiihi not h,' i, nteinpi lor him-elf to the sheri It within a month alter ser vice upon hiuiscli'm' hi- -iirelie- (jf a ju ii; ment requirin.' -ucii surrender — //(/(/, that ! ( failim: to diM,. I'iii'her;/ \~. Riu^nii. \-^-u, M. I,. I!.. 2 g. li. .■ii.-i. 17. Special Pail under Art. 824 C. C. would on iMUse shnwn he allowed to put in P.— Imprisonment. — Wlnr. a dehloi', imd a' Huch hail in plii 'c of the had iriven lo the n writ of rripins H'l n spumh iihiiii ,\n- \i\\'n sherill. Jfciidtrsoii vs. LiniKiKn'ii.r, S. C. hail, iiiihr .\rticlc '^2 1 C.C.I'., thai he will im I 18ti7, 17 !.. C. K. II I. leave the Province of guel le .ainicil he 12. Special Bail, Arts. 824 and 82.5 c.ondemncil t . he imprisoned unlil he ha-^ pii: 1 C C. P.— In an action u[ion a rc'o-ni/.anc. the deht with mtere-t aril costs. .<„lr,i.^-: of special liail-//cA/, that th lissi,,,, in 1^''''" 'HI l>niorl„r, Q. li. 18S.-,, 'J',) I.. I'. I. such recognizance (jfthe conditions re piird '''■'• in the provincial statute, ,"> (Jeo. IV., cap. 2, 18. Special Bail, Art. 821— Provision rei^arding tlie liahiliiy of the co^'tii/or, makes al Discharge, Art. 828 C. C. P. — A de- tlie recognii'.iince null an I void. Slwirt \s. t'endant arresteii un ler C'(/)/i/.>.', wdio ha- _'i\rii, CAPIAS. 267 by virtue of Art. 828 C. C. P., the liail-liond iiK'ntioncd in form No. 41 of tlic Code of Pro- cdliirc, can, iifit'r a delay of oiglit diivr* from theilav fixi'd for the return of tlie writ, and cviM iil"ter .judgment iiiainlaining the ropia.i, (ililain leave to put in .i|x>t;ial hail under Art. S2IC.P.('. Liijht.tlone \-. Bcrcoritcli, C-K. j 18',t0, 20 R. L. 45tl. i 10. Special Bail.— Imprisonment.— Sureties. — A dd'eminnt arre-led under a writ of cfijiias, ii\ii\ who has '_'iven I ail under Art. S2.'i C. ('. P., cannot tie iniiiri-soned liefore the dcliiv of one iiiouth from the 8ervite of an order of the Court ordering; him to ,'^urrender hniis( ll to tlieslierill'; anil the only (ddiL'aiion inonrred iy thi' -unties is the |iaymenl of the del't upon lielciidant'H default to so surrender liini-i'ir. Thiljiindcdit vs. VillcncHcc, S. C. Lssii, IT R. \u 7U. 20. Sureties— Justification of. Art. 827 C. C. P.-Capias— Bail. 'I'he .suiciies ollcird in a ea~f (if cupiiis may ju-lify on natli. ;ind iMid n^it justify on rcil est at''. l/ur/,, /n/ii Bunk vs. (,;,i,h-iii,/, s. c. is;!i. 2 1.. X. 2Ti;, 10 1!. I,.2:;i. 21. Sureties.— Judicial Abandonment. —Effect of.— The erediti.r eiinnot compel the sureties of a ilehlor aric-lcil under eir/f/f/.s- to deliver u\\ the dehtor, or in default to pay the (lelit in cMpilal, inlerot and costs where the dchior has niiide a judicial ahandonminl i>f hi- property in ihe ri-.i;nlar way. and nave nnlici' 'hereof to the ]ilanitiir. allhoUL'h the aliiuidonmeiit arose out o''anothor case, fiicil- iiiiin \<. Liliciiihiil. .S. ('. H;i;!, .'! (Jne. I')>*. 22. Surctirs -Dcpo.sit in lieu of Bail, tmdcr Art. 828 C. C P.— Agrooraont to give Bail— Conditional Obligation —Time of Pcrformanc3— Dofault. Aurs. Kit;" llllll' ('. C. — 'I'. heiuLi; arresled upon a i-iijiins, ■:iive the hail (Feb. I.'-', 1,*^;^,^) required hy Art. f-2'^ (', ('. 1'. for his provisional dise.har;:e- The .-uretics, l.y consent, deposited ^;2(l(l with the pruthot otary in place of ii lioml, the terms ef llir wi'itlen consent heing : " The parties ii;.'ree (o and accept the depo.-il .... to satisfy the uiiio'inl of the jud.L'mcnl to he rernlered in this Ciise in capital, inter<'st and costs, if he fails to ^'ivc ihe .--eiMirily required hy Art.H2lor -ilT) C. 1'. ('. on the" 1st Mandi, is.s,-^," The con- te>tiitinn of Ihe rapiii.i was dismissed l'"(di. 2'.', nnd on .Marcji ,5 T. •:av<' notice that he would pill in liail under Art S24 or .S2."), and hail wii-" '.'iven under .\rt. S2.") C. C. P. hy perniis- piun of the Court, the rights of the parlies being reserved. The idainlill tlieii attached the depo.'iit in the hand.'^ of the prothonotary for the costs on the contestation of the f(i})iaK. On an intervention hy the ?>ireties, each claimiiig half of the deposit — //tf/'i (Tait.J. ili.ts.) : — That the date (1st .March) inontionel in the consent applied only to hail un Ut Art. 821 C. C. P., which must lie given within eight d.iys from th<' liay ll.sed tor the return of the writ ; an I that T. having the right to put in bail uniler .\rl. 82.J C. C. P. at any time before judgment, the case did n^t come within Art. 10i;s C. C, nor under Art. lOt;'.) C, ("., wdiich applies to contracts of a commercial I'.atiire only. The intervention of the sureties was llieref ire ma niained. /Jotcv/.v.f/ vs. T/il- h,iii,le,iv. C. R. IS.s'.i, M. I,. I!.,.-, .S. C. 431t, 1!) R.L. 2:;:». 23. Sureties- Liability of— Wiiere a C'f/'/t;.''' h.is been declared '.'ood and valiil.aiil tiled. 'fendinl, in appealin.: fivMii thejudgraen!, gives securiiy for co-t- only, an I files a de- claration tliil he does not ohject to the I'xecii- t;on of the judgineit, the apjiea! does not siisj.iend piMcecilings again-l the bail on iheii- bond to the sherill. A.'//o/c v-. Miilliii, i). B iSTfi, 2! L. C. J. .V>, II R. L. !>; Smilli \s. Ihin'il, 8. (', |s77, unreported. 24. Sureties —Liability of, to Im- prisonment. —The b.iil under .Vrt. S2,') Code of ('. P. for a defendant arrested un ler a ar^t of cKplii.'! ,vl ri>:j)i,n, S. C. ISC'), 1 L. C.L.J, '.t'.i. 28. Suretici— What amount liable for.— In iiL'tidii a;:niM-^t the :^iir('th'sof a iiorsiin arre-tf.l iiirlcr c.a})ia.<, wlicro the plaiiitill' flou,L'lit 1.0 Imlil tliciii I'orun ammint '^n'Mvv than tliat ,>ri>;iiially xwA U'>r—Il'l't- willistaiiilin;; llic Mirclii'.- liaa given liail f"r double tlic aniounl endnr-c^l nii llic writ, iind i^wcirn to ill lln' alliduvil, and aillui'iflli 'in' plaiiilill had ancrwani.-obliiiiu'djiidL'iiH'iit for an amount ;;ri'ater tlian.tliai .-worn to in llic aflidavil.lliat he could ivcovcr for ilic uuiount tliii." sworn to Willi c.o.-t-, and no iiinrc. Torrance vs. Gilii>oiir,i<. C. 1>51, 2 L. C. K. 2,S1,:! U. .1. R. (i. l,-.;j. 29. Tin' bail In liie shiM-ill' for a dc- fi'iidant iirrcsli'd on ca/'id'^ i-'(inly lialili' l"r till' amount <;aicd in ilir bad liMiid, and not for full aniOunl 111 till' JudLOncnt rciidcrrd. .Insipli vs. Ciiri//i>:r, S. C. l-.'i."i, ■> \.. C. li. '.U. 1 J{. ,[. I!. (i.li'.tT. 30. Sureties — Liability of — Provi- sional Discharge. .\kt s2s C. (". I'.— The ,-un tirs under .\ii. -iS ('. C. I', arc freed if (in the return day they deliver updelcn- dant to the >Ik'i ill'. . I /(;/';•..,■ v.-. Truili K . li L. X. 1U2, 2,-. b. C. ,1. II. I 36. When it may be put in. Am. s2t C. C. I'.— .\ defendant airesleil on ci^yi/K.s' cim ' put in special bail at any time after iiidirineiil, , altliou;:li the liond to the sberill has been as- signed lo a third party who lia« brought aeliori on it. Ciwjibcll \-^. Allans, S. C. aiil t^ B. 1S57, '.) b. C. 11. 74. 37. Ihe bailsman, even wdien sued, and two vears after judgmenl, may be allmveil lo put in special bail. Lrfihrrt' vs. I alio', S. C, ls5,<. :! L. C. .]. IIT, ',') I,. C. K. 111. 38. "n ii molion lobe periniiud lo pnl in s]iecial bail after (dght days iiniii ilio return day where the nmlion did not -ei f nih special grounds in -iippnrl lliei'e 'f //'/■/. lliat it could le't be r.'ceived. Hi^/'ll vs. /)('//, S.C. 1S58, S I,. C. 11. l:iS, K.'d. U. »,». iT2. 39. On cause shown, a del'en lanl ar- rested uieler ('((^(/((.v will, nil his ,,\vn pelili. V(iiuier(ir,Q,. \l. \''ii\, 14 L.C. 11. 2:!9and I) L.C.J. 2li5. UAVIAH. JGO 41. Au i hihl, nlso, that till' (kiciiiiiiiit iiiav [iiil ill -I":!! t-| .'c'ml liiiil or fUTui-ity lU any time, mill I'veii after jml^niu'iit fciiilercd in the i,rij;iii;il suit, upon Kpn iiil ui)|)lii'iitliin l|ii'h'li>i ami on mti^lactury caii-c Hliottu tor (■xti'Mijiiii,' the tiiin' fi'i iMiltinu in s\ic.ii sju'cirtl I'iiil. [Th.) 42. ■ Aii'l ill ilitaiill I ill" ili'I'ciiilaiii iiulliii-' ill -II' 'l t-pi'uial Imil, hi-i sureties, uli.i lia\i •.■!Mii I'H'l to lii(> -i(\tMill' ('. 1 his ap|iciir- lliic.i, 11 I' .1-1-11 at aii\ liinr ii|ioii a|i|)li('ati'iii l',,r tliil pari")'-!') mi'l siitru'lmt cause sluuvii. ilh.) 4H, . — . Ai;r.S2-t C. C. P. — Hail ii.ay \,v |,nl ill 1 \ liMM' of the Court even aller jiiil;;- ini'iii- lli'li(ii[/u- vs. Uiiti'dur, S. C". 1872, 'J 11. C.2:iT. \I. ('OXTKSTA'I'IOX or. 1. Admission of Evidence.— l|viii a i}Ctili"ii liM|ua-li a, writ uf ciijiiiia, the |)laintilt of Jl t,.'a!l, lUoIlrV l'rloniou~|\ '^lolell h_v ih IV'll- (lants; lhi»l ilrl'''ii,Uiits hii-l, shoilly aflir the Uircciiy, lu'eii iirrcsteil l'oi- llic orimc, anil com- iiiittril l''il trial ; that the.v ha-! jirc-onteil an aini'ii'atioii for llahcits ('(irpu!t,\\\\\c\\ wasdi.s- uiisseil \i.v the Court of Qiieen'.s Iteiirh. That, sulisei^uciitly, the Crouii hail l'Im'ii a consent for the ailiuissiou of ilefemlanls lo hail, imtl an or.leruas hciiiL' |iri'|pareii for their liheratioii, ][dd—'m review, re\ersiiij.' the iuiJL'inent of the S. ('., that in such case the hunlen was on tlir ilelriiilant to ij is| ,]■, , vi' the allegations of the alli.invil. Mi-\niiii-r \-. Juiiis, C. U. ISSO, 10 R. l,.i;s:i,;i J.. X. :i71. 6. Capias alter Judgment. —C.riiio.i alter ju iLrnient niusi \»- eonleslcil hv ]" tilion as lU'oviili'il hy An. .s|i) (7 xf.y. ('. (', |> DniiH-iic vs. l'i,,:t'ol. C. R. H-0, c, (,i. I,. );. MO. 7. .\ ili'feiiila'il lo an aelinii in ihe Circuit CiMirl, w!,ii-e iia i- ini|ini|ierlv iles- crihiil, ami wlio lails to lake exeeplinh lollip iiiisnouiiT, caniiiil al'teruanls set it up as a uiiL'lil not lo he re.-lriele.l to pi'oof of f'aels con- >tiluliiii.' seen lion, linmv ii to hiniself when he s»oiv .ml ihe process; he shoui.i he allowe I ! -'■'"""' "' '■onle.sialion of a r„/,w.v i.-,u.| le prove other -ronnils known to otlu'r people j mi'l^'i' A li. SO'J C . C. I'. (.Iruii ,■ ^~. l'l„,i,nn- ill aiiswerto the (lefemlanl's pretensions a'.'iiin-t , ''""> * • "• '"^"'~- " '> ''• ''■ -'--■ Ihe iniili of the ailiilavii. J/r,i,t vs. (;iroii.r. I 8. Defendant examining Plnintill.— C. U. 1--'.), 1*^ I!. 1.. 'JS',). I The ilef.'ii lant on .•! pelilinn to i|na-ii a ci/./'is 2. B.V Petition. Aui. .^'il Cr. V.— ]I,hl. \ !'-■''"-' him eannol .■ro-- evamine a ileponeiit the eonehelin- portion of Arl.SJI C. C. i>. is \ =^" "" "'"' alh-alion- of his alli.laMl, hut mu-l ,,,Tn,i-siveon'v.aiiililoe,snotohlii.;ethe,lefeii- j ''■'" '"'" ■'' '''^ ''"" "il"*--'- l>'Anjou v-. ilaiit.ulien ihee.M-ih.lilv of the .jehl liepemls , '/'''. '/w/^/6■.^^( I. 1!. l-^lj, II K. |.. .•JPj. iipeii liie truth ( f the alh'^ations of the alii- i 9. Deteriorating hypothcc'it'.'d Immo- davit, to contest the writ to-jvlher with the | veable— CoutOStatlOn. — • >ii , . n.tr-taln.ii i.f liurii- of the ca-e. .V.ii/nrr \s. /,'„/<, ■/■/. .S. C. ! a co/'or-.- i-suei| iin ler cliapler 17 of the Cm- l-:i:;. I Que. liS'.t, conlin 1 in Kevieu, .Ian. I solilate.l Slatiiles ,,|- |,. ('., n i- ii,,i coiuprU iit, 11. p-.;i(. : lor tiic ilefeinlanl lo phai in a\ . li.lanc.- that 3. Burdenof Proof.-rmlerapelili.aito i "'•' I'l^iit'liHiiouiiht the po.per-vat the sheriirs he ihseliaiL-eil from arrest iiti.ler a m/,/,/.v a^l ' "'''''■" '^ ^''''•'i'^" l'^'■'^ i'H'l -ohj it after«ar.|s n.''inm,/,;„liui, (Art, >l',t Coile of C. I',), it i- at a lar.-e prolil. Duiiin vs. Mr(,;,in,ns. S. C. iniainiheiit on the (lefemlant to estahli-h that ! '''''••''''• <^- ■'■ '''S. iheaileijiiiion^ of the alii lavit are faNe or in- ' 10. Exception to the Form -Delay. — .siiHieiriit. .V(jIsiiii \<. f ',(/-/,r, (^ 1!. I>^SO, 'j.'i 1 he ilehiv f ,r il 1 lie; a II except ii m I . I he I',. nn in I.. C. .1. i:."i ; /v/a;7 vs. L'tiillnir, S. C. |s(;i, an a'lion of e,(/./,/,v runs ,,nly iV-.n theilavwf 7 I.. ('. .1. ::i;7. reliirn iiienli,iiie,l ill the wiil. anl nut lYoin ihe 4. Inilertheehcuiii-lancisofil ase. '"''>' "'"" ""' " '''' "•'' "'urndl umhr an l.roonl,;,! Iheihfen.lani was ni.t inuueilialely "'-'I'l- "I' a m 1/c, .)/,„■„,-/„' v~. I„rc/, C. R. ul.iiil loahR'oml. where it appeaivij that he ' l'"^"^''^'' '■• ''■- ' S. C. lll'.l. hail Imn.-elf ileelared thai, umler certain not H- In Appeal. — A ih I'dnlanl arr<'-lci| iiii|)rohalileeonililions, lie would i.:o to Chica-o, undeiawril ol eo/./.,x nnisl lai-^e a!lliisi,li. mill where intentioii lo defniud was eviileiit, .jeclioiis, in liuiiin ///is, a^.ain-i the -nUieiciie.v was not Millicieiit to disprove plaiiitilV.s alii- <'•' ''"' allidavit, and not uieridy in .appeal, limit. .)frR((e vs. Milhr, S. C 1.^81, 2S L. C. , lf''!/ii diPchuiL'f I (,'nnlnn,i^. (". 1S5H, 2 L. C. J. I'il ; A'»n«iniW'7 on jiolitioii ijreMi'ntcd to tbat end afliM- liiiiil VH. JJiii/ens, S. V. 1871, C li. Ji. 2(t'J; Cdiiaduin judgment in the suit. Hoijan v.". O'ordan, S. (', Jidiilc oj Commcrie M". Jlrotvnc, S. C. 187'l, G 18r)8, 2 L. C. J. 102; Ilci/iuman va. Smith, 11. L. 20. Q. H. 1877, 21 L. C J. 2D8 ; Germuin v<' 13. Petition toquash-Dclay.-lV.iti.n ^'""'^''' "^ •^■''"- '^■^''> (^^'"••). No. I,'-.22. was brou^rbt (or the release of the defendant ' 21. A defi'ndant arrested on oiinus, aflcr issue joined— //('A/, that there was no aftercontesting thea//;/((.s- by petition to. lua-li, ]jresiini).tion of waiver of rij;iil to petition for under Art. 81DC.C. 1'., may alierwanis plead release arisin;; from delay or from jileadint; to '"' Pxcejition to the form. Lifcbvn: vs. Jl„u. Ilie action. C/uipman vs. Jilaiiwr/iKssi/.S. ('. '/''i'"", S. C. 1885, M. U. L., 2 S. C. 1». 18Gr, t; it. .1. K. Q. 'Ml, 2 L. C. J. 71, and see 22. 'I'he want of a sutlieient atlidavitto JUdlthcwson vs. Vi».v/,, ;', l»(;iion"sQ. li. Kej). hold to bail is not a subject for an execjition tu at p. 200. the form. 7V,'/(r.so» vs. Hart, K. U. l-^\\,:i 14. Defendant, after fiiin- a plea to the '^P^' 'it! I-'';-'- !''■'; AdKTc/u'fi vs, Uhirkh'ij, merits, may disprove the allej,'ations of llie •'! I!, de I.. 318; Jhtriii'y vs. y/a/'m, Stuart's allidavit upon uhicdi the r(»/)(((.s' issued. Pn-ri/ l^''P'i P' '''■ 23. Where, petition to qua-h seltin;,' up matters of hiw [' rejected, the defcn.laiil will not be ail .•*■ * 1, ^f ■ ease before jiid.i^nient upon the iirineipal d, - 16. Petition to quash.— Motion to .~ei i i , . i .■ , • , . , , mand, luit is returned atter such lud'-niriit asiile a petition to i|Ua>li as conlaniin;' mi.vec i i i i ■. t . i ^ ' ,, , ,, . ° „„ has been rendered, It can lieeontesteil notnill,. matters ol uiw ami tiirt. Irr vnnani. — J here . , i ■ i , , ,r .. , stiiielifii.' such jinJj^meiit. (lloi/(in vs. (luyhm- Jli'i/iuiiiiin vs. Siint/i ; (I'lrinaiii vs. I'l.ulint, ^iij)rit, distiniruished.) Oaiilff vs. II, nmril, ('. K. 181)1. 17 Q. L. U. 7,5. is nothin;^ in this motion, iin I it Uiiist be di-- misK'.i. I'nder 811) ('. C. 1'., tiie defendant i- aliowed to siiow thai the aHejiatioiis of |he allidavit are false or insiillieient. Petitioner snys that the alle^'ations of the atlidavil are 25. TllO Defence.— In a petition to ipia-h false, and tliat they are iiisiillicirnt. M.itioii ^i "'''it <'f f'(/*i'(.s the petitioner is not cnl'll.,! dismissed. 7i(/.tAr vs. Silln. S. ('. 1881, 4 i 'o uiye;rrouiids relatin;.' to Jn-e^Milurities m ihr L. X.221. . I issue of the writ. C/i'iput. \-<. For;/rrnii, ^. C. 17. A defendant may apply, by jietition ill term, for the cpia diinL' of a writ ot i;i/iifi.^-, aad such ]]roei(ilin;,' is niip.-e rcL'iilar, under ihr Code of C. i'., ihuii to apply by iiiotioii. Worlhai \>. Jloll, .S. ('. 1,^71, I.', 1.. ('. J. ICl. lsl»(), .\1. L. il., (i S. ('. WH). VII. i).\.M.\(Ji':s FOR I'WL.sj.: Ai!i;i:sT. 1. Departure with intent to dclr.mcl -Reasonable and probable Cauao. -!'., 18. When the writ has issued on the ''' ""'"'''."' "'' 'I"' 'i' '■' '■'-P""d. uls ii, the order ofii prothonolaiy, actiiij.' in theabsem d' a jiid'_'i', on ii claim for " nnlii|uii|ale iirse of coii\er-atioii wiih .Mel/., ar.',.ini!aiil of a li.cal bank, was Infonnid, as ii bii ,.r .• . 4. Fraudulent Concealmant of Mort- 2. Aiipelliinl, a dilitur, re-iideiit in „„„„ i> ,• . i . • " II' gage. — IJaiiKiies |(ir taking? out a cdpnt.'t \n\- providently. 'I'he appellant, ajeweller, desir- Ontai'iii, heing in the eve of departure for a Iriii lo lOiiropo, pas!-e i through the ('ily of Moiitriiil, and, while there, refused lo make a ,s(uUiiienl of iin overdue delit willi rcspond- ciil-, liis creditors, who hinl iii-litiiled legal |in.ri riling.' ill Ontario to recover their di M uhirli proceedings were st 11 pen ling, lies- iiMiidciils iherenp.iu riiu~id liliii to he arre-ti'd (III ('.//'/('v. The delit wus thereupon piiid,;in I iiiiiielliint claimed ilanuigt'-^ for the in.i.licious ing to increase his hu-iiiiess, ohiained advances fi\UM the respondent, a wholesale deali'r, anil gave as secur-ty an hypolhei' on hi-' property, on which he dei hired there were mortgages, hut he only specilied one of a certain amount, d'hcrc was really another. Shi'itly alter ap- pellant liecame insolvent, and respondent arrested him on a cdjiins. The court con- liriiied the iudgiiient of the court lielow, that i--uc ami execution of the citiiin.i. Kesiiond- ,i i ii .■ .i . i ' ' ' there was prohahle cau^e lor the ai'i'csl, al- (111-, on appeal, relied upon a pha of jilstilica lion, iilii giiig tlial when tin y iirresl( d appel ihoiigh it seems the appellant did not intend Iran liilenllv to c.)iiceul the inort.'age. Urcdhc 1;,„, il„ v acted with r.a-oimhie aiel ,.i'ol,al.ie ^.^ .s'.,,,,,,;,:,,, Q. ij. is.m;, 1,; ,Ian., .Montreal, cim-r. Ill his aHida\il,oii whirh the (vtyi/irv ,,. ,y^ .,.,., i--i|iil, lln' deponent (oiieof respoiidelils) nave u-hi^na-oii^or liidiel thai Ih.' appellant was 5. Proscription.— The action to recover iihniil !ol, live ihr I'rovinceof Canada, '■'I'liat damag.- lo,' illegal arre.-t and impri-^onment • .Ml'. I'., ihedepineiirs partner, was infirmed "'>'l<''' "7""'< '^ prescrilud liytwo vears. "la-l iii-hl in Toronto l.y one II.. a hroker, M^iisjldd v-^. Do./d, S. ('. IS-^ii, M. L. U., -2. " lliiil ihe said W'.d.S. was leaving inline- ^ * ..'-1. '■ilial. ly the Doniinionort'ana la toci'o-sover Q -And smdi pn seription is iiolin- •• ilir -a ii.r Hiii'ope or parts unknown ; and iiTi'iipted hy tli ■ mere issue of the aclioii, hut •■• ilepoiieni was hiiii-^elf informed thi- day hy Py d,,. ell; elive service of ihi'aclion hefn'.' the -.1. I; . a hiok.r, of the >aid W..). S.'sdrpart- ,.\pii'atioii of the ten years follouiiig the "uref.ir I'lunpi and oth.r places." A pp<'l- j,|,ig„u'nl ipnnhing the ra/i/i/.sv (Ih.) hiiil Has eariviiiL' oil Ini-iiiess a> a whoiesali' , 'I ' , . 1 „ , 1 . :. . ,1 I "• Presumption of Malice— M.io. is gi'OC' r at 1 oroiili', and was leaving with his ^ . ,, I, ■ ,, , ,■■ I ,1 iii'i'-nmel while ii eredioir issue- k (. ,a.f M'li III!' the rans l',.\liil'ilioii. and lliere was ' • ., .1,1 .1 1 1-, .■ ■ a_'iiiii-t li.s deliior w illioiil pi'uhahle ((' ..He and I \ iijiiiie thai hr was III iliehaliil ol ero-.-itig ' I .1 , , , , , I .'i-Cil upon fil-i' allc'MliiiiiH 111 the ullidii'. ii. a ini'-l (Aii'V veai', aiel that In- Irankel' and ' "^ ,,■■,. I I I , and the cieilii -r will llicnfuii he liahlc iii u,, Ii.- liii-iiie.-s li'ieiid- Knew li'- \\a--' rnlv , ... I ,1 , ' ilaiiiai;!--. Df'/i'iiii vs. ])< sliinrirr^, *} H. li'a\ 111.' I H' a li'iii, :iii.l lliei'i-ua- 'lo . vi.h nee n i > • lliILt the deponenl h.i I I" i e )iifoiiiir,| i|,;it up ' |iinaiii ua- leaving iril/i n,/'iif tn d,/r,ni/ 8. Settlement Of D(jt/t without Re- Tin IT \va al-ii evidi h ■' 'hai afo r ilic is>iir of .scrvo. — Where a cijiiiis w a- taken out. under llir iii/'i / . hill I" fire ii> cxei'iiiiiiii, ih' .|i-|.i. circiim-iaiK'cs which iii'.'id justify a suspicion iieiil a.-kid appi'll.'iiil l"r the |iay mriit of ,■. Iiai I'f unfair dealing, hut \\illeHil - illlcieiil pro- \va- dill' to him, aiid that pl.iinlill an-wei'id halde caii-i- to justify tiie i.--iie of the writ, and Iciii " ihat he Would iii.l pay h ini. iitid that he the partie-", on the uialler heiiij; explained, iiii;:l 1 g( 1 his ill. liny the hest w ay lie could " selth d ahoiit the pay liioiit or the delit without — //'7(/, that the allidiu it wa-^ defective, lliere any reserve, and the defendant wa- at once Irihgiio Mifliejenl rea'^onahle and prolaliie leha-^cd without having lieeii taken to gaol — I'uiiM' ,-lated for lielieviiig I hat I he drhtor was Held., reversing the jielmneiit of tlie court lie- 'liaviiig »■//'// iiitcnl /7/((H' vs. Meh'i'ii.it', Supreme Cl. I'^J^l , !'• Can. damages. Lnjiicrrc vs. Giujnun, Q. 15. 1877, ! L. N. :V1 and .s 1!. L. 727 ; Drsanhh vs. FiUatnuillfi. C. ISH'.l, M. 1.. I!., li S. C. 'Jid. Hi I I liiljijll m I ' 27: CAPIAS. VIII. DISCIIAIi(!K. I return (lay of the writ need /io< be tlio saiin' us 1. Effect Of.-Tiic iilaiiilill ciiniiot obj.'ct I lictwfeii the service nii.l liio relurn (hiy , f a„ thai the. IcI'miiunl'H ^tlll(■tM(■Iit and ilcchinilidn oniinarv writ of Fumnioii-. Itnphad v-. are vdid lor iimI liaviiif; heeii notilici. to him, M'Donalil, S. C, 10 L.C. J. 10. will re lie faihd til raise olijeclion thereto at 3. Duties of Bailiff".— The huihtl ulm Ims the tune (h'lViilaiil ili'tiiainleil lii.i* )ierii)aMeril arre.-tcd a iier.-iDii iiinler a writ of fK/j/i/.v c,,,, (liMchar;.'e, Mich iji.-icliai;.'!' lia\ iiiL', a,s reirai'ds take iiini to tlic |irothoiHitarv"s (illii'f tu criiililc the iihiiniill, the foice nf rc.v /»(//Vrj/ir a-i to all , liirii tu f.'ive tlie liail proviijed fur in A it. '^.'."i priiCceiliiiL'^ priiir til the |i(tiliiiM fur di-eharge. C.C.I'. Art. >^lll C. C. I'., whirh ri'|iiires Guillcl \>. Liiiiiciit, C. K. HK.'l, :i Que. il I. tiie l.'uliirtii deliver tlir dcfeiidaiil dver lo il,,. 2. Second Cupias.— Where a partv has ^lierill, i- im: ifiipenitive, and iiiendy din i^ hecii arie-liii under a ^')/,/-^v, and the arrest u liul liie hailill'shall do wlieii tlie drlenrliuil is deehiivil illi-ul, he iiiu-l he euiiiplelrly ami not .'dije In trive hail. Geniiniii \r. I'mil'ii,,, fully re-lured in his lihei'ly hefmr he can lie ''^- *"■ 1'^'''''' •' ^'- '-'• "■• ■'- '• arrested under a .-■■(•. irid ciipin , and eon- 4. Juriwdiction of Bailill'.— A hiiliU Heipieiillv the service i f a wiil uf rn/iias ur the chai .'i' I wil li a w I'll of ( ii/iidf;, nrdcrinL' hini l.i arrest ui'a p.ariy aln ;i Iv in cn-lddy i^ illcL'al. aniv-i ihc defi'iidant in the di-lricl nl \\.r,]. Jlamil yf. r../< . .S. C, lsr,|. 11 ),.('. |;. I7;i. real, raniint lcL';illy urre-l him in aiciihiT .li-. .?. Warrant of Arrest issued by Com ""' /-'■/'■hm' v-. H„i,.lrri„, s. c, i --.■,, raissioner. Art. -i:: (V c. 1'. — In Hh- .a-r ^ »■ !■ 1.'. H S. C. It. 5. .\ hailill dl' llii' .liMri • ,,[ .Mdiil'. al ■liar.rd Vvilll l!|i' e\i'Cllliiill .if a Wl'il nl' c/y,, /v '.'ii; rsccilli' llir \\v\l ill anii||i.-r di-nirM, '/', /rail V-. J,',ii^:inl, S. ('. |ssi|, 17 11. 1 i;|; ,, (if ;i iii/,/ii.i i-siiril liy a ci iliiliii-- :■ iiii!', the ili-fi M'laiii raiini'l \»- IcL'ally delami'd in cu-lndy afler Is him v-* fii >iii lie I line nl In- a i ■r-l . and llir scl \ ic'' nf a Mlil '■! riljiiiis i>]\ ihr iIi'I.'IhI- aiil alli i- lie Hlmiii-, and while he i ^ -lill ' j, (' .i jdj; l.iliif'.iirc \s. C/ni iiJ i, n . V . i held ill CM-Indv iiiidiT iliclii-'^l uVil.i-icnn 1 -T:;, I 7 I.. ( '. ,1 . "^i!. se,|iii'iill\ ili'';;al. Iliih/slmi v-. M'h'iiili/, S. C. I -In. i'J I. <'. .1. J.'i. i.\. di'imm; .\cti(»n'. 1. Declaration. — Ill .iililm ■ I'm- ,-,ij,i'iis' jiiiiili iilc, lit', a i.l'-n-nce In tic decl.n .ii imi (^ On Sunday. .\iit. TsT. c. ;■. |'. \ \\ nl nl' . .ijiiii-! may i--.iie nn .Sun iac, ,.., -m' Cliiit call~e i-lrnvii. Iii'i//i-i /// \~. ( nilrliii./^^ s. ('. i>.;;:. :• I,, c .1. jj.'i. 7. The e.\i'i'u;i.in III' a u 1 il nl m /•!.•• tr, .Siiiidav i- mil L'nvcrncd li\ .\i-|. T'n'. I', t'. |' filed in Ihe cause |',,r lie cam nl' ,|c|,i ,. -nil, _,/„-^.;; /,.,,,, , ■ ,^ ^,. ,j^;^^^^ q ,> |.,;|_u ■ienl. M.ilu \<. I.ithill., S. C. |s.-,-, J I,. C.,|. iin. 2. Ponding in Circuit Court— Whcie llie plainliir III a ra-' p- lldlll ,' hel'n|-r lllrCll'- ciiil Cniiil hii- cau-c I a c(i]>iiix In I--UC in the Superini' I'niirl, il i- iml siillicient Inr hiin, on ihe ( ((;)/'rv, tn ade;jc and |ii'n\e lie pemh ncy III' such aclimi, Iml lir iiiii>l allcLre aiiil pi.ue the exisleiice nf a claim In Ihc amniinl ot 1^:10, and pray jud;;iucnl ihcrenii in the Cii/iiiis ca.-c- Chirnliir vs. Juii/, S. C. Is.s.'i, M. L. i;., J S.C. h-.-i. X. I'.XMCi:'! ION' OF W UI 1.. C, .1. 'Jli. .\f. M.\ iwRTh; ri;(>('i':i';iii\i;s. Sulliciency of Declaration.— Winn a C'ljiiiis III ri ■iiii'li:n'hun is is-imd, il i' c-., i, tial fnr llic plaililill In allei;r in he di cl.ir.ii un llial ihc ilcfeiidant is .■.ccrctiii;.; nr lia- -i ,r, i, | lii-^ eslalc, nl ihal le iiili nd-; In have ila Ic iv tiifirc I'lmince nf Canada wilh inlcni in dclVand, or al ihc lea -I In i. I'lr i,, ilic allidaMi which led tn the ciijiiiis ; and, failing; -in li allciralinii-', tin- cniirl will taUe cn.'ni.'anci' ni ihc ilcfecl, even when ihe dcl'indanl lia> iml cniilcsled the dcclaial inn. Ilinrillil \~. 1. Alias Writ. Where a uril nf r.,p;„s ; //„„,„,.,/, s. C. Mm.',, ;) Q. L. H. 172. cniild mil he e.xccillcd, and Ihc iii!av fnr the rcliiiii wiH cnnsecpieiillv insiiHii-ienl — //c/./, that the plauititl may take an „-//„.vuril to , •^"- <'li<>rN'I),S OF. (.See al-n ..,/;„■,( deliiiu hisdehtnr. i,'ir/ii(nl \^. Wiir/i'lc,(i. Ii. , No. \'II.) Quehec, 7 Dec, 18V7, 1 L. N. Ii:!. 2. Delay. — Ill the case of a capias, the 1. Criminal Proceedings ponding.— I'laiiitill hroiiji'lit actinii of daniajies fnr delay helweeii Ihe deposit of the enpy of de- ' iniilicioiis iirresl, eonimeiiciii;: hy v. nqiinx elaratinii in Ihe prolhniintary's ollice and the I wliicii was allowed l.y a jiidf^e to iH.siie fjr CAPIAS. 273 *l,,'iOO. Till' (IcIVnilniit iudvciI to (|iiasli on the jrroiiM.i lit' iiisiillicii'iicv i>f iilVi>lavil, ami ('.■Jiicciallv ln'ciiuMc till' clci'iiinilioii I'oiiliiiiicil jid avfitni'iit llml llio criiiiiiial iircic('t'iliii;r>' (■oiii|il;uiii'il of vvtTf ili'lfriiiinril. I'liiiiiiill' I'ciilicil that, us ili'Ifniliiiit wii-* ulmnl to Icuve tlic (■(iiiiitrv, 111' WHS t'lirccl to lake liis ivlioii lii'l'iJii' till' lU'lci'Miiiiatidii (if (lie cliurL'f — llflil, tlial llic ciipiiis was |>rii|i(rly issurJ ; uml, i»s till' criiiiiiial |iriic,('filiiijrs huil siiu-e fiiilcil, |ihiiiiiill'"s iiH'lioii to uinrtid till' (li'claraliiJii lo liiat illiri was I'l-aiiti'd. Fro.ier vs. (icirit, S. ('. isT'J. 2 K. ('.177. 2. Disposing of Property.— A vcmloi- witli a |invilt'j;nl clairii duly icj^iHli'i'cd may iiiaiiitaiii a ciiju'ds a;j;aiii-t llir dchtur who i- (lisKi|iatiiiL' his iiMivi'alilc-i, willioiit iii'oviiii; in Uli\ ua\ llial till' |iMi|iiTl\ liy|jiilliiTalc I lias (|('|)H M'liilril III value, sii a- to iciidii' lii- di'lit iiioir |ii'('i'uri'iiis lliiiii at tlic time of s^ale. Itfiwll V'. I'vlililin, l^ II. M7T, 'I U. I . :iH,^, I I.. N. -.v:. !l Untt'i ioruting h.ypothouutod Im inovi'iiblcs. .\ur. .-^tiii ('. ('. I' Tin |ilain lill'iii iiii itelliill III I'etliivei an liyimllieuaiy i|( ll caiiiHii iuiii ilnri'1'i lilt' lemedy nj' capiH' .'ii lilt' LTumids lliat tlu' deri'lliluiil i- dis|io>in;; o\ Ins I'lHit- and deterniMitiim tlu' inimoveHliliM liV|ii>llin:ali'il. The rccdursc liy cdjiin.^ musi hf liv a separate and disliiiet ai'limi. (lOidtt vs lln-minl, ('. K. IH!I|, IT t^, I,. It. i.i, 4. The dania^rts slated in Art. .s(ll) V. V. V. are nnlii|iii(lali'd damagosj eimse- i|ai'iilly, a cupiiis ha^ed iiii this .Vi'tielecaiiiKit isMie witlioiit an tirdei' el the iildj;e as pri'- viiliM hy Art. Sill (;. C. I'. Oiiim,/ \s. )/i'/i«(V;', S. ('. is;):i, .'! (Jiie. i:t. Cnnlinned 111 Review 'is Feb.. ISD.'i. 5. Voroign Debt. Ain. sm; ('. 1>. (".— A ilehl arisiii): diit (if a eDiilrael made in Seiitlaiid In deliver a |iasseiig('r"s liiL'L'Bjie in till' piii'l of .Monlreal, and where deliiery railed Id he made, and liir whirh iiidt;iiieiil Ills hein rendered in the dislrirl of .Monlreal, IS not a forei;^ii debt within ihi' meaniiiL' of llie Statute eh. S7 of the Coii.s. Slat, nf L. C , wo. 7, siili.-sei . 2. MclhiKjall vs. Tcfi-itiicc, S. ('. ISCd, .'•, 1.. C. J. 148. 6 The colony of liarhadnes is a " foreij^n emiiitry,"' within the nieanini.' of the Htli seeiion of chapter 87 uf the ("onsolidalcij St.itiites of L. (.'., and eoiiseipiently a party lUTesiel under a cajtinn ad rcspondmiUtm, toniidi'il oil a dehl alloiied in the ndidavit to liuvt' been conlraeted in Harhadoes, uill he ils from the (^i-loni Hon-' n, Montreal withnul ;ippl\ in^ to [he aL'i'iil, but where they were Ml defendant's risk ihe monienl tliiy were placed nn the railroad at llostoli, l|ie ranse of actinu did not arise iii a fii|'i'l(.'|i eonnliy. ti'»r;/o|'H vs. Vh« ItoHtnU tt t^itliil wirli (.-lasi Co'., IJ. II. ISII.-i, 1) I,, v.. J. VM. 0. In the eiise oi a ctijtidn jssneil for the reiuivery of the value of ceilain llliili'il Stales (lo\eriiiiirnt ^eriirilies, allciiied to ho Ihe properly of the plaiiitill', and in the possession of the defendants in Montreal, and llicre illei.'ally detained by the defenilanls, and sniciid by them, so a- li. prevent their re- \('ndicatioii by plainiill'; on pi.iof that Ihe securities were stolen by the defendanls from the plaintiir in New York, ami broii^'lit into Montreal, the (vrcir ()/ arflon \\\\\ be held to have iniseii in a /(iriii/ii cuiintri/. an I, cense- ipiently, the c'«j;/((.v will be i|uaHlieii. Roljul lii.fiiniiice (\impiuui \ s. h'iKipp, S. (_'. 18(i7, 11 L. ('. .1. 1. •-' [,. r. I,. ,1. Is!) and 201. 10. A debl under a hill of lading si;;ned at Marseilles, in l'"ranee, for the delivery of ;,'oods at .Montreal, where the carrier made default in delivery, and the value ol the };oods is demanded, is not a foreij^n .lebl, nor is it, a claim for nnliipiidated damages. \'aiideii KoornlnujKC vs. (,'rondin, S. (\ l'-'7il, II L. C. ,1. 21S. 11 I)ainai;es claimed for the lireaeh of a contract made in Norway, but to he executed in the Province of (.inebec, do not coii-titule •'adeht created out of the Province 18 H rn^n I ! 274 CAl'IAvS. of Caiiaila. ' Mxiair Iron Co. vs. OUtti, (^ li. 1873, 1- I.. ('. .1. 2;t. 12. A writ (if cajiiiiK ciuiMit lie liikrii (lilt by (jiic alien H;;iiin-^l uiidthcr iilicMi (liutli jjartii'^ liciiij,' only tcniiioruniy in ilic l'r(n iiico of Quelicc) Ibi- an iillif,'i'il ildit ui'i^iiii; out nT li I'ljiitnicl ciitcrtil inlci in li rurci^'ii coiinlry, wUvrv ilic iiili'iriitioii in tin- aHi.luvii uIIc'^cm (lie itniiii'ilialc ili'iiarliu'c df ilcfVriiiiint wiili inti'iit lu (lf(niiiil . Vinlini v<. ITf/rf/. S. ('. 1871), n I.. C. .1. 2ti7, '.) i;. L. .VJ'J. 13. Fraudulent Departure. Am. 7117 C C. 1'.— .MiIkhil'I llic s|if.iul ;;roiniils of IfclicC -ct oiil in till iilliilavil I'.'r rii/'ini. Iliut ill. ilcfciiilaiii i~ iinineiliiitily al'iml lo li'livc llic J'r.;vi/icc' Willi fiinilnliiil inl.i.l Ii(' iiiii ()i))y mil priivcil. Iiiii ili-pi(ni(J , y i . I ■' he CFladli III i| llml llic i)liiiijtill''s npprclMii isions a.- 1(1 ililriMliinr- iini ii'Uii 'U'^iu mrc ■ 'li I'raniliilciii ilisiL'n •..(.■ wtll ('■luniiol. ii.c rapidx will lie ni;jiMiaiiif'l. liliicLi iisi ' v>. iVZ/u/vi/ey, Q. ii.l^iHl.ii !.. C..I. Jss, in I,. CM. 1240. linl M'v Coil I ni, S/iinr ... MrKiini<;\n .Siiiiicmc (•!., G Can. S. ''. K. iif p. I'rj. Ri- mark.^ of 'i'i;-rlicr(aii .1. 14. Till' pliiiiil !•' jii-lilicil III lii~ bc'lii'f (if tlii; ilclcnilaiil nv^ iininiiliiilily aliiMit t.i Icavi' the I'uuii 'Mif Canii.la. u illi intent to delraml liie plaiiilill, fi'in llic lad of the (iefendant liein^ a .'■eafarinj;' iiian re-id'Hl williuiit (,'iuiiehi and in (ircal lii'itain. and tciiipoi'iirily within llic I'lMviiicp, iii (■oiiiiiiaiid of a •eii^'diii;; v('?<."id wliicli i.-( iniiiii'diat( ly iiIkiUI (o leave, and fioiii t lie d'.'l'endiiiit liaviiij; made and iiiakiii;; im alleiii[it-< lo pay tin- plaintill'".- delil, and fnuii ill'.' delendant liiivinu alisi'iiled liiiiisilf fiiiiii tlie J'l.iviiiee in ISlil), inline- d.audy after the reii denied ol the jiidirinont liL'iiin.'-l liilii, allliiiilj.'li in each of t lie three yeiif- iie.\l pi'( cedini.' lie Inel I'Cen in the i'rovince in enMiiiiiiiid (if a .-liip MiicDnuijiiU \^. Tor- niiire,^. C. IS(;i,ri I . ('. .1. 1 w'. 16. A plaiiitilf is ju-tilit'i| ill lii.-^ Iiolief that the defenlant in iinniediately almiit to h'uve the I'i'oviiice of Canada, with intent to (/('fraud llie |)laiiitilf, from the faiit lliat the defendant liiid lunglit from llipplaiiitiira Inrjic iHiiiiitily (if wheat, payaliie cash on delivt-ry, and had received delivery of tlie wheat, Imt had only paid a iiortion of the price, anij that the defendant, iijiward of two iiioiilhs afterwards, was aliout t> go aliroad to .*>cfllaiid, his original domicile, where iiis family had resided lor live years, without paying llie plaintill' the lialance, and witlioul leaving any property in Canada out of whicli llie plaintill' could get paid, and after lepcalfd applications had lei i. miide lo him fur piiymenl. lliinis \^. Uhk^. Q. H. 18(11, 111 I,. C. .1. ■'- nierelv remrning liome after a lempuriuy -.li.Mim here, and there is no alletraliini of any s|iecial circmiiNtance.s of Iraud. lieiimi'l :■>■ Wunhi- seii. (^ 13. ls72,21 I,. C. .1. 11. 17. l»cfendanl ixititioiu'd to I.e iilieiaied from arri I under ii e(/;(/r/.v, and hi- iieiiii.'ii was dismissed. 'I'lic wrii i-^iieil In n\, ii.-niiu ofdamaiies for ^i."), (Kill, and hail wa- li\rlii' .rl,0(l(l. 'J'he atlid.ivil was ,di hy 1! a^ a;.'iii / iie plailitills. ll alleg a -ale l.y tlie dc feiidanl lo them ol the sole rijlit to manu faulnre and sell a medicini', under the name of .Siiiilii's Mouiilaiii Keniivator, llironL'iiniil (11 Canada, the defendant furni-hiiiir llie in I dii III and making up the inedieine, ii, .|iianlilies nut le^s ihaii lOII uiillnii^, at ^.", a gallon ; that the plaiiiliU'- had fnllil'.'l tlioi" [lart of the conlraci, and paid $(i''"i ; h r On deleiidanl, in conlraveiilion of his a.'K' :iiinf. and I'V Iltalicc, and with a view lo ininre il.e'n. had. III llie coiir-e nf N'dVeiiil.er pivr.liiif;, maniil'aclnred i|iianiilies ijilii.iiiiir.': i/u nliltKi of the aforc-aid medicine, known a- (ireen Mountain llenovatdr. f. dlle ( p"i'-dn-, an i uniler the pr.iper price, ll tin"; alli _■' d iIkU the plaiiiiilN had spent nearly .S:;,ll|iii in IimIiIc^'. hdXes, adverti-enients and lithdi;rapliin'.; tc bring this medicine heloi'c the world, aid have lieen prevented from making a prolll, iiinl siilfcred damage to the anioiint idaiiiied; mil that the deponent was informed that tli.drl'en- daiil was immediately ahoiil to liinc tlic Province, eli'., etc. His rea-on foi' llm- lielieving was that the defendant li'ix li'-' rrsiili'iire in the Viiilrd Stulr-; and is only leinpiirarily in Monlreal, and will retnrii iin medialely to Vermont, where he live-. I'ho petition to (jiiasli was I'oundei as well on tlic illegalitv and i'.suflicieucy of the allida\ila- 011 its untruth, and on cnlestation the parlies went loen(pi("'te,aiil the petition was di<)nis-ed liecau-e the allegations of it had iinl heen proved. l'(T Curiam — llic hreiudidrcdiitract i- one thiiiL', and the vieililatin fiiijo: is annlluM'. There iiiiisl not only be u right of action ; hut there must be a right to arrest. What was there, assiiining the truth of the facts in the allidavit, to show any right of arrest w hatever? It specially mentioned a deed between the pur- (I) //»!■ Ik'ieiu'v CAPIAS. 2(.' •m til•^', ntiil iiferred to it as a piirt nf I lie ullidavit. Till' jil liiiijtls (• piitraci (I >\itli liiin as " Silas Siiiilli. "f I''""'' Oouri;!:!, Franklin coHiiiL.' the I'aris e.\hiliilioii, all iiis in- terests liein;^ in Montreal. 'I'lie capi'is niiisl he .|iiii-lied. Amhmis \ s. J/((//('t'((/, S. (". 187',). 2!,. X. 1..'. 20. The defendant, a marine iiism- iiiice iij;eiil, analue of Canada, and who liad resiili I Ml i^iiehee fur iiIhiui three yeais, at the close i)f the season of navi'^ation, licin<' without the nu'iins of supporiin^ his family, unci iiualilf to >^Qt work during the winter .^ca.soii, was aliont lo ;;o to J5oston, in the hope of I'litaiiiiiig employment there. lie at the liiiH'owed the plainliU'for hoard ahoiit. |Si), ami was ahonl to leave villiout paying her, the fact hein^ ihatheiial not the means of iloiiif; so- Wr/'/, tiiat, under the circnmstanees, the plaiiitiirwas not jnstilied in swearinj; that the defendant was ahout to leave with intent to (lefntud her, the pluintilf, and capias ;u'islKd. (1) Ifciiilerson v.s. Diiqijan, S. C. i8i'j,;-iii. L. u. ;;i;i. 21. Where there was evidence tliat {\) lliirluhist vfl. liournl, .'"yira, " AHiilavit, .«iif- Ik'ii'iiey el." the defendant iiiniTlf hie -aiil that thi' plaintill might '* go lo tin ttevd.'* that he would never jiiiy liitn a cent, hut would ({o oil lo .Montana, and liin family uouM f'lllow — Ifehl, rtversiiij{ the jiidiiiu" t of the juil^o :\. 2.3. licaving Can,! ia with un-^atislied delits m.sernri'd is not, nt ilsell, eoneliisive proiif of fraud. Liuiiiii vs. ii/dllc, Q. 1!. 1 '•^0, i; (,i. ii. II. ^8, conlirniing (', 11., ."' Q. L. K. -'III. 24. Tie eviclenee hnwid ii.il the ■defendant, a sewing iiiaehine aj. . , Idok a lea-i rniii plaintill', j iiitiv with auolher, at a rental ni S2.JI) j,cr iinmilil, and seeretly lemoved he furniture in May lo I'roekville. where his employer reipiired him to li.iale himself for a lime as local agent, lie had previdU-'v resided in New York, win nee he had removed to Montreal, and he had said thai, if he did not .•-iieoeed in lirnekville, he would go hack to the Slates. He had hinight ihe fnrnitnie in Montreal with money ad- vanced liy the tenant, snuie iJuOO. At the lime he left in May, he said to his oo-tenaiu that he would try l<> get lioiids for the Hrock- ville otlice, iiiel, if he Cdiild not get them, he would try to remain there without honds, and, if he could not remain without bonds, he would go lo the States. I\r rurinm. — These facts pfdve that plaintill had grounds for helieving that deli'tidant might at any time re;iiove into the Slale.s, as he iiad, so far as he was concerned, fraudulently removed from .Montreal without settling with him, hut secretly taken away iiis furniture. UvhL sullicient. McCrac vs. Miller, S. C. 18M, I L.N.,T>I. 25, Action of damages hy plaintill (appellant) for malicious arrest on a cupins. Appellant was a wholesale grocer in 'i'oronto, anil was leaving with his son for the Paris exhibition. On reaching Montreal lie was arrested on an atlidavit of one of the defen- dants. Appellant owed defendants gome $2,1' ,' overdue, which, on being applied for II: R I iV', !■:; * - i-l 't !l IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ •^ '^ /. A :/. 1.0 I.I 1^128 125 tii 1^ §2.2 £f Iii4 "^ ^ US. 12.0 ■II HI' >-25 III 1.4 11.6 M 6" ► <^ ^ ^> ^>' Hiotographic Sciences Corporation ^ \ '^^ 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y 14SM (716) 877-4S03 i(t) 276 CAPIAS. i :«■ i ill Toronto by (lefeodanlf' agent there, th^ latter wan informed tliat it was settled, tlie only gett lenient, as it subsequently proved, being a note at four months, wiiich plaintili' had sent to defendants at Montr.'al by mail- On his arrival at Montreal, one of the defen- dants called upon him at the hotel where he ■was stoppiiii^ with reference to the amount, and ))laiiitill ailmiited tiiat he was going to Europe, and, moreover, intimated tiiatmiiil bis return defendants would not be paid, and they I'Ould gei liiei. money in the best way iliey could. On tiie other hand, tliert was proof tiiat plaiiitifh was still carrying on liis busi- ness, and that he was in the habit of crossing to Europe almost every year. Jleld, reversing the judgment of tl'e Cnurls below (Q. B., 3 L. N. 369, -l!-) L. ('. J. -40, 1 Dorinn's Hep. 2o ; a. C, 2 J.. N. 5, 23 L. C. J. 52), that tliese j circumstances did not disclose an intent to defraud sufficient tn justify a captGn, and damages to the ainounl of $500 was awarded. Sfiaio vs. McKeiiiie, Supreme Ct. 1881, 6 Can. S. C. ]M81,4L. N. 89. 26. On tiie contestation o( mcapian, it appeared that defendant had received delivery ill Winnipeg, wliere lie carried on business, of 11 largf (juantily of goods from plainlifl'. but whether purchased cr on consigninent the evidence differed. He had been in Montreal for several weeks trying to arrange a settle- ment with ills creditors, and was about to return home by way of New York '.hen he \ias capianed on the usual atlidavit of medila- Hone fiigcv. Judgment setting aside the capias on the ground of want of proof of intent to defraud was contirmed. Marcoite vs. Moody, C. R. 1882, S. v., 11 R. L. 460, 5 L. N. 359. 27. In another case the eviilence was that the defendant, nn pretence of making use of plaintilfs bank account to draw on a firm in New York, with whom he claimed to have dealing.^ persuaded plaintitt" to advance liim $100 on tlie strength of his draft for that amount, which he said was sure to be honored. The draft was dishonored. While bein<' threatened with criininal proceedings he remove iial iiflidavit for capias. The intention to return to tlie States was not denied, as tlio deliendant was about to leave ior the railway depot to return home wlieti arrested. IMd, on petition •o (luasli, that there was no proof of intent to defraud. Carter vs. Graham, S. G. 1884. 28. Held, tliat where a debtor who in 1S75 had secreted his property and left Canada with i?itent to defraud, canu'' temporarily int'^ the Province in 1882, and was c«/'(o.?e(/ as lie was again leaving, that tiie secretion and departure in 1875, co.ipled witli intention of again leaving in 1882, wre sufticient ground for the arrest, and the capias was declared j.ood. McFarhine vs. McNiecc, S. C. 1881, 7 L. N. 398. 29. The mere intended departure of a debtor will not justify iiis arrest by capias wliere it was not jtroved that iii.s departure was witli intent to defraud ids creditors, Senvcal vs. Tranchant, S.C.188r>, 14 R. I.. .556. 30. Wiieii a debtor has judicially abandoned iiis jiroperty tor tlie benefit of hip creditors, and, after unsuccessfully endeavour- ing to secure i m])loyiiient and to earn « liveliiiocd in tiiis province, finally accepts a position abroad, intent to defraud is not to be ])i'esumed from ins intended dejiarture, and tiie capias under wliicii lie i;as been arrested slioiiid be ((uasiied. Shotton vs, Lawson, 1890, M. L, K., 6 ;•.. C. 451, 31. The simjile fact that tiie detendan; is leaving the country witiioiit jtayingadebt does not constitute by itself a fraud on the part of the debtor, and ii is necessary to prove ?in intent to defraud in order to maintain a capias. Tramblay vf. Graham, 18*^1, M.L. R. , 7S. C,374. 32. Tiie defendant, after liaving mad'- a judicial abandonment, went to New York. On iiis return lie was arrested iindei' a writ of capias. By profession, lie was a dentist, and it appeared tiiat he had frequently visited New York previously in connection with iiis business. Held, that tiiere was no evidence to sustain tlic allegation of departure with intent to defraud, N, iS'. While Dental Maiui- favturiiifi Co. vs. Dixon, C. R. l^'iW, 3 Que. 399. 33. Personal Indebtedness— Account - ing> — Held, wiiere the action is by a partner, praying for the dissolution of the partnersiiip .Tiid for tiie rendering of an CAPIAS. 271 accouiil, the personal indebtedness in a piiin amounting to or exceeding $40, which must lie alleged in tiie atiidu/it for capias, cannot Le considered to exist until such account has been rendered and accepted Oi' settled. Phillips TS. Kurr, S. C 18'J2, 2 Que. 444. 34. — ^ A capias cannot issue in an action to account based on the claim which may exist after the rendering of an account, day vs. Denard, C. K. 1887, M. J.. H., .T S. C. 125, 15 U. 1.. 58.). 35. Held, thus even where the pliiintill' in an action to accouiit claims a iletinite sum. {lb.) 38. Holder of negotiable Paper. — The holder of negotiable paper, indorsed to hJMi merely to adopt any course be miiy think proper ag",in-^t the milker, and without his be- coming owner thereof, may legally arrest the maker as \\\a personal debtor, and an applica- tion to reduce the bail in such a case will not lie allowed. Winning v. Fraser, .S, (\ ISd'J, l.ih. C. J. 107. 37. Joinder of Debts— The joinder of liebt.for wiiicb an action is pending, toanother ilclit cxeeeding $M dues ikjI invalidate the i-apias for the liilter debt. Parent vs. Trudel, r. H. 1887. V.i iiity-ninlb of A]>ril, I84,'<, condilionel ii.nd contingent, the said pen- alty, upon his, iii(' said detendant, giving tip tbesaid depoiiPiit a good and sutlicient war- ranted deed of two lots di'serdjed, to be ilivided 'lOtween them, luilwithstandlng an allegation of a division of the lots as agreed tipon, and the granting of a deed of one of the lots tn the lieponent ; that the defendant bad been called upon and bad refused to give u ileed to the plainlitr of the (ithcr lot ; the right of the iilaintiir being to obtain a d^ed, ami in defatill thereof the sum stipuhited as damage-. Allen Ts. Allen, a. C. 185,-,, [.. C. H. 478, :> R. J. R. Q. 140. 39. Refusal to return Horse.— In an action by a livery stable keeper to re- eover X'30, iieing £."> for four days' hire of a horse and Jt25 lor the value of a horse not re- turned — Held, on motion to quasji a capias issued in Ihc cause, that the refu.sal ol the de- fendant, as alleged in the atlidavit, to rettirn the horse therein mentioned, does not create a d^bt for the sum of £2a, the alleged value ol' the horse, but only gives to the plaintiff aright i to recove'- the said horse with damages snlltr- I ed in consequence of his detention, and fortne j val'ie of the said hor.se as (himages in case of i his non-delivery fron; judgment. Dttmainr vs. Guillemot, .S.C. 1855, G L. ('. K. 477. 40. Transfer. Aitr. 1571 C. ('.— The aflid.ivit upon which a capias issuiil slated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintitl in the sum of t.'24 l.'?s lO^^. whereof the sum of X4 10s lO.id was for work and labor done and performed by the plaintii'" for the deferjclaiit, and the balance Wiis the amouni of a (daiin transferred to him by anc'her by a deed of assignment or transfer before ik taries. On motion toipiash — 7/(.'W, that notwithstand- ing that no notice of such transfer had lieen given to defendant, except by the service of the action, that it was sufKcient to support the writ and the motion was dismisseii. Qiiinn vs. Alcheson, S. C. 1S,54, 4 L, C. iv. ;i78, 4 R. .1. R. Q. 20H. See Laidlaw vs. Jianis, Q. \l isdi;, 10 1.,. C. R. ;Us. 41. Provinc3 of Manitoba —The Prov- ince of Manitoba does not make part of Can- ada in terms of 7'J7 0. C. P., and conse(i/h»' vs. C/r/r/.v, 0. R. 1872,2 1!. C. 2:V2. 42. Refusal to make .judicial Aban donment. — .V debtor who, with the consent of Ills creditorr, ma le a voluntary a-^signnient to a third party, as trustee for the benelit of his creditors, of all his proi)erty, under the law as it stocMi ]irevious to the 18 Vic.,ch. 22 (Que.), is not subject to arrest under a capias at the in-tancc of one of 'he consenting credit- ors for not afterwards making a judicial aban- donment of his i)ro|)eriy under the said 4"^ Vic, cap. 22, if he shows, as in lli's case, that he lias acquireil no property since such assignment, anil bus nothing to abandon. Channel vs. Becket. C. R. 1886, 17 R. L. 078, confirming S.C. 1887, 11 L. N. 42. 43. A tradr who bad ceaenefit of his creditors, such creditor is estop- (itd troni (leiiiiMidiiijr, immediately after, that the debtor sliall iiiai. 49.' //(/(/ (aflirming the decision o( Brookf, .1.), that a debtor, who in Ap.-il, 1S8D, prepared and furnished to li's principal creditors a detailed statemer.t of his allairs, showing a .surplus of upward." of$l"),000, and who subse(iuently, in Oct. of the same year, niadean abandonment of his property, with a statement showing a deficit of §20,500, and who failed, at a meeting of his creditors, t" give a satisfactory explanation as to the dis- crepancy, may be arrested on capias for se- cretion, and he is bound to give reasonable ex- planation as lo the difl'erence exhibited by the str.tements, failing which his petition fordis- cliarge will be rejected. Kasltrn Towiislnp.^ Bank vs. Pannf,C. K. If^S'.l, M. L. I!., .-. S. ('. 2SS, 50. Disposingpf Property —Def. 11- diinl was;irrested by ncapias issued forSl!t7.- S7, .iinount of three notes given by him to plain- li(f for materials anppljeil fdi' hi', business as :i blacksmith and earriagemaker 'ut Vaudreuil. The g''ound wa- that he had secreted his os- late with intent to defraud. The traii-acln'ii- between the [larties began early in lfi77. .^i that time there wa'' a judgment for $l(iO .id S2 1 of costs against the defendanl, and in May, 1.S77, his moveables were taken in ex- ecution under it, and a sale took place on lln' iidlli .May, 1S77, on which day the jiilginenl was acquired by his brother, 1'. (}., from the then |)hiintiir before the tale, and the eiilire stuck sold for $.")1 .:>1, in M dillerenl lots, and they were all acipiired by !'.G. He sold them t p his father, A. G.,oii the 2.')th Oetobr, 1S7T, fur $.'!,'>. ;n, and oilier considerations then stated lo have been gi\ en before. On IlieSih .Inly, 1S7'<, .V.'">. made an agreement with ihc del'endanl. liis son, by wiiieh the 'alter agreed 111 carry on the business as his employe^, and dill so. The agreement referred lo a veiUil agreement made between liie parlies on the .-illi October, l'^77, for the same piirjiose, and bv it A. C. agreed to pay the son, the defendanl, $76 jier month for salary of himself and work men. On the 21*1 February, I.^7'.t, the defen (hint Sold his real eslate in the village of Vau- dreuil to I!., notary public, re-^erving jxi-scs- sion, if he thought jirojier, ti'l September next. This property included the shop where t e defendanl hud carried on his business, and which be conlinued to occupy from the sale of his moveables in May, 1877. On the olli March, lS7!t, A- O. sold to B. all the ,«tock-in- Iradeanl morealiles lor the sum of $51 1 ..)'', and the defendant was party to the sale, re- nouncing his rights under a lease lie had from his father. The plaintifis had no knowledge of these tran.''actions. On the contrary, there were of record two letters from defendant to plaintiffs, i.<( dale liih February and 27tli CAPIAS. 279 Mai, li, in which lie promises [laynient of two of tlic notes in a few days by oollfctions which lie was about to make. Not a word was said i.if the intcrof^t of otliers in stock-intrailo and niovt'ubles— //cif?, there was the stroni^est jjies'iinption of fraud between the relatives. ,t\id).'m(!rit to maintain tlie ciipiaa. Heuci/ \f. *?,Van/,S. C. 1879. 51. Fraudulent Preference to Creditors. — Franiiulent prefermces to ere- (liiors by a defendiint, after iiis insolvency, do not aiiioiiiit to "secretion." and therefore fiirni no >»ri»nnd for a capias ; but, the defen- lanl's intention to ffi to Hostori, and llie frauJ- iili'iit preferences shown to other creditors, and his treatment of phiintiU's ajient when he [■ailed upon liim tci mike an assic^nment by •-■lliiij; Imii nut to bother him, are cii'cum- -laiices sulliciently slronir to sln.w thiit, his in- tention was to d( fraud plaintitl. Tremain vs, Sdituim, S. C. \i^>W, I 1,. C. J. tS (ou'rriiied l,y (,'aidt vs. pKs.'iltiilt, infra N'o. .VS), 52- On a iietiiion to (|uash — lld't, thai a fiaudiilent preference .i;iven by a debtor touneiif bis creditors, by selling him ijuods as security I'^ir a debt, i> not a secreting, and does nol conslilnte sullicieni j^round I'oi' a . Cnnlirmed by Q. H. 1S(1T, ?, L. C. 1.. .1. .".il, but overruled by Gnult vs. Dnssanll, iii/ru .No. TiS. 53. Pruof di' undue preference and insolvency dues not constitute secretion or making' away with the property so as to iu'til'y a (.•'//)('((•'(. h'niiiKi.iiiel vs. {[agcii, .S. C. IsT-t, rt K. 1,. 'iOi). 54. ■\ paymcnl made in ihe or- dinarv coiir.-. yeihl, (.1 15., tiuebec, li Sept., 1ST7. 55. — • The sale of moveables by a debtor for value rectived, during the pendency of the suit of his creditor, does not amount to secretion of his estate. liobertnoii v.s. Orcriii;/, •S. C. IsTt;, -lU L. C. J. 2!l!l. Overruled by i<\tidt vs. Dassault, infra No. ."i8. 56. The .sale by a debtor of all his property to a part of his creditors i.s n >t a secretiiifr, and does not constitute auflicieiit ground for a capias. Dominion Type Found- imj Co. v.s. [yifond, C. R. ISTII, 10 R. L. 15. Overriilcil by Qnalt vs. Diissault, infra No. m. 57. The appellant gave the bank corn for advances, by transferring the bill of lading under a special receipt by which the bank was to be paid o,\t of the proceeds. The appellant's hrm .sold the corn and appropriat- ed the money to pay another creJitor. The petitioner contcndeii that the corn was notthatof himself or of his firm— that, if it was, they had dealt with it as the bank had directed, and that he had personally no part in the fraud, if any, and that at mos* the pay- ment was merely a preference, not secreting. The capias wuH maintained. The corn was sold as the property of petitioner's flriii, and the proceeds were funds 'n iheir han•><<, .■J2 L. C. .1. To. 63. Making Notes — Fraud — PrCte-nom.— .\ capias was issued ngiiinst the defendant H. F. B. on the ground of secre- tion. It was alleged that the dpfendant had been doing business at St. ,Io! is, P.Q., under the name of B. it Co., and had made pro- missory notes in the iianie of I lie siiid firm, on which there was a balance due of $"01. (!7 ; lliat he lind i:eerete( payments in the orduuiry course of business, and not a default to pay in an isolated case. Herman vs. Lciri.i, S. C. 18110, M. 1.. K , ti S. C. 208. 76. Unliquidated Damages. Ain. 801 C. C. I'. — Bail for preliipiiiiated damages may be had, but not for i penalty. I'atlirsoii vs. Farran,K. B. Ii'«s «(? 7v. v^»/(i- '/c/i(/i(jn did not lie for nnli(|uidat( d damages. rollard vs. Jniiuj, Q. Ii. Is70, 2 U. L. (i2:!. 78. Where, in an aiiidavit for capias, the plaintiil', a bank, set up that the defendant had received from its cashier large sums of money, which bad been fraudulently taken from ihe funds of the bank to defendant's knowledge, and alleged a consequent indebt- edness in damages — 7/t'?-i. .XIII. IMPUISON.ME.NT. Imiirisonment, under the 8th section of the 12th \'icl., cli. 12, can oidy be ellected after ])crsonal service on the defendant of the judg- ment and notice theriin referre. S", .see. 12, and Ihul plaintitrs petition for imprisoi\- nient would be dismissed in consequence of such ))ermission. Henderson vs. Jjumonrcn.f, C. K. \^^u, IT L. C. H. 111. 2. Efllect of.— That the etl'cct of a judicial abandonment nuide by a debtor imprisoned under a (((^/a.s' is to entitle the debtor to his lilieration ; and where the abandonin°nl, on the contestation Ihceof by the plainlitt, is de- clared fraudulent ami insullicient, the Court has no power under the e.xistinj; law, after the debtor has undeiguiie the term of imprison- ment not exceeding one year, lo which he may be condemned under Art. TTti C. C. P., to sanction bis further detention under Ihe co/)/(/,9 until he tliscloses as-ets iilleged lo have been fraudulentiv secreted. Oijileicvf. Farnan, C. R.ls<9, M. L. R., 5 S. C.'.'iso, is R. L, 20s'. conlirming S. C. IS-il), Is; R. L. 1H2. 3. A delitor imi)risoned under aff//>/'/s, and who makes a judicial abandonment of his property, cannot be released at once in conse- quence of such abondoiimeni, but must wai- the expiration of the delays allowed by Art-. n?) and 771 C. C. P. for the contestation of the statement. Oijilvic vs. Farnan. S. C. l^sii^ i; R. L. 471. 4. Tht mere filing of Ihe statement iu conformity with Art. 7<)4 of the Cmle ot C. P. does notentitle the party arrested lo be released from custody, such statement being subject to 'i J 2S2 CAI'IAS. attack by any creditor witliin the delays nion- tinned in Art. 7";t. Bnickert vs. Moher, S. ('. ISVd, 21 L. C. J. 2li. 5. On tlieprounil of secretion cmnniiticd prrviouH lo an assignment a capias may isMio after or conuurreritly witli the making o( the asHignineiit. Sleeeiisoii vs. McOmen, S. C. 1S(;t, 3L. C. L. .I.;!S, 11 L. C.J. 16. 6. Held, reversing tiiejiulgmentoftlie Superior Court, \\\u.i s\ capias on the grouml of fraud and scorecian may issue at tiie suit of a creditor after the as.wignment hy llie delitor in insolvency and the appointment of an as- -ignce, liMl an iitlaciiment of the delitor's ellects ill the iiands of third parlies will not be maintained. Ncild vs. l'WlaiHl,C. K. 1.->Tj, 1 ",). L. 11. 22S. 7. And this cliarge will 'le sustained by evidence to show that large sums sullicient lo account for llie insolvency liave been made iiway with iind not accounied for. l)')ir)icy \s. Wiiiiiinij, Q. (•!. Montreal, March, 1^7."). 8. A capl(i!< ad rc^pondendiuti may issue again.-tii debtor after he has made an as- signment under llie Act. lieaudin vs. Roy, •Mi. 1S75, 20 L. CI. ::0S; J)cyardins y^. Thiliaud>;au,(}. IJ. Montreal, June, 1S75. 9. .\ creditor who brings action againsi the ;i^olvent, accompanied by capiax for a sum of money due at the time, is not bound to |)rocepd in the name of the assignef. Roy vs. Ikuudin, .S. C. 1.^7.:, 5 I!. L. 2:i2. 10. Where defendant released on bail mal 3 Que. 458. 11. Refusal to make. —Art. 77 does nul deprive the Superior ('ourt of juris- diction over such action as to fiiiure proceed- ings therein. Elwes vs. Francisco, S. C. 18J7, 1 L. C. J. 18.x. 2. Pleading want of.— After pleading to the merits and moving lo quash, it is not competen. for the defendant to move to rejeet the writ and declaration for want of jurisdic- tion. Hrisson V!'. McQueen, ls^G2, 7 L. ('. J. 70. 3. Art. 808 C. C. F.— In an action I'nr $72. (p.J, commenced by ct/^^/a.", the S. C. has jurisdiction to condemn the defenu.int to pay the amouni, notwithstanding that the writ of capiat- liii'^ been quasheii. I'rcvost vs. Ritchot, > C. 1871, IS Ji. C. J. 72. XVI. F.IS PENDENS., The transferee before niaturily of a promis- sory note who is aware that his transferor ha.- sued the maker and issued a capias against him, which latter waa quashed, cannot, before a d('(usion on the first action, sue the inaker of the note and issue n capias against him. McLanijhUn vs. Grcnier, C. 11. 1892. I Que. CARRIEHS. 28;^ XVn. OliDKIi FOR. Art. 801 C. C. P.— Where n, writ of capia.i i-joues without a jniJj,e'rt order in a cane where the principal riglit of action consists in the re- ^■ove^}' of (laniiiy;eH, hiicIi writ will he quartht'd on motion. Goyette v.". MrDonahl, C, U. I'^TH, I K. L. .'.;i8. XV in. UKviiiw. 1. Delay. Aur. s2;i C. C. P In the pro- vi-ion of Art. 8'2,'! C. C. P., which reqniresthat in ■irder to ohtain a ."u.^pen.sion of th- order iJisihiirgiM^ tlie defenilant, the jilu. . nnLxt iloilure iiiirnudiatulv that lie intend.s to have the ilfcisi(jn revieweii and doposit the ainonnt re- ,|iiircd hy Art. 197, .«uch declaration is only requirod to prevent tiie defendant from jre'.ni}; his immediate icIeaM', and therefore wherethe dc/endant has already been releas^ed upon hail, till' plaintiti'can have a review of the jiidu- mcnt qnashinir the mpias without tlie above ikvlaiaiioi). (I) Jlir/i■'. Dclirery—Avt. 1079 C. C. 4. For Storai/e. .'). Frciijlii iiidicisihlc. 0-G((. I'rcvious Debt. 7. liaftimj Tim her— Dcr n i i r Equip cur. *^- ','. Oi' Goons. Conilitions of Uill oj Lading limit- imj Liahi^' ^'. etc. Nolic.'of. 1-3. Railwiiys — Goods transferred to another line. 4 7. Railways— Limiting Liability. 8-9. Special rates for peri-hable Goods. 10-lOa. Efliect of— Rurden of Proof. 11-11. Theft by Servants of Shipowner. l.'j, IV I •; . ij (1) See Act respecting the liiiliililv of Ciirriern bt water, H. S. C. oh. '••J ; Articles of Civil Code relating to C'.irriers, I(i72-1GS2, and s-ee " Atfreightiucnt." H ji ' '1. 1 m I I III 284 CAKKIKKS. C'liinecfiiu/ IJiiis, 16-20.— (St'C also SUpni "CoNDlTlONrt OK Bii.i. OK LaIMNU MMITINt; lilAIIIUTY, KTC") Coimti/nec, HkjIiIs and Duties of. 21-24. Delay ill Delireri/-- Coiuiculitij; Iviiics — Error in Way- IJill, 2,-., Dainaj^eFi. 2(12". Mpiisiire of DiiDiugcs — Loss of Cusioin. 2H-2!t. Delay in Startinij—Injurji in ('nUlf— Acts of Agents— kn. KmU C. C. .iO. Delivcnj — Hill of LiiJing— Short Delivery, SI. CImiii.i aidiclicd in^ict'icr, .'i2. Enils Ucspon.sitiilitv— Wlieii— No tico— Short Delivci y — Daiiiagec, eio. .s;!-;H7. Iiistriictiotis not to Deliver — Dani- n;,'er.. .•!S. I'lTisliuble Gdod-. ;!!). What C(jii4itutes. -10. Way- iJili— Agent. 11. LiahiUlij iif, as Warc/ioii.seiiien as Distinct from Carriers. \IA\. Negligence — Evidenoe of— nnrtleii of Proof. I.'i ■)(). l)aiiiaj:e to Carj;o— Notice, al. Dog— Broken Fastenings. 52. Qoo'ls (ie.'^iroyed by h'ire— \'is Major. 5.'!-5,'). Goods destroyed by Fire after arrival at Station. .OtJ. Short delivery— Shrnikage. ,")7. Short delivery — Notice. 58. Refusal to Carry— Railway Act. ;')!». Ok PAssh;x(;i;iis .\xi) tiikik ]}.\(;(;a(;k, liaggage. Conditions on Ticket— Coinincr- oial Traveller. 1. Conditions on Ticket— Proof of Lo.ss. 2. Custody of Baorgnge after arrival at De.siination— Burden of Proof ;i-7. Fvidcneeof Value— Art. 1077 C. C .S-8«. Loss by Fire.— Vis .\[ajor. 9. Measure of Damages for lost Ba"^- gage. lO-U. Merchant Shipping Act— Disclo.s- ure of Value. 12. Overcoat. 12a. Slp-'pingCar Company— Necessary i Deposit— Art. 1814 C. C. l;M4. liecepiionof Bagpupe by Employer of Coinpany. 1,5 l(Ja. Tow-boat — Baggage ot< Deck. IT. Valiieof Contents— Art. lt;77 C. ('. 1(1. I'assengirs, Contributory Negligence— .Stoppiii;: at Pftssrngerx Destination — Alighting, lit. Contributory Negligence — Triiiu longer than I'latfortn. 20. iMiibarkin;.' and Landing Pja. . 21-2h.'. l'!.\|mlsiori from Cars. Ticket gniiil lor sjierijiol titii'. 22. TicLi't i/iKul Jar roit/iniinus Trij'. 2.!. Sleeping Car llcrtli — Jfus!,,,,!'/ and Wife. 21. Ticket Agent. '!'>. rrodnctinn of Tirlot. 2(1. Line not open to Pulilic. 27. Negligence — Vis .Major. '^<. Person unlawfully on Train— Colli- .sion Dami'ge.s. 2!i. PresiiiDptionof Negligence— .* that tlif pacl. V. 1889,17 li.L. lo:), M. L. u., .'iS. 0. ri::. 3. If the carrier'.s departure has been delayed by tlie necessity of taking; such pro- ceedings, he can only claim as damn ^ps there- for interest on the sum due for freight as provided by Art. 1077 C. C. {lb.) 4. ILld, A curi'ier who has put the ihing transported in the particular place specil;ed in the contract of carriage, is not considered to have thereby dispossessed him- self of it, and his right ofretentioii under Art, lG7i) C. ('. until he is j)aid for the carriage, still exists, and may be asserted by conservatory seizure against parties claiming title by pur- chase. Groiilxvs. Wilson, C. R. 1892, 1 Que. 540, and see Patlirsnn vs. Davidson, 2 R. de Leg. 77. 5. For Storage— 1812 C. C. — Action was brought to revendicate a large quantity of wheat seized in the pissession of the defendant The wheat had arrived in Montreal from Cleveland, and was to be delivered on board another vessel lying in the harbor of Montreal, but the lighter not being ready to receive it the carriers stored it with defendant, in whose hands it was seized. The judgmentof the Court below condemned defendant, but recognized his lien lor storage, and also iliat of the car- rier for freight, holding that they were justi- lied in storing under the circumstances, and the judgment was confirmed. Watt vf. Gotild & Jacques, Q. B. I86G, 2 L. C.L. J. 1!). 6. Freight indivisible. Art. 1079 C. C. — A common carrier by water has a lien ujwu every portion of goods carried for the payment of the whole freight d\ie by the owner or con- signee of the goods, and a tender by the owner of the cargo, of the freight due on each load as discharged ami loaded on a cart, is insnIR- cient. liivAcster vs. Honker, S. C. 1857, 7 L. ('. R. 55, 1 L. C. J. 90. -. 11. J. I{. Q. 172. 6a. But held later, that the payment of freight and the delivery of the cargo are coii'omitant acts, which neither party is bound to perform witlioiil the other being ready to perform the correlative ant, and, therefore, that the master of a vessel cannot insist on laymentiu full of his freight and of a cargo of coals before delivering any portion thereof. Beard vs. liroicn, C. R. 1870, 15 L. C.J. I;i6. 7. Previous Debt— The carriers claimed a lien on goods for previous debt due for freight, not by the owners of the goods shipped 1 ut by the intermeiliale shipping agents for goods shipped for other parties. The bill of lading stipulated that the carriers should have a lien on the goods " for all previously unsatisfied freights and charges due to them by the shippers or consignees " — Held, that the owners of the goods could not be held liable in the absence of specific proof of a par- ticular mode of dealing between them and the carriers to meet the case. Leaf vs. The Can- ada Shippin;/ Co., S. C. 1878, 1 L, N. 220. 8. Rafting Timber — Dernier Equi- peur.— A person who undertakes the rafting of timber down a river is a dernier equipeur and has a privilege on such timber, but only for his charges and expenses in rafting the timber. He is also a carrier and has alien thereon until payment of his charges, and can protect his right by conservatory attachment. Trudel vs. Trahan, S. C 1874, 7 R. L. 177. 9. But this does not apply to o.ie of the raftsmen engaged on the raft. Graham vs. Cot^, Q. B, 1872, 4 R. L. :!. IV. OP GOODS. (I) 1. ConditionR of Carriage — Notice of. Art. 1()7G C. C— Proof to the effect that the defendant had previous to and at the time of the fire posted up in all the com- pany's stations with otlur printed conditioDfl a notice that the company would not be re- sponsible " for damages occasioned by delays (1) See an Act relating to Bills of I.inliiiK, i U)), c. 3■ ;> Kv. Act, 1h88. — (.'. delivered goods at New York lO a railway coin pany which «ndi.rtook to carry them to Quebec partly over its own line and partly over those of two other comjia- nies. The respondents, upon receiving the freight receipt from the first comjiany at New York, delivered a bill of lading; to C, mention- (l) Sec Granil Trunk Jl/i. Co, vs. iifct/i/Znii, 1888. li: Cnn.S. C. U. 543, Ulstlngiiisliing Vnijel vs. (!. T. It.. II Can. .S. C. K. 61-'. CAKUIKIJS. 28/ inj; llioreiii tliP lir.''t c >iiiruct iiiiulo by C. willi '■ Akt. Iti7"i C. C— It in suMicicnt for llip till' ori^'iiial i:oiiii)ttriy,aU'l iiiKlerlttkiiij^ tliereliy rthipper (o provp llic rci.'cptioii of the iroodx bv to carry tlie K""'!-* "V"'" ''"■if ''"i" ''""i I'r*-"- llio currier, uii'l (lint tlicy Irivc iii)l lifi'ii dcliv oott to (jhu'lit'i: oil tlie i'xj)r('sH ijoiiditioii timl orcd to tlie con-'if'iicc, to pliKu- iipfin llic a\r- thcv -lioiiKl iiol be liiitilc for liiuiiiiiiM or lom ' ricr the biirilcii of proviti;; iliui the Ifm wii-< totliH j^'oimIh oco'irriii;; wliile they arc imiler Ibc cnnsci by u forliiitoim cvpul or irresistible control of inifriiu'.li »l»' (;iirrii'r< ati 1 liclore lh<'y fori:e, or liit'< iiriHoii from !i ilcfect in tiic uooiN arrivcil lit I'rcMoott. or tiling itself. Cir. ilf M»r. I{. and (>. v-. 11, III, that till' a^'rei'inciii of ilic rcip )nilciitM Fm-tinr, ]>*•*[), M. I.. ]{.,:, t). H. >2i, \H ]{.].. m. liiiiiliiit; llifir liabilitv tn iiiUim','i»i)oM ■ on tiii'ir own liiii" wai not proiiibili'il iiy An. lii"(i C.C, (.r by sec. 21(1, s> .'!, of Iho Uailway A('i, IHHS, aiil the ilainai;i' baviiij; ocourreil before t'u' ;;iiiiil- arrivi'ii on tlu-ii line, tliey \ver« not rc.-i- p(in«ili|(' tiiiM'i'for. Iidiilliii'r vs. t'.iii. I'ltc. III/. Co.,ii. li. LS'.ti, .! Qnc. \M;. anil s.-i' h'ubi- ,'inm,i vs. c. r. Ji'., S. C. [hh:,, s I,. N. :!1 I. 8. Limiting Liability. Sri. 2H; i (;i) l)o.M. Uv. Acr IK^S— .Vkt. lOTfi C. C— N'olwith.-itanilin); tbe nolicf of ct>riililions liinilitij^ a railway compauy'.s lialiility, hmuIi company will be liable for daniiii;e arisirij; tlironajli its fmilt or (lie fault of those for whom it is responsible. (1) Cumiihell vs. Graii'l Tniiilc ll,j. Co., C. C. 1871 , :i K. L.l.-.l. 9. —^ Railway ootiipanies may by contract relieve ilieinsilves from responsibility for loss, duiiiai»e or detenlio'i of ^oods unless caused by ne>:lij;eiice on their own par; or that ofllieir servants, bnt such condition mii«t be bronsbt to the notice of and sijined by the parties thereto. Viniicr vs. <.'. /'. /i?. , .Mag. Ct. 1881), i;! L. N. 10, and see Ihihjravc v,s. Ciin. I'ac- Itij., an Ontario County Court case reported pp. 11) and 2(> of 11 L. N. 10. Fragile Qo3d9. Art. UiTtiC.C. —Special Rates for perishable Goods. — Ihhl, wheie, by a condition of the bill of laJini;, it is stipulated that I ho currier will not be responsible for loss or breakage of fragile iioods unless a liii|lier rule of freii;bt be paid therefor, and tbe shi|iper has not paid snob additional 'ate, the carrier is not bound louse s;realercare ill respec' to such goods than i.s usual in tbe case of goods for wliich ordinary rates aio charge 1. Mnnyi imis \!^. Allni, (l- 15.1892, 1 Que. 181. 10a. A carrier is not relievinl from liability arising from negligence when the bill of lading contains the clause ''not liable for leakage, breakage and rust." Harris v.,4 L. C. J. 40. 11. Negligence— Presumption- Exception— Evidence— Onus Probandi. (1) Sec Vogil vs. (1. T. 1!., 11 Can. S. C. K. 012. 12. The fad that (be bill of lad- 1 ing conlainul a clause e\emptin;; the carrier from responsibility (lir ''lb" acts of do j, the I liueeii's enemies, lire, and all and every Ibo dangers im I acci lents o( the seas, rivers, and navigation of what-'oever iialiire an I kind," does nit necessiirijy (^asi the bur leii of proof on the pliiintiH', — .) 14. — — — The sinkiii'i Ilf a steamer at the entrance to a caiiiil, on 11 calm clear night, was not such an accident. (///.) 15 Theft by Servants of Sbip- owner. — Theft liy company's own servants j not covered liy clause in tiill of lading exempt- { ing company (roin liability by " thieves of whatever kind, whether on board or not, or bv Ian I or sea." Sliiniintii vs. Anchnr Line, \ linglish Ct. of App-al 1891, 14 L. N. :iOO. 16. Connecting Lines. (1) (See also Supni " CoxiinioNs ok I?ii,i, oi' L.uuxr, ■' — A earner who underiakes to convev good* from Quebec to Chicago, with power to tranship at Kingston, complies with the usage of that port by transhipping from a steamer into a sailing craft, and is further not resiionsible for the loss of such goo l.s occa- sioned by tempestuous weather, in which such sailing craft is wrecked. Warren vs. I leader son. S. C. IS.jS, 8 I.. C. R. 108, G R. J. U. Q. 151. lea. Clause in liill of lading to effect that carrier may at his option trar.ship at Quebec und forward goods to Montreal, at ship's expense and merchant's risic, does not (1) See U. S. Supreme Ct. case of Michigan Centriil UK. Co. rs. lVIyrlcl«, reportea « L. N. C9. as to the Kuiieral doctriiu- recanting transporting by connect- ing lines of carriers. \it 3 "Til I '! il It i ■ 'I : ^ \m if 28S CAKKIKKS. relieve carrier from liability arising fnun ne- {^ligence and want of care in the luimllin,;? and landing of tlie goo In at Montreal. Samuel vs. Ri(mon»tonc, S. C. ls,5f., 1 L. CI. f^H. 17. — 'Vlicre the place ol deslinaiioM of goods i.s yond the carrier'.-; route, anne he received the freight, the fact that at the reipiest of the shipper he un lertook to deliver tiie goods to another carrier to complete the transportation, does not make the first carrier respon-iihle for the delivery of the goods at the place of desti- nation. JelTi-eii vs. Cm. Sliippimj Co., il. '?. 18'.n, 7 M. I-. it. 1. 17a. In tluM;a«e of gonds carriid by The Ocean Steamship Co. to J'ortland and there del:vere.) to 'I'lie (Jranl Trunk Railway (^o. and by them carried to Montreal, the rail- way company are re-ip)nsibio fordamage to the goods caused by their negligence, and such negligence will 'le pre.iiimod if it he shown that ihey received the goods in apparent good or der and deli\ered them in bad order. Grand Trunk Jii/. Co. vs. Atwufcr, Q. B. 1673, 18 L. C. .1. 5:i, confirming C. K., 17 L. C. J. 1. 18. A carrier who receives goods en route from n.nother carrier, erjter.s them on its way-bills and collects all it.s charges from the consignee, is not liable for such of the good.s as were lost by the firet carrier. Bcnan Bro.i. vs. G'-u.kI Tniiik Rij. Co., S. C. 18!II, 17 Q. L. K. 2'jy. 19. — But, as the coiKsignce was misled by rhe way-l.ill.s of the second carrier, the latter will he condemned to the costs of the action for damages. {lb) 20. A carrier who receives goods en roidf from anotlicr carrier is not responsible for delay in the delivery of the goods, wiiere such delay is caused by an error in tlie way- bill of a previous carrier, delivered to the succeeding carrier with the good-, which way-bill stated a place of dejtuiation whudi was erroneous. Trc.tler v.«. Can. Fuc. Ji'i/. Co., Q. B. 1892, 1 Quo. 12. 21. Consignee— Payment of Freight. — Wliere goods were to be delivered lo the lio'der of a bill of lading on payment of freight, and they were in fact delivered to the holder of the bill, a carrier, without paying freight, and on the sole credit of the carrier, who had funds from ihe real unknown con- signee to pay the freight, the carrier iiaving become insolvent, the captain cannot recover freiglif from Ihe consignee. Fletcher vs. Bickford, Q. B Montreal. Sept., 1875. 22. Rights and Duties of.— The consignee caniioi refuse to accept goods from the (carrier because a portion thereof ha\ e been damaged ; he must have recourse to an action of duMiages for the loss he lu'S sustained. Hah roll) vs. Li-me^nrier, Q. B. 18><4, 21 R. L, 2S, 10 Q. 1,. R. 23'.t 22a. In general, a consigi'ee who complains of short delivery or damage to goods ought at once lo protest and hold a survey after due notice to the parties interested, but, in a case like the present, where the party did not intend lo keep thi' damaged goods and the extent of loss could be rightly ascertained by a public auction, and the damage was ad milted, such protest and survey were unne- cessary. Hahertij vs. '/b/ra/ice, Q. B. 18()2, G L. C J -AV.',. 22b, In a case like the above, the burden of proof is on the carrier lo show thai the damage was occasioned by the dangers of navigation, (lb.) 23. Tlie consignee cannot reaise to I Hccept goods from the carrier who agreed to deliver them wit! in a certain time and fails to do so ; he must have rec )ur.se to an action of damages for the lo.-is he has sustiiined. Bailly yi^.Cie. de Xm: li. .t 0..C. Ct. 1885, 20 R. L. 127. 24. Where the consignee refuses to accept goods from the carrier a; the place of delivery, llie carrier is not ju.'tified in selling the same by private sale, witliout notice to the consignor or consignee; and a pretended au- thorization to sell by the consignee who has refused to accept the goods is without efiect. The consignor in such case is entitled to re- cover the value of the goods less freight and storage. (' dtinghnni vs. Grand Trunk Ry. C'o.,S. C. 18111, A. L. \i., 7 S. C. H85. 25. Delay in Delive^'y— Connecting Line— Error in Way bill.— /Te/rf, that a carrier who receives goods en route from an- other carrier is "Ot responsible for delay in the delivery of the goods wl^re such delay is caused '>y an error in the way-bill of a pre- vious carrier, delivered to th" succeeding car- rier with the goods, which way-bill stated a place of destination which was erroneous. Treskr vs. Cm. Fuc. Ry. Co., Q. B. 1892, 1 Que. 12. CARRIERS. 289 26. Damages.— A railway company in liable for daiuagcs caused by its failure to deliver goods entruiUcd to it for carriage within a reasonable lime, and, when the com- pany's time-tables show tiiat the distance which the goods have to be carried should be covered in two liours, a delay of twenty-fonr hours in summer for transporting fresh meat over such distance is unreasonable, and the company will be condemned to pay the price of the meat which was damaged. Delormc vs. CVvi. Pac. Ry. Co., C. Ct. 188^, 11 i.. N. IO(i. 27. A railway (company is liable fur damages caused by its failure to deliver goods entrusted to it for carriage within a reasonable time. Fonibriand vs. Grand Trunk Ity. Co., S. C. IssT, 3 M. L. R. iW. 28. Measure of Damages— Loss of Custom. — Where the circunistances Jus- tify the presumption that a carrier uinler- liiking to convey goods was aware that they were intended for immediate salo, he may be held liable for the loss of profits on such sale caused by his failure to deliver ti.^m. Jiehan V?. araiid Trunk By. Co., S. C. 1885, 11 Q. L. U. (10. 2J. Damages for loss of custom avi.-ing from such non-delivery are too remote to lie held to have been in the contemplation ol the panic- and cannot be recovered, (lb.) 30. Delay in Starting— Injury to Cattle— Acts of Agents. Akt. lOTG C. (\ — T. and others were cattle exporters who i^hipped lOii head of cattle on board a steamer belonging to A. and others, the defendants, to he conveyed from Montreal to Glasgow in Scotland. The cattle were ordered on board by ihe vcsselV authorities about daybieak on the '.hh tluly, 1S8."), it beinir understood that the vessel should sail before eight o'clock in the morning. Owing to the lading of the vessel not having been comjjleted, she did not sail until afternoon of the said !Uli July, and, on account of the intense lieat 21 head of the cattle died, and the remainder were deterior- ated in ()i\ality and sold at a lower price tiian they would otherwise have brought. T. brought an action against A. to recover the price of the cattle which had died and the amount ol' loss su. lined through the deterior- niiun of the others. Jleld, that A. el al. were responsible for the acts of the master and other authorities of the \cs.«ei in ordering said cattle on board as they did. That in O'-Jeiing said cattle on board as they did before the vessel was ready to sail, the said nmster and other authorities of the ves.sel were guilty of gross negligence, which caused the death of the cattle wliich were suffocated ; that the defendants were liable for the price of the cattle, which were suffocated. That the loss from the deterior- ation of the remainder of said cattle had not been proved to be caused by the delay of said vessel in sailing. Thompson vs. Allan, S. C. 1887, 32 L. C. J. i;9. 31. Delivery— Bill of Lading— Short Delivery.— The plaintills sued for ^67.70, value of eight barrels of Hour, short delivered at Montreal. At the trial the proof estab- lishcil that in June, 188), the Missouri Pacific Railway Company signed a bill of lading to forward and ileliver one hundred and titty biir rels of flour, consigned to plaintills at Mont- real ; a waybill wiis made out, and the car sealed, and delivered to a company kn'nvn as the Red Liin- Trans])ortation Company, by wliom the car was dcdivered at Bruckville to ilefiiidiints. The defendants received the sealed car at Umckville and conveyed it to Montreal, there notifying the plaintills by usual advice note of its iirrival, and as containing one hundred and fifty barrels of Ihiur, consigned to their order ; the information contained in the advice note having been obtained from the way-bill bi'fore the car was opened. On open- itig the ear only 112 barrels were found which weri' duly delivered to the plaintills, who siib- .•^(■quently sued in revendication for the balance of eight barrels, iilleging a contract at St. Louis and setting uji the bill of hiding and advice note. The defendants pleaded that the3' were not jiarties to the bill of lading ; that they only received the ear at Brockville, it being then sealed, and that they conveyed it to Montreal, with the seals intact, and in the same condi- tion us when received, an i that the advice note was nierely a tiotice sent by custom " trade, contents of which were taken from the way- bill, and coiiid not amount t'l a binding a4 ; Stuart's Kep., p. 509, I R.J. R. Q. 419. 35. • In general, a consignee who complain.s of shoit delivery (jr dam- age of goods ought at once to jirotest in order that tlr.' disputeil facts may be investigat- ed. In general, a survey ought to Im! bad without delay upon goods delivered in a dam- aged slate, and this after notice to the parties interested, especially in cases where the consi- gnee intends to retain the goods, (udierlij vs Torraucc, Ct. of Appeal lH(i2, 6 L. C J. ;;i;i. 36. Where under a bill of ladujg goods were "to be delivered from the ship's deck wheretliesliip's responsibility shall cease, at Montreal, unto the (jraiid Trunk Ry. Co., and by them to be forwarded thence by railway to Toronto, and there delivfrcd " to jilaintitf, the provision " no danuige that can be insured against will be paid for, nor will any claim whatever be admitted unles.s made before the goods are removed " — Held, to apply to the lemoval frcm the thip at Monlrral, and to Le strictly binding on the consignees. And such a condition is not an unreasonable one and covers all daiDdge, latent as well as apparent. And if any limitation of the condition couhl be implied, it could not reasonably go further than to exclude such damage only as (•(iiM not have been discovered ci an e.\aniina- lion of the gooils, conducted with i:i-opn- care and skill at the place of removal, liui a delay of several weeks in making a chiiiu for damage done to goods on the shij) woull not of itself, and apart from the above stn'i I condition, be a sufficient answer to tlieaction. Moore ' s, i/rrc/'/.v, I'rivy Council 1870, 2 Q. L. R. 147. 37- Responsibility as a couiiuon carrier cea.-es the nioment the goods are dcl- vered into the po>ses.-ion of the consigud', d.- livery on to a public wharf lieing such delivei\ , and if the goods are damaged by the bud coiulilion of the wharf, the carrier will lu i i e liable. Lirkrr vs Ga/urt;/, C. Ct. ]>>(>, T (,> L. R. 30. 38. Instructions not to deliver— D^Uiages. — .\elion was orcjught to recover the value of three ca.'cs of goods which the deltn daut had undertaken to delivei- to the Coii-iij;iiu- ol the plaintiflat Toit.uIi>, but which they li;ii| notice subsequently not to deliver, as tin' con signee had sto|ipeil payment, aiul the deUn (hint disregarded the notice and deliveri' 1 the goods— //('W, that be was lialde to pay to the jilamtitl'the price of said goods as sold to the consignee, i'amphell \h. Jonvx, .S. C. 1''')^, :; L. C. J. !i(;,9 L. C. H. 10. 39. Perishable Goods.— A (urr.r who trau'^poi'ts peri.-bable goods must use exliu diligence in delivering them, and "ben tli" consignee does not call for them, the eari it r must, it po-sible, notify the forwarder tbereoi, anil upon default of so doing, the carrier will i-e lieM liable in damages for the loss occa^ioiic.l thereby, (uinncau vs. D. 46. And, if he pr( tend that fraud or concealment have been practiced, the burden of proof is on him. (lb.) 46a. The liability of a forwarder for a quantity of wheat shipped on lioard a barge, established by an acknowledgiueiit in writing of its receipt, cannot be affected by parol tesi,..nony that the barge was not his. or that he acted only as agent for the cwiier. Si/mc vs. .hue.--, s". C. 1857, 2 L. C. J. IGl". 46b. When the nieasnremeni and delivery of a cargo of wheal have been pro- perly commenceil in presence of both the carrier and the lunsignee, or their represen- tatives, it is their liiity to attend till delivery is completed ; and if either party absent him- self the oiluT limy proceed without him. (Hj.) 46c. Common carriers are res ponsible for damages caused by fire breaking out on boanl of a steiiinbout, nnle-s such tire was not attriiiutabli' to their negligence; ami the o//».v iiroliunili is upon the carriers tn account for the tire and prove that it did not arise from their fault. Cnnadiiin Xan'r/dtiou. vs. /lai/e.-: Q. B. Is75, I'." L. C. J. JCO. 46d. In an action against a carriei , if he decline swearing to the value of the goods lost and claimed, the court will submit the matter to the drcisory oath of the plaintitf. Hobbs V-. Srnrral, s'. C. 1857, 1 L. C. J. '.):!. 47. A carrier is responsible fur lo-s ordainage tugi'u 's entrusted to him, win n he is iinahle tu >how that the loss was canned by irresistible force, or by a defect in the thing itself. OuiincI vs. Can. E-rprcss Co., Q. B. l.ssii, .M. L. I!., 5 Q. B. 292, 17 B. L. 22.">, ;i2 I.. C. J. ;ir.t : Caherty vs. Torraw,. Q. B. I8i;2, i; L. C.,1. 313; Vanier\^.Can. Par. Ry. Co.. \\\ L. X. I'.t. 48. Tiie burden of proving irresi- - tible force <;r delect in the thing is on tin- carrier, {lb.) 49. A carrier who contracts to carry goods, and receives the freight, is re-- |)onsible lor the gnod-; to the jilace of their destination, notwithstanding the fact that on the road l.e tranal'erred them with the conseni of the owner to another carrier, to be carried by liiiii on to their destination, {lb.) 50. • It is sullicient lor the shipper tojjrove the reception ipf the goods by the car- rier, a. id that ti'ey have not been delivereil li> the consignee, to place upon the carrier tlie burden of proving that the loss was caused by a fortuitous event or irresistible force, or has aiisen from a defect in the goods or thing il--elf. Cie. de Nov. R. .(■ 0. vs. t'ortkr, Q. B. i8M'. M. L. 11., 5 Q. B. 22 1, ;U L. C. J. 'J. 51. Damage to Cargo — Notice. — Action for damages to cargo of tea by the 292 CARilIEBS. uae of chloride of lime, which it was alleged hiid im])regnated the tea with an cffeiisive Oilour—Bcld, that the evidence did not establinh the fact of damage patiffactorily, so as to charge the ship, aiiif that due diligence had not been used to notify the ship-owner of the damage. Moore v.«. Harris-, Q. B. Mont- • J-, com- mon carriers, after the arrival of the plaintill's .goods at their railway station, notitled the coii- higiices, Ihe notice slating that after a certain iinii\'. Ufli'lim Xiiriiintiii)' 'o,, 18 Ciui. S, C. It. 7(11 (1s:m1i. ij) IMil, hy till' llouM' 111' I.onls in ism, tli.'il il. in llic cipiiiinn of tlii^ jury ii |iassi'ii;;i'i' ii'ciMviii;,' ii ticket Il m .'1 sliipiiin;; ri>iii|iiui\' (Imco imt sre di- kiiiiw lii.'il tliuic ai- any ciiinlilidiis ilicri'iiii, lio is not liomiil liy tllO !■ Illllilinlis. If 111! klll'W tlllTr W.IS wrilill;.' IMI till' ticki I it is il i|iii'stiiiii o( liii't wlictlior lie li.iil rc:isciii- •ilili noiii'c tliat llic williiii! ci.iitiiiiicil .'.in litiinis, anil lie is CM- is iml Imiiinlilifii'liy, ac iiriliii(j as he liail .sucli iinlii'i' ur nut. Ili'linnl.Htii vs. .s'/»i'cc, li " 'I'lio Itcpoi'ls," p.O.'i, si'f iilsnscc. 'J4(l (3) Iloniiiiioii liy. .Ai't. IKst", mill sec JJali' vs. Cun. I'w. /!y.. Is Supreiuc <'l. Ki'p. OUT. Monday following — Udd, that, without e»i- dence of a new contract, after the arrival of the baggage tlie company was not responsible. Krliertvf. drawl Trnnk Kij. Co., S. C. 1877, 22 L. C. J. 25T, 5. A carrier who retains tlie cus- tody of baggage after it has reached the place of destination, and deposits it in a room as signed "o unclaimed baggage, is resixmsible for its safe-keeping, and is bound to deliver the thing or pay its value, unless delivery has become impossible without bis act or fault. I'elland vf'. Canndiun Pacific Ry- Co. ,S.C. 1891, M. L. it,, 7 S. C. i:il. Confirmed by l^ B.18'J2, 1 Que. I'll. 6. The burden of proving that the lessor destruction of the thing has occurred without his act or fault 's on the carrier, the presumption being thai he is in fault if he fails to deliver the thing. Hence, if no explanation be given of the disappearance of baggage before deliverv, the carrier is liable for the value. ai>.) 7. ■ — A passenger on an Atlantic vessel has a reasonable delay wherein to re- move his baggage on arrival, and during such delay, and before the Customs House oflicers have taken the baggage away, the carrier remains liable therefor as carrier, and can only be relieved from such liability for its loss by proving that it was lost through causes lieycnd its control. Canadian Shippin(j Co. vs. Davidson, Q. B. 1892, 1 Que. 2;t8, confirming ; S. C, M. L. R., G S. C. H88, I'J R. LS'.H, and i^ee Cddirallader vs. Grand Trnnk liy. Cc. infra No. >^. I 8. Evidence of Value— Art. UmT. — I'roof may be made bv the plaintif. "s oaih ' of the value of baggage lost or destroyed while ! in the custody of the carrier alter arrival at , place of destination. ]\'lhind vs. Ciiiiadimi Pacijir liy. Co., M. L. U., 7 S. C.KU ; coi.- i firmed in appeal ls^'.l2, 1 (Juc. Sll. (Udiciil- i lader vs. <;ran., S. C. 185'.', 11 ;,. C. \l. K!'.); hobson vs. If'ioker, ?, L. C. J. SI). 8a. In an action against a carrier, the plaintiff's own oath will be received as to the contents of trunk which had been brukcn open, and the value of such contents, all bough consisting of .jewelry, will be recovered where the party claiming was a lady. MacDongaU vs. Torrance, S. C. ISIJO, 4 L. C. J. 182. e Loss by Fire —Vis mSijor.— A steamboat company is liable for the value of passengers' baggage destroyed by a fire on the n'Ji CARRIERS. Hteaiiier, iimess it lie cli'ai'Iv piovcil tliat the lire occurred from sonit' caiice over whicli llie voiiipany liad no control. Cmi. Xnv. di. vs. McConkey, Q. B. 1877, 1 J>. X. 23. 10. Measure of Damages for lost Baggage— The mcasiire for (lauiagc." for \oM l>aggn;:e is tlie value of the goods loi^t ; the I xpcriHes incurred by llie ouiicr in looking after it and damages raused to liini liy tlie ilclay wliicli jirevented liiin going forward to take liis situation lannot be recovereil. Pro- rcncher vs. C\ti,. I'oc. Uy., .S. V. IsS!). M. L. I!., 5 S. C. 9; ISieton vs. am, id Tnnik Uij. Co., S. C.1872, 2 H. C. 2:)7. 11. Wbeie ba;,i;!igc lias li'-en lound afler suit lias been issued, and has lieen accepted by the owner, tiie I'aihvay company is onlv responsible liir the taxable costs incurred lip lo ilatc of delivery. /V»(- of the .\Jer- chaiil Shipping Act letVriCil loili,! not apply— Hrld, tliat the difendaiits were (tililled to , plead as ihey had diiiie, and the demurrer wii- ■ lismi-'.'^ed. MrDnti./all vs. JN'iii.S. C, il L. c. J. ;!:i;! and s. ('. ]si;i. 12 L. ('. II. ;i2i. laa Overcoat —The liability of comiiiou carriers dues not e.Mend to arli('les of wearing apjiarel such a> an overcoat, which may be thrown oil and laid aside, unless speci- ■ ally dejiosited in the charge of thecarriers' ser- ! vaiils, and that defendanls in this ease were not 1 liable, because no such depo'il was imide. ' Torrance vs. Richdini O,., C. Ct. iStJO, 2 ' 1.. c. L. J. 1;!;), 10 L. c. .i.;;.r.. 1 13. Sleeping Car Company- Necessary Deposit. Airr. Isi4 C. C— i llehl, That a sleeping-car company, which, by I arrangeiiienl with a railway company, provides ' sleeping accoinmodalioii for Hist class pas- sengers travelling by the raihvhy,isresi(onsible, like the keeper of an inn or board ing-hou.ee, for the tilings brought by travelleis wlio engage such accoininodation. .V/.vc vs. I'allmun I'alare Cur Co., S. C. 18y2, 1 Que. 9. 14. In ajtpeni, judgment of S. C. was confirmed but solely on the groiiml thai the defendants were guilty of negligence ; the Court holding that where an employee of a sleejiing-car company accepts an article ol baggage from a passenger before the d»partnre of the train, and after placing it in tliedrawing- rooiii deiiartment engaged bj' such jiassenger, leaves the door unlocked, and Ihe article is not forlhcoiiiing, the company is guilty of negli- gence, ind is baiind lo indemnify the iia-^senger. Pullmiin P.ihicr Car Co. vs. Sise, Q. B. 181)4, ;t Que. 2')><. 15. Reception of Baggage by Employee of Company.— Wliere a person in the einployiient of the carriers assumes Ihe charge of biiggage delivered on boanl Ihe vessel, the carrier is liable for such b.aggage, though the jierson who received the baggage was there merely during the tenqiorary absence of the otlicor whose duty it was to receive the baggage. Morriaon vs. Tin' Ontario A- liiv.he- lieu Xaeii/a/inn Comjiaiiy, S. C. 1882, ."; L. N- 71. 18. And, /ic/d, that delivery of buL'gage lo a constable in he employ of a rail- way coinpmiy .il one fif its dejiots, several hours bel'iU'e the departure of the train, and in the absence of llie baggage agent, wa" a suHi- eient delivery to bind the eoin| any where the plaintiiriiad nol knowledge of the company's liy-law whereby it would nut hold itself liable for ba'jgaiie lo-^t un'e^s idiecked. Tcxsier vs. draiid Trnnk Hy. To , C. Ct. ls;7i, ;i II. L. :u. 16a. 'J'lie respondent was nol res|)onsible for the loss of a trnnk said 10 con- tain a large -^um of money, which the appellant left ill I'harge of the baggage keeper, eonliiiry to the ad vice and instructions of llieca|)lain of the steamer, who indicated the ollice as the projier place of deposit ; the appellant stating at the time, ill answer to the captain, that he would lake care of the trunk hiinself. Scnical vs. Th<- Riclielieu ro.,Q. B. 181.9, 1.5 1-. C. J. 1. 17. Tow-boat —Baggage on deck —Arts. 1675-1677 C. C— Action was brought against the owner of the sleamboat " Alliance" for the recovery of the value of a porlinanleau and certain articles of wearing apparid wiiich it contained, belonging lo the plaintitls, and lost on Ihe voyage from Quebec to Montreal — Held, that, wliere a to"' boat h[l CAJJRIEllS. 295 i.iki'ri the place of an ordinary jussenger boat, lii'i' owner nssmiies tlie liability of a coniinuii 1 airier witli reHpeiit to the lui.'gii;.'eof the pas- ,-i'ML'ers i and, where a piis.-eiij.'er mi iioarJ such I II .at leaves luggage on ihe deck ami is told by :iii employee on board the boat that it is safe ill Mich pla(;e, the owner of the steamboat, in '111' event of such ln;.';:age being taken away and lost, is lialile for the value thereof. Ban- Lin-d itx. vs. jr//,sv,;(, (.'. Ct. IS,-)-), 5 L. C. II. liiill, I I{. J.R. Q. ;;;!!); Bunir \s. J'ernnilt. K. n. Qnebec, I8'JI. 18. Value of Contents— Art. 1377 C. C— The plaintiil', a passenger froiri l'.ii;.'land, on arriving at Portland placed his lu>r-'age in cliavge oftiie defendants for eoii- vfvanceto Point Levi, k r which he received check-. The phiintiir was a passenger on the car- himself, bill, instead of going straight tliiMiigh. diverged at soiue point, and then Weill t'l .Montreal, when' he rrmained a few day-, and U'mii there went tu roiiit Le\i. On application tn tli'' ((efeiidaiits at tiie latter place he found tliat nne of his (diecked trunks Mil.; lost, and actiim wa- liroiight — Ili'ld, that ikfeiidants were responsible for iiioiiey taken I'l.r pei'siinal expenses t^i sucli an aiuount as a prudent person would deem necessary and ]iiii)ier to be placed iii a traveller'.s trunk ; that tliey were liable also for a dressing case, and fi.i- a nig.it glass or telescope, the plaintiil' I'l'liiia ship lua-ter, but that tliey were mil r.-p iii-ible for r.rticle- of jrw.dlery, .such as ouuid 11 it be re^ar.lv'd a- part of a mariner's ba^i;aL'e. Ciidicallu'lcr vs. Gri'l Tritiik h'nil- W'lij Cn.. S. C. 1S.5S, ;i L. ('. It. III!). 19 Paisengers — Coatributory Ne- gligence-Damages—Stoppage at Pas senger's Destination.— Keen wherj a railuay company is in t'aiilt for not stojiping it- liaiu at a station to which it has contract- el to carry a pa-iseiiirei'. le^vertliele-'s an ac- tion iif damages will not be maintained against t!ie eoiiipaiiy fur injuries received by a pas-ien- ger in jumping friuii a train in motion, such damages being the result solely of the passen- ger'simpriidence. Ctiilnd Verinant liij. Co.:i'. L<(rf Canada — I[(hl, rever.siiigth"ju IgiiieiiLs of the Courts below, that, ill the e.scrcise of ordinary care, L. Could have safely gained the p'atforni by passing through the car forward, and that the accident was wholly attributable to his own fault in alighting as he did, and therefore he cjiild not rec )ver. Qiicher ('ei)lral Hij. Co. vs. L'lriie, Supreme Ct. \^V,, 22 C.iii. S. C. 11. 21. Embarking and Laading Place. — 'I'lie plaintiil', an a Ivocate, residing at Montreal and passiuj:; the vacation with bis family at .Murray Bay, embarked with his I son ami daughter on t'le steamer " Union,'' beloiiLMiig to the defeiictants, on the loth July, KSTti, for a trip up the Sa.'neiiay and back to Murray Bay- At this place the embarkation and landing of passengers was eU'ecled by iiieaiiS of a wliarf Ij-shqp'.'d, occupieu for the piirpjses of their bisiness hv ihe defe'idants, In the front imrt of the wharf was a slip, the steps of which wre bound with iron. The " Unio'i " I'cturned to Murray Bay on ihe fol- lowing evening abaiit Id p. iii. The night was di'.rk, and the wharf e:;cessively crowded. The stale of the tide rendering it inconvenient to land the iiassmjrers thvoiiih llieslip, as usual, a gangway was laid fnuii the main deck to the ' top of the wharf, and at a ilistance of live or six feet from the edge of the slip. The plain till' having given up his ticlcet at the gangway passeil on to the wharf, followed by his son and daughter, and while making his way : through the crowd fell into the slip from a height of eight or ten i et, sustaining a ver_v , severe injury to the ankle joint, which, in the opinion of the doctors, luigiit cause lameness for life, and in any case bis recovery would be 1 very slow — Hehl, in an action for ilaniages, that there is an implied engagement on the part of public carriers of passenger.s for hire that tiie latter shall not be exposed to undue ,'i;#f-ii 296 CARRIERS. or unreasonable lianger ill embarking upon or landing from the vessels of sudi carriers, ami that a Hteamboat comjiany, nniler such cir- cumstances, is bouml to take all proper ))r('- cautiotis for the prevention nf accidents by I lie cnnvding of the public on the wliarf. lior- la3ev».St. Ldwrmce Slnnn Nnviijntinn Co., S. C. 1877, 3Q. L. R. 329, Q. B, H77, 1 L. N.32. 21a. And, helJ, also, ilmt in such cases aiiv dangerous po"tion 'if ilic wimrf should be sufficiently lighted at night to ensure the safety and protection of passengers. ( Hi.) 22. Expulsion ft-om Cars— Ticket for specified time.— A jierson purchusing from a railway company a ticket which is declared to be good for a specified term only, enters into a special contract which is at an end as soon as such term has expired, und the holder iif a return ticket, attempting to return after the e.xpiratiun of the term for which the ticket was granted, may lie law- fully ejected from the train on refusal to pay full fare. (1) Ihgina vs. Phmieii/, Q. B. (Crown side), IHtil, 5 L. C. J. 107; Grainl Trunk Ry. Co. vs. Cnnnini/lidm, Q. B. 180.'), II L. C. J. 107, reversing S. C , L. C.J. 57. 23. Ticket good for con tinuous Trip— Stopping off.— Where a passenger having jiurchased a ticket from Montreal to Toronto, marked " goul only for continuous trip within two days from date," stopped ofl' for some days at Kingston, and afterwards attempted lo cimiinue his journey on the same ticket, it was held, that, in default of other payment, the company had a right to eject him from the train. (1) Lifiiii/.itoni' vs. (!i-(ui(l Tnink Ji'y. Co., (". U. 1876,21 L. (*. J. i;!. 24. Expulsion from berth in Sleeping Car— Husband and Wife.— See article in II Leg. News 217. PiillmKii Palace Car Co. vs. Baku, Te.N. Supreme (.'(. 18i)0. 25. Ticket Agent.— /'cr curiam. — In this case an action of damages was hronght by the respondent for e.xpulsion from a sieeping-c:;r berth. If the allegations were proved it wouKl appear to be an e.xtra- ordinary outragp. The respondent, after taking a ticket for a sleeping-berth from Now York to Montreal, and paying for it, was jmt out of the car. It was one of those things for which a company should be held strictly responsible. But at present the case came up, cot on the merits, but on a jiulg- (1) Sei'. L'tS Riillwiiy .Vi't, .11 \i,:t.. i:Ii. '.",)(l)). ment diBniissing two preliminary pleas, Tjjp action liad keen served oti the company's alleged agent in Montreal. The question lia.l been raised whether Mr. V. was .".u agent. It was proved that lie sells tickets like that 8ol•*, It \.. N. it;2. 29. Person unlawfully on Train —Collision— Damages.— Where a pers.n, by giving a ti|» or liribe to the contluctor of a train not intended for the conveyance if ordinary passengers, as be bad reason ii> know, induces the conductor of such train ii> permit him ti> travel nn the train contrary to the regulations of the railway company, he travels at his own risk; and if, while so travelling, he is injured by a coUisiwii, he i- not entitled to be indemnitied by the companv- for any damage to |)erBon or property sus- tained by him. C^tu. I'a<\ lly. Co. vs. Jolui- son, 1890, M. L. 11., (! Q. B. •Jl.i, 19 H. L. l!l. 30. Presumption of Negligence- Street Railway.— A company engaged in the conveyance ot passengers is responsilile for injuries sustained by a passenger while being carried in the company's vehicles, un- less it be proved by the company that it was imiiosaible fur them to prevent the accident. Montmd City I'nsnciir/i'i- Ri/. Co. vs. Irwin, Q. B. H>(;. 2 .M. 1.. It. 20^. 31, Vis major— In an iniinn of damages against a railway conipiiiiy tor personal injury— /^rA/, that the testimony f.n- the company's ser\-,int-i, that there was no negligence, will not ab-^oive the company fi'i'iu the |iresuinplion of ne'iligenee arising from the accident. Gennnin vs. Mniilrcd miles an hour, there being im (ib-lrurii.m mi the track, and nothing nut oT tl.e u-ti7 ; ydu-nui vh. :r, laying and use of rt toll rail, the company is not liable iii damajref to ii passenger injured by the ijerail- iiu-nt ofa train thnm/h the hivaking of r^iich rail. (Fournier, .r., disscntin;; on the ground that a- the aceiiietit wa'* caused by a Utent defect in llie rail in u-e, the coinj)any w.is re.s- jionsilij,..) Ciiiuiiiidn l'(iei/ic Jlli. Co. vs. ChiiUlnnx, .Supreme Ct. 1SS7,'.!'2 ('an. .S. C. I!. 721, il I.. X. .'ii.-i. 35. Street Railway — Collision botwjen Tramway Car and Cart— Ne gliganco of Conductor of Car — //-/-/ (iiflirmiii;; Ih" decision of the Cnnr! of Ue- view, .M. L. 11., 4 S. C. 111,!;, "here the res- |iondent,a passenizer on a street car, while stiindin;: on the platform or step of the car, wii^i injured liy a pa--Mi4 cart loaded with )ilanks, thit, as the iiiimeliate cause of the accident was the conductor's want of vijiilance in fiiiliuL' to stop the car (as he nii<;ht iiave (^i,.. .'lUO. Appeal toSuprcme (^l. (piashed fur waul of jurisdiction, 22 Can. ,S. ('. 11. '.V.Wi. VI. WHO ARK. 1. Ferryman (1)— Liability as com- mon Carrier— Burdan of Proof.— The proprietor of a ferryboat is liable as un or- dinary carrier for an accident occurring to a horse while liciuLT carrieij on boar.l his vessp] across the ferry. Tl.ie burden of proof is cu the carrier to prove exemption fmin jjaliility un ler .\ri. Iii7,') C. C. (1; liohert \~. L'liirin, C. R. ls-<2, .-. L. X. .■!i;2 Reversing S. C. .-. L.N. 1711. 2. Telegraph and Messenger Service. — The Canadian District Tidi L'raph Company is a coiiMnon earritr. Xrl.'ioii vs. Caimdiiui Dislrlrl Tclfi/rap/i Co., C. Cl. 188:!, G ij. X. 184. 3. Tug-Boats.— When a tow-boat takes the place of an ordinary passenger boat, the owner assumes the liability of n common carrier w^illi respect to the luggage of the passengers, (2) Bankier v.s. KVi.soii, C Ct. 18.")j, ."> 1-. C. R. 2U;{, 4 R. ,T. R. Q. I?,)',). CARTERS' LICENSES. See MoNTiii-;.vi.. CATERPILLARS. There is no obligation on the pii't of pro- prietors of land to destroy the caterpillars thereon. Ferguson vs. Joseph, Q. B. 186S, 12 h. C. J. 72'. (1| See Ar' dc in 4 Tljeinis, p. 173. ou tliis que.stion by K. i.afiintaine. (2) See Artiole on this question iu 3 Kev. Crit. L'34, by I). Oirouard. cemp:teuies. L".t9 CATPLB. Horcc:^ ilo not come iiiidcr tlic ilefinimtioii '■ Ciililf." (1) Champhiin vh. .S7. Lau-renvf li>i. O'., Q. B. 1H(;4, It L.C.U. 4(Mi. CAUSES CELEBRES. S,r 14 h. N. '2,-.:!, 2M, 2H,J,-J!i|, :!1(), ,ill, :-ii>i;. CEMETERIES. (.') I. I'AndciitAi,. 1-2. II. iilllMT OK KaIIHIoIK OVKH. ill. KliaiT TO i)A.MA(;i-:S l'..l! I'lioIANATlONOr. i\'. ItllMIT lO IVSTAIII.ISM. \ . \Viii:\ rN>Ai KAiii.i:. Ski: IU'uiai.. I. I'AIIOCIIIAI,. 1. Tlic curutc mill cliiirclnviirilciis iiii' pro- pi'ii Icrs ol llie pamc.liiiil ceiM.'Ici'v. fiiljecl lo llic liL'lils 111' liie ) iirirJJiidru'r.t lo lip liiiricil llicrcin. ]li()\rn vs. Tlir ('i(ri' of Xnlrc Dniiii ,h .)foi,lrc,il, I'.C. ISTl.O ii..L. ;)T'J,20 L.C. .1. 22S. 2. liiiriiil ill I lie reserved pari of a piirouliiiil (.'(•iiicli'ry iiiiplics (letrraijiitioii, no! to say in- fumy. (11,.) JI. KKiHTS OF FAHKIQUK OVER. The jjluiiitills complaineil that tlio (k-fcii- iliuit iiad (Icposiipil In a vaii'f lielon;;iii.i: to one ]'.. ill tlic parisli (.'ciiictery i.f St. Hyi'uiiiihc, till' lioily of a child, uitlioiit the permission of ilie Fahninie or nf its ollicers, ainl without notice to the proper authorities. I'laintili al- leged, further, that hy a Uy-law of the parish pa-sed in 1.S74 it was ordered Ihiit no stranger slioiild he interred in the vault in ciiiesiion un- til the Slim of ten dollars had been paid to the Faliric]ne, and for this sum they prayed judg- inent. Defendant pleaded that the vault in which he had deuosited the h idy of his child belonj,'ed of full right to another, who could authorize hiiii to place any liodies there with- out the permission of the Fabri(|iio or any of its oiricer.s, and that the by-law imposing a payment of $10 for every body deposited there was illegal, inasmuch as it had hoeii pas.sed long after the grant to P. of the light to the vault — Held, that it win a question of public order, and that all ceii.eteries in Catholic par- (1) .See Agricultural A.'tC.)nsol. Stat*. L. C, cb. 2fi, Sfcs. .-), 8. ' (■-') Seeguc.,39 Vie ,cli. ID, inid.soe (^ue.,ij4 Vic, oil. 31, Kxproiiriatioii for Cemeteries. i.'^iiOH we.e under the control ot the Fnbriquei*, and no bodies could be de|KiHited iliere without their perininHion ; that it was necessary that thiH shoiilil be ho in oriler that the causes an i circunisliineex of the death t-hoiild be known, which was ti matter (if iinpoi iiuue to pnlplic order and the public iiealth ; that for llii,s rea- son all clan lestiiie interment-, even in privite vaults, were prohibited bylaw; lliiil in the •use in iit whicli, ax well 11 till- pliiiiuiir", IpiuI winne lieeti repliiced. The proof dii! not hIiow iiiiilii'i' on the jpiirt uf llie ilcfen.liini— /M/, tlmt wliiil was done in good faiili and for llic ini|irovc- Micnt of tl.e cPineteiy, even to introdiicini? hori^cH and iilniij^liin^ ucro.-H graven, did not constitiitc profanation, a" it wiiH in tlic inlcn- tioii only tliat such profiinalion existod, and tlmt, therefore, the action ot plaintill' iiiUBt he ilisiniHHed. Dc Lamartellier vh, Sftr.i, C Ct. I87H, 8 II. L. uOI. Coiiimiisioncix for f/ic IhtililiiKj und Kcpairinii of t'hiircliex. 15, Court Mm-tial. Iti-IT. General I'rinciples. 1S-M((. Quebcr Lif.enac Act — I'cdldr ('buiy'.i — District .Miii/i.itriite.1. ;!I. lleconhr'H Court. XIWA. Rij/ht liihfiii iimii/ III/ Statute— Fii iirli Version ,'U. (See ti\^o Non. 1< to 2.'t nujira.) See nl-'o IxToxicATixii LiquoR.s. •' .li'iusiinrriox. " Indian Ait. IV. RICIIT TO liSTABLLSH. A parochial ccnietiry cannot lie f.-ftahlinhi'd hy the civil authorities alone ; the decree of the hinhop oideriiij; its etiahli.«linient inufi also be obtained. Moiier vs. Loitprel, S. C. 1885, 8 K.N. 411. I. APPLICATION rou. (See "Delays in. •> The application fur rertinrnri may be ma ie after one clear day's notice. Ej'ji. Gati.^, S. C. 1878, 'Jii L. C.'j. ('.2, 1) It. L. (528. \. \V^E^^ UNSAI.liABLK. Where a certiiin piece of land Ims been ' chosen for the purpo.^e (jf a cemetery, but ; ha.-< never been l(';.'ally established or conse- ' crated as such, it does not case to be saleable. Webster vs. Taijlor, Q.H. lHi»0, X\ I.. C.J. ;i;i:!. CERTIORARI. 1. Ai'i'i.icATioN Fou. (Scealso " Dklays IN.") II. CoNviniox. Ml). HI. Co.sTs. 11. (See also under title "Costs.") IV. Dki.ays IN. 10. y Dki'osit in. VI. KitiCT oi'. VII. Foll.M OF WuiT. 1-2. VIII. Ql-kstionsof Fact in. 1-2. IX. l'iioci:i:iiiN(;s TO (icAsii. 1-5. -X. i'uoi'KDLTU; IN. MiitiiiH Id I'rocred. 1. InsriijitiliH, 2. XI. IIktl'un in M!. XII. Skuvick. l-l. XIII. WiiKN it I,ii;=. (Jaiionical Decree far •llie Erection of Parishes, 1. Commissioners for tlie Erection oj Ciril FarisL.'s. 2-(i. Commissioner s Court. 7-13. Court of Queen's Bench— Rirjht to Order. 14. II. CONVICTION. (1) 1. Contempt of Court.— In the Conn i tjuarler Sot^sions a defendant niakos alliduMi of his intention to remove the indiclmint into the Kind's Bench becan.se it involved iu,- |)orlaiil (luestions of law, and because certain of the judgeH wvvk'. persoimlly interested in ib,' proseculioii. Thereupon be is* (u-dered to show cause why an atlachinent for contempt n<.'aiii-i him should not issue. This he deelines, and rcsis his case upon ihi- prudence and diseie- tion of the court. He is then ilcclared ,L'uill\ of two contempts, apprcliended and impi'i soiled — //c/'/, that a ccrliorari will not lie lo remove his I'onvictioii. Valliers de .^7. I!i':il e.i-p., K. I!, is;! I, Siuari's ll-p. 5'.):i, 1 II.. I. i;. Q. 125. 2. Uncertainty. Aut. 5551 H. s. i^t, — .V conviction ill u bicli it is stated tiiut llie oil'encc complained of was com.iiitted wilbiii bad I'or unccrtaiiiiy. I It. J. II. Q.d.'i, :: L. c. about eii'lil days, Iloiik e.ip.. S. C. 1- H. \%. 3. Magistrate — By-law — Summons — Conviction for two Offences, one Penalty. — On a rule to (|nasb a coinielion by a inaL'istrate on the complaint cjf the Ilarbni' Commissioners of Montreal for the infraction of a by law of the city against allowiiii; lire- wool to remain on the wharves — llelil, that the service of a copy uf the summons, certilied by the clerk of the place and followed by the appearance of the defeinbint, was sulliciciil. Carif/nan vs. The Ilnrbor Commissioners, (1) See now Ciim. I 'oilc ts'.i.;. (.KIITIOKAKI. 301 ISJJ, 3 L. C. 11. 4T'.», 4 It, J. Mnitfial, 8. K. Q. «««. 4. Ami held, iiImo, tliitl coinplniiil c.iijil 111' iiiinit' mill NimiiiiHin i^-^iu'il fur two nilcncc-', iirovitlt'il llie oliji'cl \viin not lo iirrewt till' lirrcii'litnt c)ii the llr|i('ai' on llif I'aci* of till' cniivictioii. fjiiiiKirit i: , S. (". l-.Vi, )i L. C. H. -HO, 5 K. J. U. Q. 117. 8. Against Bailiff — Information— Amendment — Date of Offencs.— //cW, I. II cerliiii'dri, thai a c.'iiv ii'i'.oii a>;iiiii.^l a Imililf for C'xac^tiii^' iiioi'i' I linn his lt'i.'iil ti'cH H'>iilil he (|iia>lii"l on the iirniiinl thiil llip iiia- ji-lialc iirl'initli'il the iiifni'iiialiuii lo lu' ttiiicnil- (il, aini I'i'ciiii-c no iiii'ciM' ilatc of tlii' ulii'iice \vaH;.'ivoii. Niitt eiji., S. C. IH.'JI!. li L. ('. I{. \«,)>\l. .1, K. Q. I.'.l. 9. Recorder's Court — Notes of Pro- ceedings. — On an a])|ilicatioii fni' cirtlorari ij.im a roiiviciioii hy ilif reconlcr of the City oi .Munircul for ('rt'ctin<» a womlen huililiii;; within llie city limits, I'milrary lo a hy-law of ilii'oity — llihl, that as no nntcs hail lieeii liikt'ii or trar.siiiiltc'il to the court to slinw wliethi'i' the a|i|iliuiint foil within the jirovi- simis of the liy-law as beiiii; a proprictoi', or wlufher, as .iworn lo in the alliilavil, he was iin'iely a workman cmployeil hy the proprie- tor, that the Court wouhl he jiis-iified in (iniish- \\\g llie Conviction. Lcduux exp., .'^. C. 185S, .^L. C. K. 25.-), Gil. J. H. Q. 230. 10. Municipal Road Act — Justice of the Peace — Jurisdiction — Er"or. On appeal from a conviction hy a justice of the peace nmler the Lower Canada Municipal lioaiJ Act of 1855 — Held, that .such conviction must sliow the jurisdiction of the justice of the jitace, whether the road in que.stion was a front road or by-road, and whether there was or wna not a procitierhal. Mafle vh. Brown, C. Ct, 1861, 11 L. C.R. JW. 11. And h'ld, also, that the convic- tion must he i|na«lieil if the di fendaiil wai* coinpliiined of in relation to n road, and con- victt'il hy reason of a liridj»e. (/'/.) 12. Under Municipal By Law.— Where a conviction was .md bef ire the recorder of the City ol Montreal fm seliins; fresh pork in a shop then occu]iii'il hy the defendant, without the luhlic iiinrkets, notwilhsiainlin^' ihe pro. vision- of the hy law settinj; forth llmt no person should sell or expose for nale in any street, square, lane iir any other public place in the city, other tjian in oin' of the public markets, any kind of fresh provisions or Imtcher'.s meat, or fresh |iork or salt meat or fiiwl, or other animal produce or ell'ects ;;eiier- ally sold in public markets, etc. — Ildd, on II rtioniri, that the ciiiivietiun beiii;; had for selling "at the domicile of the defendant," that it did not come within the provisions of the by law, which menlioned only streets, squares, lanci or other public places, and the conviction was (|un>lieii. Diiii/le exji., S. ('. ISIil, .') \j. C. .1. 221, and 11 L.'c. K. 2S!). 13. For disturbing the Peace.— A con- viction for disturhiiij; the public peace ''in premises oil McGill streel'" does not c .me un- der the stiitiite. (liiieau exp., .S. (', iSG.'i, 1 L. C. L. J. i;:i. 14. Costs. —The coinicliiii; magistrate has the right to grant costs eitber upon cnnviction iir dismissal of the pru-ei'iition and even to attorneys. Jfo/c// vs. IkUeman',':^. C. 18G2, 7 L. C..1. 1. 15. Sessions of the Peace— Appeal to Quarter Sessions.— An appeal lies to the general quarler sc.-sions of the jicace from 11 conviclinn rendered by the jndze of the sessions of the peace in and fir the city of Montreal, under section .'lO of ch. G of the Cons. Stat, of L. C. Expiirti: Thompson. S. C. IHG."), 7 L. C. .J. 10. 16 . Judgment for one Month instead of two— Order— Amendment— A convic- tion for one month instoal of two months' iiniirisonnient is bad. inasmuch as a jiulg- meiit for too little is as faulty as a judgment for too much, and will be quashed for want of jurisdiction. Exparte Slack, S. C. 18G2, 7 L. C. J. G. 17. Xn order instead of a conviction, in a case like the above, could have been amended by the Superior Conrt. {Ih.) I !'. \m ■■i?i ; i*.* H^ m H " ' '\ ^ii 1 i 'k \ ' H .-■ ( 1 i h- *•■' 302 CERTIORARI. 18. — In 11 case like llie abovi', no cost^< will lie givcti a.'iiinst a ci '.lector of iiiliuic) revenue proseciitin;; in the c.vecu'.ioii of iiul)lic duty, {lb.) 19. Judge of Sessions of tho Peace. — The judge nf the Sessions of I he I'eacc, being vested with all the powers of two jus- tices (jf tiie peac? I'', section HI, ch. 102, and section 82. ch. lU3of the Con.a. Slut, of Ciui- iida, and liv sec'.i n '.\, cl . 102, ol the Con- Still, of L. C, no ajjpeal lies from a conviction rendered liv him under ch. (> of the Cons. Slal.of L. C. Expxile Slaclc, S. C. l.S(i2, 7 L. C. .). i;. 20. Keeping a house of pa'olic enter- tainmect. — A conviclion tor '• keejiiiij; a liouseof piihlic enlcrliiin'neni ''will hequa-^hed on the <:roiiiid that a „nar;;e so wi)rdod consti- tutes no i.jtence known 10 tlie law. Ki'P'iiie Moge, S C. 1S(;2, 7 L. C. .1. 107. 21. Justice of the Peace — License Act — .Averments — Imprisontnent. — Where the petilionera-n the ground that the revenue inspector prose- cuting had not allege 1 that he, the petitioner, was not a distiller or wine merchant ; and hecausi; there were no other negative averinent.s than that ihe ilefen lants were no! licensed as rc'iuired hy law ; and lu'cause ihe convic- tion did not me'ilion thi' jirecise day on which the alleged oll'ence was committed ; and he- cause the jiiilgm-.Mit ordered that the det'endani be imprisoned in default of sulli.'ient move- ables to meet tlie line and costs; and because the judgment had ordered an imprisonment of two month-', counting from the day of incar- ceration. — //e/'/, that the judgment of the cotirt below, rejecting the petition, would be confirmed with costs. Expartii Beaupurlant, C. R. 1><(1.J, I U. L. Ui7. 22. Conviction of another OGfence thanthat cbai'god.— Con\iction muste.\act- \\ conl'orm lo the charge in the inlorinalion, and where the Statute creates several olience-i, one of which is charged in an iuformaticjn, a conviction of anoilier ollence, though sulijert to the same penalty, will be held bad and be (piasiiel. Thompson vs. DurnJ'uid, C. C. bSiW, 12 L. C. !. 2<,. 23. Magistrate'^ Return.— Full faith and credit will be given to a ma.'islrate or ollicer's return to a writ of cerfinriiri, [lU'l, if tlie return shows that the conviction wa-- ha, 1 L. C. .J. 47. 28. By Justice of the Peaoe— Disturb- ing the Peace, etc. — A conviction before a .Justice of the Peace for having disturbed the pi'I'lic peace by gravely insulting a pi.rly, and by comiiiittieig an a-isault on him, anii bv crying out and threatening to beat him, i- bad and will he ciuas'ieii. Erptirle h'oulriiii, S. r. 1872, 17 L. CI. 172. 27. By-law— Si itute— Where a convic- tion was had for repairing a roof with shin gle--, and it was shown that the Statute om which tlic by-law was based only mentionel coverinij a roof with shingles. — Held, that the by-law could not go beyond the Statute and that the conviction was bud. Exparte L'trhi 2"Jle,!A. C. 1^72, .", R. C. S7. 28. — — — — A conviction based on a by- law making a penalty for every day that a thing is done, while the Statutes upon which the byli'.w is frame I do not clearly give au- tiioriiy to impose more than one penally will Le(|na8lied. Erpurle llnnon, S. C. IS71, 1-^ jj. C. .1. l',(l, and on ILibens Corpus, s"e '< \l L. lii:'., Q. li. 1S7:;. 29. Mayor of Municipality.— Convlc tio'i ipia-^hi-d, the miyor of the municipality having prosecuted in the name of such muni- cipality, and the ollence, as sta. d in the infjrmation and coiiviclieM, being different. E-i-parlti litmdin, S. C. Is7l, 1 It, (;.2H;. 30. What it should specify.— Where a conviction i-< for two olfences, incurring two penaltie-, the conviction siiould specify for each ollence the time, place uod penalty in- CERTIORARI. :]03 cuiTed. Paige vs. Gr{lfHh, S. C. Ikt?., 18 I.. C. J. 119. 31. Quebec License Act.— T!ie tviljunal 1 on^titiiR'd to adjudicate upon compliiiiiis iiiiJer llie Quebec License Act consists of " two Justices of the Peace for the district," an'l a ;^onvictioii i)y three justices is iliegiil. (.'/-.) 32. A conviction for selling li(inor in the house of anoihfr is null. (lb.) 33. Tlie conviction sluuliiho .separate from tlii'coniplaint. {lb.) 34 Sta*^ute— New Punishment. — The jiiipo-itinn of ii new ])unishnient ■ ir iin ollence abnigiites the former punishnient for tlie same ollence, and iherclbre, where a statute imposed a piinishmeMt of two nK)nth>' imprisonment, willi or w'thonl hard laliur, for vajiriincy, and hy a sulise(pient statute, it was enacted that ihe imprisonment mij;ht he extended to six niontiis (without mentioning hard labor) this , \\:\< an alteration erpiivaleiu to a new puni-li- iiKiit; ami a conviction imder tlie later .Vet adjudging six Uionths' imprisonnu'iit with lutrd hilior was liad. F. 'piirle W'lliitms, S. C i>:.-., i:iL. c. j.rio. 35. Facts constituting the Offence.— IMition lor f((7/(//v(/'/. One ground was that ihelact upon which the conviction was based was not slateil ; it slate 1 that an assault wa.s committed, without slating how it had been committed, Convictinn ()uaslied. E.rparie lM(]e, and leaving tiie family resiiiing therein liable to injury from exposure, and condemned to ;^2.") and costs, with imprisomiieut in the alternative, and afterwards a similar conviclion in the same words, the same day, with Ihe addition that the imprisonment was to count ■' from the expiration of another term of imprison- ment which the said, e;c., was condemned to undergo for another olfence of whicli he ba ! ibis day been found guilty," etc. — //(/'/, not to be two convictions for -^ame ollence. and ctrtinrari '^nasiied. Expnric Di(hiir, ^. C. |s7li,2 L. N. -X.W. 40. Question not raised before Magis- trate. AltT. im C. C. p.— The atlidavil fur a ccrlinravl complained that the magistrate issued bis warrant lor the arret of pttilionci' under 'M and .'i.') Vic, cap. .'il, sec. (5, wiliiout causing a cup\' of tl'.e warrant to 1 e servcil at tlie time of the arrest— /A'/'/, that a^ the question was not raise. i before the magi-traie, it could not be raised by ccrtinrari. M'fiiii ■\' Marion, a. C. Is7'.t. 2 L. X. ls(). 41. Magistrate— Erroneous designa- tion. — The petitioner was imprisonel under a conviction for assaulting a constable in the performance of his duty. He was brought before Thoma.s S. .Judah, Esquire, described in tlie complaint an I conviction as Magistrate of Police for the Di>trict of Montreal, which was error, as he was nierely a Justice uf the Peace, acting under il.'^ Vic, cap. 12 (t^ie.) — Held, that there was no jurisdiction on the face uf the proceeling-, an i the prisoner wa.s discharged. Exparie Sciii'cal, S. C. l^sQ, 3 L. N. ■liu. 42. Costs. — Where the conviction is for a penalty, the complainant cannot free himself from his liability to costs on (■i'rtior:\. 46a. Guilty and acquitted at same time. — A conviction by the Recorder's Court wliich declares that the accused had been I'ound guilty, and at the ^aiiie time aciiuits him, isi contiadictory and illegal, and will be annulled on writ of certiorari. Canlinal vs. Viljj of M'ailreal, S. C. 1890, M. L. 1!., G S. C. 210. 47. Summary Convictions Act — Vagrancy — Costs — Amended Convic- tion. K. .^. C.,Cii. l.'iT, Skc 8.— //rW, the ]irovision3 of the Summary Convictions Act apply to section 8 of chajiter 1,")" of the Revised Statutes of Canada, respecting xagrants. Rc;/ vs. Dmls, S. 'J. l^'Xl, 2 (^^e. 48. A mere informality in the drawing up ol a conviction is not a sullicieiit cause for quashing it, nor (there being no substantial defect in the justice and legality of the ]jro- ceedings before the convicting justice) any reason for the removal of such ccnviction into the Superior Court liy cerliorari. (1) (lb.) 49. Any such inl'ormality may be amended and a substituted conviction relumed by the convicting justice, (lb.) merely in the execution of hifl duty. Exparte DeJieatijeu, S. C. 1851), 1 L. C. J. 15. 2. A motion for a writ of certiorari against a conviciioti of a justice of the peace would be rejected with costs, notwithstanding that the magistrates alone appeared by an advo- ' cate. Jieatiparlani vs. Gerrais, C. R. ISO,'), 1 R. L. 407. 3. On a mot if to compel a magistrate to ' reltirn the origi..al papers in a case under , eerliiiriiri, the motion will be granted, but ' without costs against the magistrate. Dcmcrs cvp., S. C. 1857, 7 L. C. R. 428, 5 R. J. R. Q. : ;i35. 4. Contra a.s to costs. Terriin Exp., S. C. lsi57, 7 L. C. R. 420, ') R. J. 1!. Q. :!:!.">. III. COSTS. (2) (See also un ler title " Costs.") 1. Costs on ce)'//or<(rj will nut be allowed against the Justice who has manifestly acted (I) See now Crim. Co(fr 13!12. IJ) Art. l'.!33 C. C. 1*. "Tlio Court in rendiTing juilptmeiit upon tlie writ may award costs in its ilis- i;retloii," and E.cp. Licnanl, 1 L. t'. .1. 2.35. IV. DELAYS IN. 1. A certiorari allowed before the e.xpira- fion of six months from the liate of the con- viction to be removed, but not sued out until the six months had exj)ired, was quashed. Allurd vs. C/iilla.'<, K. B. 1811), 2 Rev. de Leg. .'52. 2. Contra. Exp. Fise/,S. C. 1877, ;i (}. L. R. 102. 3. Where the pctitioiu'r for certiorari allows more than six months to elapse with- out taking any proceedii>gs to have the Conviction in the court below (|iiashed, he will be declared to have forfeited all rights under the certiorari granted him, on motion to that edect by the comi)lainant in the court below. E.rp. Jioi/cr, 8. C. ISi'x;, 2 L. C. J. 18.'s, also Exji. Prcfiintaine, S. C. Montreal, 27 March, IS'jS, N^^251. 4. Upon motion by the cotiii lissioners for the trial of small causes, the writ of certio- rari should be (piasher,c/c/ie«(?, Q. B. 18GG, IG L. C. R. :i08, 10 L. C. J. 18;}. IX. PROCEEDINGS TO Ql'ASH. 1. The merits of a C(7'//'(rar/ may be heanl on a rule to quash without inscription for hearing. Exp. Marnj, S. C. HG'.t, 14 E. C. J. 101. 2. I'lion the inscription for hearing on the merits of a rirtlorari a motion toqua-h the conviction is necessary. Exparte Wititeliead, S. C. 1870, 14 L. C. J. 2G7 ; Lanier vs. Loufret, S. C. 1874, R. L. .".50. 3. No motion to iiuash is necessary in cases ol' certiorari. Exparte TItompson, 'A. C. 187G, 5 Q. L. R. 200. 4. When necessary the motion to (piash need not contain any reasons, and the motion itself is not even necessary — the inscv'ption on the merits being sufficient. Exparte Gates, S. C. 1878,23 I>. C. J. G2. 6. A conviction may be quashed upon an inscription on the merits of the certiorari, without motion to quash, if the quashing hi'.s been prayed for in the petition i'or certiorari. Hebert vs. Vaqnet, •&.(:. 1885,11 Q. L. R. X. PROCEDURE IN. 1. Motion to proceed.— .\ defendant under a writ of certiorari cannot compel the plaintill' or petitioner to proceed under his writ by a mere motion to that etiect, the pro- per course being by means of a procedendo. Begina vs. Carrier, H. C. 1852, 2 L. C. R. 302, 3 R. J. R. Q. 107, 2. Inscription. Art. 1231 C. C. P.— The parties cannot be heard on .i writ ot certio- rari luM the ca.se has been inscribed on the role in conformity to Art. 1231 C. C. P. Bom- bardier vs. Jt-?y,'s. C. 188.3, 12 R. L. :>7. 20 i; f iM'l::':' -' .?!v: il 30G CERTIORARI. h i i X[. RETURN IN. (See also "Convic- tion.) 1. Akt. 1229 C. C.P.— On a certiorari n re- turn of ulJiiiavil and warrant only, is inciiili- cient. Rtx vs. Demjngnt, K. B. 1811), 2 Rev. lie Lc'j.'. 82. 2. A niagif'trate has no right to refuse to make a return to a writ of i-.ertiorari because the fees due in such c&-'e have not been paid to tlie clerk of the peace, but a rule ni.ii (or altachnieiit will not issue dr piano without notice to the inagisiratc. buries exp. C. 18:;i, 3 L. C. K. CO, ;i K. J . R. Q. 12:.. 3. The coniniissioners to whom a writ of certiorari \.:.z been addresscii, and who have tailed to make a jirojier reiurn, will be mulct- ed in costs. Exparte Lcrou.i-, 8. ('. 18GG, 10 L. C. J, 19.'!. XII. SERVICE. 1. AiiT. 1228 C. C. P.— Upcin a cer/iorari from a conviction of Iwo justices of the peace— Held, that the original writ of cirtio- rari, and not a copy, must be served upon the convicting justice, and it is not necessary to serve a copy of such writ upoii comiilainant, Filion exparle, S. C. KA, i L. C. R. 12'.), 4 R. J. R. Q. 107. 2. Jleld, on motion, that a w rit of certio- rari would be quashed, a copy of the writ having been served on the mairistrate and his return made thereon. Lahoije e.rp.. S. C. I85ti. i>. r. B..186. 3. Notice Of Motion. Art. 1223— The certilicate of service by a bailillof tiie notice , of motion for a writ of ccrtioruri must be [ sworic to. K.rparte Adams, S. C. 18(13, 10 I L.C.J. 170. i 4. Contra.— /;.'7m/7r Rui/. S. C. 180.'!, 7 I I.. C. J. 109. ; . ^! XIII. WHEN IT LIKS. 1. Canonical Decree for the Erection of Parishes.- Tiie Ecclesiastical decree of Ui.s Grace the Archbishop of Ciuebec for the erection of u parish is not a civil pri^ceeding subject to the revision of the Superior Court by means of a writ of cfr/Zorar/. .'^uch pro- ceeding is purely ecclesiastical, without the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, so long as no proceedings are had for the purpo.se of attaining a ratification of such decree by the civil authorities. Kxpartc (,'uay. S. C. 18.V2, 2L. C. R. 292, ,3 R. J. R. Q. 191. I 2. Commissioners for the Erection of Civil Parishes. — A petition in certiorari win ; not lie from a decision of a commissioner ii|.- pdinted for the erection cif parishes, the powei- ■ granted to and e.xercised by them not beingofu ' judicial character. Leconrs exp., S. C. i8J.l. '.■i L. C. R. 123, 3 R. J.R. Q.'l(;2. 3. The court expressed the opiiii.i that the majority of the interested parties men tioned in the said ordinance should come to an amicable understanding with the inhabitant- of the new parish or divisit>n. (II).) 4. The fact that there are irregulari ties and illegalities in the proirf and in tiie piu- ceeilings in a cause before the cominissioiicr- for the civil erection of parishes, etc., etc., ami the I'uct that the commissioners refuseil toad mil ])roof oHered by ihe opposants, and thiii they admitiel illegal proof on the part of the Si/ndics, does not constitute an excess of jmi-. diction, and a writ o( certiorari based on ihe-f reasons ought to be dismissel. Erpartr nouclier,'A. C. 1802, •! i..C. .1. 3:!3, I,") it. L. :it,-. note. 5. Ihe powers de* Iving upon and be- longing to the commissioners for the civl erection of parish"s, by virtue of the provi sionsof sec.4 of ihe Ordinance, 2 V'icch. '1\\ reproduced in sec. II of ch. 18 of R.S- tj.,anl by virtue of the cjmuiission under which they act, are not ofajudicial charact'-r, and a certiorari will not lie from tlieir decision. Faliriipte de Moiilrral \a. lfadon,S. C, 18T'.'. , U. I.. 271. 6. The ciunmissioiKM's for the ereclion of civil parishes do not constitute an inft-rinr court in the sense of .Vrt. 1220 C. C. P., and nc^''tiorari will not lie tO(|uasli their decision. Samoisetle vs. Lcs Commisstdres, S. C. Is'.il, 20 P. L. 031. 7. Commissioners' Court. Art. 1221 and 1188 C.C. P.— Wh.Mi a judgment of tin Commissioner^' Court is bail in form, the Superior Court will not grant a writ of cer'io rari unless it appear that there has been ex cess of jurisdiction. Iwp, GilieauU, S. •'. 18.J2, 3L. C. R.111,3R.,I. It. Q. 151; AV/.. Gaul/iier, S. C. ls,53, 3 L. C. R. 418, 4 R. .1, R.Q. 41. 8. ffrld, that a certiorari would lu- from a judgment of the Commissioners' Coiiri on the ground that the action was at the suit of a parly styling himself president of a coin niittee to collect the salary of the " Rev, T.D ," or to recover a tax for the siipportof a mission ary. Saltrr exp., S. C. 1855, L. C. R. 170. vi-n jf tilt llic 1 ex- . C. /•;..■/. U. .1. CKRTIOPwUtl. 307 9. An ap])lii.'iitioii for a writ of rer- ' linfuri on the part of tlie ikfeiidaiit, residing | ill a nei;;liborin;» looality to tliat where tlie jii(lj,'men( was remlered, will he refused if it is . In the personal knowledge of the judj;e that there is no Conmiissioners' Court in t!ie h)cal- ; iiv in wliieh the defendant resideH, a'ld the di-tance hetweeii tlie two localities is also linowr. to him, although it does not appear hy I llie copy ot'judgineiil produceil with the iippli- ration ihiit tiie del it was contracted in the lieaiily wiiere the action was l)ron;.'ht, nor thill the defendant re-ided in tiiat locality, nor that any of the provisions of Art. 1 18S C. C. P. ■ j-'ivin^rjuri-idiclioii to this court have heen oh- ' served. Krjiiirle Dubois, S. C. ISTj, 7 11. L, VM. 10. lint ill another case, lid:\. 22. Proceedings liu'l iiinlcr section IS .■f Act .Tlst Vic, cli. 42, are of such a cliiir- iicler as to be susce|itible of lieinj; removed Uy ^crlidiari ; and a \'ril of rei'liorari will be irrantecl, iiiitwithstandini; the same isexpre- -ly '.iikcn away by the Staliite (sei' 'Jl;, iimviileil ibere be grouiul liir the iielief that the con- viction was bad without jiroof, where the Act provides that it shall In- cin proof to the salis- I'iiclion of ilie inagisiraie. K.epark Morrison, S. C. 18(19, IS L. C. J. 2!*5, 1 U. L. 41)7. 23 Where recour.-e tn a writ oi' crrlio- ran' is e,\]iressly taken away by statute, yet it ' -lioiilil be allowed in cases of usurpation of jiirisdictitin by inferior cour'-. yitde.dit vs. Corpornfion oj Levis, S. ('. iSiMl, U) Q. L. \{. ■1\0. 2i. Orders, judgiiients and ordinances which are not of a tinal character ar' not ^ltsoop^ible of review by certiorari. Ej parte Fahriipie de Montreal, S. C. l>iT2, 4 U. L. 271. 25. Papers material to the Case.— Where aflidavits are produced toesiablisli that a material paper has not been sent up witli the record in aj)peal, a eertiorari will be granted. De Ga-ipe vs. A^seHn, Q. I?., Mon- real, ."^('iiteniber, 1S75. 26. But where the materiality uf papers not produced is denied, and it dues not appear by the alHdavits that they are mate- rial, the writ will be refused. Qucsncl vs. ('iirpnralion of Prinrerilh, Q. B., Quebec, March, 1875. 27. — — Motion for certiorari to bring up pa]icrs not returned with the record. Con- sent was otl'ercd for the production i>\' the p'.pcrs, but the court refused to allow tlieni to be filed without a regular return. Uon/f'ard vs. Nadeau, Q. B., Quebec, December 4, 1875. 28. Papers wanting in the record were allowed to be lile.l with a certificate without ibe issue of a t'cc/iocar/. Dunninij vs. War- tele, Q- B., Quebec, December 1, Is77. 29. Where the petitioner merely com- jilains that the judge of the inferior court decided wrongly, there is no ground for certio- rari . The writ of certiorari issues only where there is excess or absence of jii.-isdiction, or where the proceedings contain grave informal- ities, and tliere is reason to believe that justice has not been done. Valois vs. Mair, S. C. 1«-J9, M. L. U , G S. C. 212. 30. Judgment of inferior Jurisdic- tion. AuT.s. 1220, I22I C. C. P. Mkns KKA. — Where a magistrate dismissed a charge of selling intoxiu...'ng liquors to minors, on the ground that the complainant had not pioxid that the defendant knew the (lersons to be minors, tliis was not a case for the issue of a writ of certiorari under § 1 or .'!of .\rt. 1221 C. C. P,, there being neither want nor excess c*'jurisiliction, nor any gro.ss irregular- ity in the proceedings. K.iparic Ilamillnn, l.SsO, M. L. U., 5 S. U. .'iliO. 31. Quebec License Act — Pedlar Clauses— District Magistrate.— A writ of certiorari does not lie from a conviction of the District Magistrati', under the pedlar clauses of the Quebec License Act. Kxparte Dun- can,^. C. 1S72, Hi L. CI. KSS. 32. Recorder's Court — Demurrer. — A judgment of the Recorder's Court dismissimr a demurrer is not susceptible of appeal by certiorari- Ikaudry vs. ('itij of Montreal, 1884, M. L. H., 1 ,S. C. 2;!7. 33. \ writ of certiorari will not lie t" review a decision of the Becorder's, when the lalti'r has jurisdiction, and the Superior Court cannot \ii)3n a certiorari inquire into the fact- of a case. Grarel \s. Citi) of Montreal, S. ('. 1S87, 15 K. 1.. :u;7. 34. Bight taken away by Statute il) —French Version —Where a statute ta' ll.'i L. <-'. J. at p. 7. 3. Wliei'e 11 minor child is hroii;;hl bel'ore the juil^-e, under Imlu.is cor/iiia, her own staleiiient, if of sutlicient age to jiideo tor hei- >elf, will he taken as to uhetiier she is under lestiaiut or not. {lli.) 4. When legitimate. — 'I ho mother has an ahsoliito right to the charge of a cliild aged 12 (the father being dead), unless it be e.siablished that she i.s dis(|iialiticd by riiiscoii- (hict, or is unable to provide for the child. Exparic Hum, Q. B. IS-^.!, 27 L. C. J. 127, f.L. N. 115. 5. But wiiere it ajipeared that the iiiotlier was a domestic servant and liie chiM was wellcared for by another, tlie court, before granting lo the mother the custody of the cliild, iei,uired the production of allidavits showing that the mother was in a position to proviile for the child's wants. (//).) 8. Where children who are, in the opinion of the .judge, of .siilHcient intelligence and mental capacity to he able to determine their choice of ilomicile with relatives who brought them up, and they are not under restraint, Iniln-iis fiir/iiiM will not lie on the part of the fathei' to obtain their cu-todv, liilr;- V-. Grnih'i; S. C. \' Martin vs. Li.r, Privy Council 18G1, 11 I.. C. R. 8 1. 4. The word " enfant " employed in matters of testamciilarv succession, and sub.stitution in (1) See now Art. IWO C, C. ami Afarcolle vs. iVw/, 1,1. I.. K. at i>. 1.'1H luiil iiitm No. ,-,. { ! J 310 CHUliCHES, i I tlic direct line ileHcenditig, comprises nut (inly ilie cliililreii of ilie trslatur or of ilie inctitiitc, us till' taso niny he, Imt nlm llicir ilesci'iiiiiints in iinv (i('>»r(t', in d'fii\ilt »pf tlicdcyrfo indicaicd ill the deed, tlio^e ef the i.caiOff, however, ahviiys excluding the other". Brmulte v". i'i:i,„iiiiii, s. c. iH7n, ;;k. l. .■)2. 5. Ill uii iietion conceniinir a fiuteossioii — Ilrlil, iliut the designation of the PiilislitiUes liy the wordw '•ehildieii Imrn of my marriage " in a will ciealinj: a Milirtitnlimi, is the niaiii- leslulii'ii of the inlention of the te.siator that iviire.-enlatidn siiouM take place, and that it need" very clear and preei'^e wordi lo tak<' away frum the woid " (dii'dn ii '" the iiieniiinj: that the law (xpi'i .eiiM'. Joiibr /vs. ir,i/,s7/, C. \i. IS^t, 7 L. N. i:ii,2sL.c.,i.;;'.i.s. c. k^m, 12 k. i.. ,3:u. 7. "To his eldest Child." — Where a deed of doiiiition drawn iij) in ihe I'^iiglish language donates proji'rty to Ihe son of the donor, witli the charge ihut it shall descend " to his eldest child '" at the doiu'e's ileatli, sncii ]iroperty will revert to tlieeldest child whether a hoy i.ir girl, the word "cliil I " htihg ei|nally ap)ilicalile tu buys iir gills. Grace v-^. If/i/i/iiix, 8. C. 18'.t2, 1 Qiie. :!2. CHURCHES. (I) T. .'mtiox iiv ]]i ii.ni ii. II. AuTHoiilTV oK IJisiioi' 111' I'eicol'.M. CHIISI'II To HIM) MIS SllCbSSOl! IN Ol'l-lCi: TO I'.VV .Mo.NKV. III. .\SSKSS.MKNTS. Arlidii for I'ertiri:!'!/ nj'. Trustee-;— Costs I. I'ro if — Iv\lract from As-essmeiit IMI. 2. Circuit Court— Jiiri-die'ion over Coiiimissiorcrs. 3-1. Commissioners lor Erection of Cicil J'ari.ihcs. .'i. Extension oj' Time /or Piii/mcnt. (J. Liatiilily lor — rrolestunt or Catholic. 7 10. (I) Ijtfraturo— Cluirrli and St:itft, 1 U«v, Crit. 431 ; ■J licv. irit. l-3i-ll.l. lA'Hiil Status uf tlic Cliuroh of ICnglanil ill till! Colonies, .i I, (". .1. 1,. ;!'i. l.ibeiti' IfrliBieuse en CaimJii, bv S. I'lmiiuclo, I vol. 8vo, 1S72. Liability J'or— Effect of Ilomoloi/a- tion. 11. Liability for — Incorporated Cn. 12, Ordinance of' Commissioners — .V«/- lity. i;i. IV. CniRiii-wwuiiKX. Election ';/— 21) Vic. ch. G", see, ,'. , 1-;!. Announcement I 'f Election*. I. Curate, .5. Regi'tratiiin of Votes. (J (h(. Usage, etc. 7 12. V. CHL«(ii-\v.vitiiK\ IN Cn.xuot;. Acconntini/. 1-1!. Fnnrlions of. 4-7. VI. CoMMI.SSIOXKIlS FOR Co.SSTIilCT ION" OF, Jadijment of. ! . Judicial Qiiiliti'S iif. 2. VII, Canoxicvi. I)k( KKi: koii Coxsriti ctius (IK — UkVOI ATlOX. \'1II. CoM.MISSIOXIMiS KOP> ElllXTIOX OF CiVlI, Pauisiiks. 1 :i. IX. !'"AiiKii;rKs. Action by. Aiitliori/.ati'Hi tn sue — Appeal 1 -.'.. .Aiitliori/ation In I'lead — Coin lieii-atioii. (i. Ciirpurate Title. 7-."^. CHYote. Right of, to ]ire-ide over iiu'ct- iiigs (.f, 11-10. .\eting fur warden in charge. 11. Lialiiliry of. 12. Pn.iscssion (i/ I'rojierli/ by. 1.!. Powers of. M-ld. X. OlillKU IX. Breach (f Deciirnm. 1-5. Clioir. Il-S. XI. PAnlSlIIOXKIiS. niyhts of. 1 2. XII, I'KWS. Lease— Failure to pay Rent — ('mn- minatory ('lansc. 1-2. Destination of. '.\. Nights of Children. •!,'>. Riyh ts of Seign iors. - 7 . Rii/ht.s o/'Seiijniors—I'osscssory A' ■ tion. .'^•9. Eiyhls of Lessee — Disturbance "/ Possession. 10 13. Title to. 1 IIC). (See also Iliniirs of Lkssek.) Xlir. Reuistkrs, I-.'?. CHUKCHES. 311 -XIV .\v Thi'stees. Mandamus — New Tnislee. 1. Right of Survivorshiji. 2. Trustees koii Bni.Dixc!. Actions hi/. 1. Jicsolutions of. 2. Tenders hi/. ,'!-(!. Status of. 7. See alsu Ckiitioiiar[. " Ctratk. " Prksuvteiuan Ciiiiicii. TiTHKS, theiiioiioy iK'lons^od to the Syncxl and not to the Bishop, and all tlie ooiiti'statioiis were dis- inissi-d. Trust and Loan Coinpani/ \-. Bislii>]> oj Montreal, S. C. l.^Sl, 1 I.. N. :!:58. I. ACTION BY BUILDER. Tlic contractor wh OF EPIS- COPAL CHURCH 10 BIND HIS SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE TO PAY J..ONEY. 'I'he Trust and Loan Company, in 187'j, re- covered judgnniit nj^ainst Bi.^liop O. ii] liis eni'iKirate capacity for theanioui.t of their loan oil mortgage to Trinity Church, one of the I'lliiscopal cliurches in Montreal, tlie Bi-hup lieiiig ve.^te.l wiih the [iroperty on which tlie t'luirii was erected. An attaclunent was tiien iiik"u out by tlie iilaiiitilf in the hands of a inunher of ])ersiins to wlioni the Bishop liad from time to lime leaned money in his corpor- ate capaci'y. In these proceedings the Synod of the Diocese of Montreal intervened, and claimed tliat all these moneys thus loaned form part of the Kpisco))al endowment fund, which was vested in the Synod as their pro- ]K'rly, sniiject, etc. Bishop B., the 8uccc.'«or vf Bishop 0., also intervened and claimed that the only fund out of which liis salary as Bishoji could possibly be paid was (he revenue arising from said loans, and that the same was not liable to attachment for the debt of Trinity Ciiurch. Held, tiiat the loan as authorized by A :t of Parliament ;)8 Vic-, cap. (t3, was for the iienefit of Trinity Church and intended to bind tlie property of Trinity Church and no otlier, and therefore did not authorize the Bishop to bind his successors in office; tliat in any case III. ASSESSMENTS. 1. Action for recovery of— Trustees- Costs. — Trustees for the erection of a church, suing under the provisions of the C. 8. L. C, cli. 18, for the amount of an assessment im- posed by tljcm, may be stayed in their suit liy dilatory excejition, until they shall have rendered the account provided for by sec. .'fit of the Act. Under the circumstances disclosed by this case, the trcstees personalU/ con- demned in the costs. Truxlees .s7. David vs. Laijueiu; C- C. 1880, 12 l^ 1 . R. 102. 2. Proof.— In an action for recovery of asses.sment for the construction of a church, to wdiich the defendant pleaded a demurrer, an extract from the assessment roll duly certified is authentic proof and .snllicienl on which to base juilgnu lit. Si/ndict de la J'amis.sc de Sir. Cunrgriide vs. F„rte, C. C. lS8t;, 10 L.N. 20. 3. Circuit Court— Nullities in Deed of Repartition. — The (^ircnit Court has no right to fake cognizance of nullities in a deed of repartition for tl e construction of a church, resulting from certrin omissions therein and the fraud of the S^/ndics, and must render judgment on the deed as iiomologated. Syii- dic.f, etc., de St. Xorherl d'Art/iahaska vs. 7'(/ra«rf,C. Ct. 18(;2. t; L. C. J. 21)0. /T, Contra. — But, /leld in a later ease, tlat the Circuit Court hail jurisdiction to declare that an ordinance and the assessment roll male thereunder were insuthcienl in law to base an action upon. Fahrii/ue de la raroi.i.ie da St. Eiijaiit Jems vs. I'oincr, C. Ct. 18TII, 2:i L. C.J. If),".. 5. Commissioners for Erection of Civil Parishes. — The commissioners for the civil erection of jiarishes may order the raising of a sum oftnoney less than tiiat which is due by the Fahrit/iie. Fii!irii/ne da Saint Fnfant Jemix vs. Roij, and Fuhriqiie de Saint Paul vs. I'iyenn, C. Ct. isTO,,") Q. L. R.:i27. 6. Extension of Time for Payment.— Trustees for the erection ol churches can grant contributorics an extension of time for jiayment of the amount due by them. Allard vs. Si/ndic.% etc., Q. B. 1870, 30 L. C. J. 25. 7. Liability for— Protestant or Catho- lic — A Roman Catholic who becomes a Pro- m l^l i i=' K ■? '"^f I 'pHH . I i ip-''M gsf. .if4 ILVM^ I f ( ! : 1 i i ■ ] i ! ." * t i" ' i ^ '■ i ! 312 CHURCHES. testant cannot I)e affOBped ffirtlii> erect ion of a liuman Ciitliolic uliurcli, nltlioiigli lie inny liave done acts which onh' Koinnn CatholicH could do, and althoiifrh he may have Kij^ned a petition praying for tliecroctionofsiicli cliiirch. Syndicn ilc Luc/iiiif vh, l.aflnmmi:, C Ct. I^il'i, 6 L. C. J. 22G. 8. A person horn a ilonian Catholic cannot avoid tlie civil ohliiiationH wiiuli hi" ieli;;ion imposes on iiim, liy the fact ulnne thai he hat ceased to practice 'lis reli;.'iori iirid lias (ittcndod Protestant worsliip, mihI a rel'iisiil to answer tn\ /nils el ar/iclfs v('-'\ii'r\']n\: the nature of lii,< reliijious faiili will he interpreted as tantiimount to an avowal that he has not chani^'ed his reliijion. Si/mlifs i/r la Pii'nixsf rove a eon('e~-.ioii of luiili as ;i Roman Catholii' anteeedeni to the honiolo- Jialion of the report of the .S7/'"/''''y. Si/inlica e('il(d in l.anir<'\iu Maiinel dus /'(()'o7'.s.vs.s', 2nd edit . p. .'!:!, referrini: to report in Ld Miiierrc, 5 pic ■ l"-"". Sie Mij^iiault, Droit I'aroissnil. p. 'j:'.7, and see remarks of I'rivy Couiu'il appro\ ini; of /■.>/(. limoiij, r.) 1.. C. ,1. U<.) 2. And /(';^^ also, that the cnn' aiid iii'ifiiiiillie):n:i>u\i\ be compelled, hy niean-i of a writ of mandamus, to call the iiiil(ddis to the meetiii}; for such election, and that a retiirii made liy the r»re and nxiri/llil/iers \]iii{ \\n \ had otlered to admit certain persons aecordin^.' to their |io-^ition and rank, to the e.xelii-^ioii ot the ofhei' |iarishioiiei'-i, i-* insullicieht an I i Ill-Ill. (//-.) 3. 2:i Vic, cit. t;T.si-:r. I.— On a pet; t on loiuinul an eleriion of a clr.ireh-n arden- - //'/'/. that under 2:! Vi".,i;h. 117, sec. I, a I'liiiilar proposal is r(i|iiired to nominate a> candidate a person to till -iich otliee, and thai a simple expression of the desire of one er more pai'ishioners tliat a person other than the one first propo-ed should be elected, dm ■ not iuipoit a reiTular nominatii n of such per- son as (diiirch warden, liclamjer vs. Cyr, S. C. 1S62, 12 L. C. R. 470. 4. Announcing.— The curate mu-t announce the election eii!;ht days in advance. ExiiurU lUoux, Q. B. 1818, ;! Rev. de Le.'. 180. 5. Curate-— The curate ha* no voice CHURCHES. ;;13 ill liic election of cliuiTli-wiinloii!'. (11 In rr Lcduc, K. B. lH:i'2, Montreal Comlcnsed Ufjiorts, p. %■ 6. Registration of Votes.— Wiierc, III M\ clpction of oliiiroh-wanic'ii", rcf^istralion of till' vote ic (leinamli'd \>y two or more voters, the curate presidiii); over the iiieetinL! iniiHt proceed to do so, even when sncli ii course has never lieen pursued before in tlie parish, tlie usual cuHloin liavinj.' Iieeii to ascertain tiie niiijoiity hy calliii'^ a division. The president (iC the iiieitinj; is Ixiund to ref^ister such votes even when the demand Cor re;j;istration is made iil'ler llie division has been iniide, lull before the president has declared any caiiilidate to he elected; and, if he fails to re^^ister the votes when so demanded, the e'eclinn will ho null. Chdwpuvx vs. I',ir(i(l!s-, (". U. 18!»2, 2 Que. 419. 6a. An eircliiiii Miid fur ihealiove cause caiiiHil, he viUidiited al a siilisenuent nieelinf; which ret'u-e> to aci'.ept tlie resiLjiiiiliiin (pfliie candidate thus iiieLrally elected; such election must stand <'v fill on iii-' nirrils Juilrrcd in the li'^lit cil'the lirst clee.tion. {llj.) 7. Usage. — The parishinneis have a riu;ht to elect as church-warden any one of tlicir niimher wlmm (hey may choose, ami tiiis nnf- witlistandinj; any usaj;<' to the contrary wliich may be proved to ha\c existeil in the parish. Mon'au vs. Co/liii. (,,). B. IS? I, 111 L. C. ,1. •!('>. 8. Art. 34.'38 R. S. Q.— Notice of Meeting. — It is sullicieni tiiat llic iiieeliii;.' of the Fohn'ijiie lie Cdiivokcd acccHdiiii; In ihe nsai;e in force in the parish. .[iKfir vs. Liboiit,', (^ I!. ix'Xl, 2 Que. :;s, 9. Where the usajze is to .-end a notice in writing lo each clnu\'h-wardeii coiivokimr him to'thc meelin;:, and lo announce such meeliiiLr during church service, any irre- j^iilarity in the laller aiinouncement will be covered hy the wrillen imlice made in due lurm and addre.ssi'il to each warden. (//».) 10. The usa^e in force in the pai'isli of Xoire Uame ile Mniilreal heinj; to announce the oliject (if the meetiiijj Imt in two cases — the election of churidi-waidcns and the renderiii<; of accounts — it was nut iirccssary to specify the object of a meetinj.' ci invoked to accept the resignatiim of church-wardens who had resigned, (//i.) 11. — — The petitioners to voiil the election of church-wardens on account of their heintr refused a part in the election, cannot fl) Kxoi'pt wlioie tli(^ nieetin;; is ciinally iliviileil. Migniiiilt, llroit i'aroissial, p. 244. enter a vr.lid obi<'ction to the election unh-s they can sliov that the election would iiavc Inid a ditl'erent result had they participated in it. (lb.) 12. Siinhlf, lo the majority of the Superior Court, hut not toiudied upon in appeal, that a church-warden wiio resigns his functions as active (diurch-warden cannot retain his jxisition as retired cliuii h-warlen. ah') V. CIirUCH-WARDKN IXClIAllOi:. 1. Accounting. — A U an Catholic Bishop of tiuehec has no authority to compel thechurch wardens of a parish toaccoimt. He can reipiire a slali ineni of their procecilin\::s ' for his information as to ilie manner in whirh they have e.\(iendcd the money of ilic pai'i>h, but it bolom!;« to the snular power e.\elu»ivr|y to compel judicially an acci 'uitin>; liy means ofanaclion instiluled in the name of AV/j(0';'(! el Filling/lie for that purpose. Fiilirliiiir ih' SI .hiiii k I '/lOiiiiKinl, 2 l!»\'. de li'>g. 2"ii, K. B. L-;20. 2. The miion lo rompel llie cburch- wavilen relirin;^ fri'in ollice lo rriider an ' aiH'ounl. may In' bnodhl wilhoul the aiilhori- /alion of tlie parishioners, contnbiitories, as lieiiig a suit nece-sary for the recovery of the ordinary revenues of I be Fiilir/'jiic. Thisra.-e is therefore within llic exception of Art. 21 of the decree of Saint Ji'dii t'li rule of the article. In a case like this it is the duly of the new church-warden to recover by suit, aflej- having imtilied Ibe Inirrnii iu'li- )((j//'6' of the action, undcT penally cjf pei-.-niml liability in case of omission lo do so. On the meril.s it is no answer in the mouth of ibo reliriii'j; cburcb-wardc 11 to sny that be cannot •^v{ ai:cess to the books, and tberi'fore lo asl; di.-mi-sal of the action. I'lire el Miirgiiilliir.-i ill- Biaii/iiiriiois V-. Rohilliir'l, <^. B. Montieal, March lii. ISTT. 3. Curate acting for Church-warden in charge — Where ihe curate undeiiake- lo keep the accounts of the Fnhriiiui' ainl to collect the revenues, he becomes the clerk and employee of the idiurch-warden in ehar;;;e. ana his acts in this connection hind the Fohii'/iie atnl discharge all parties accouutiiii; to liiin as ! validly as if they were paid to the chnreli- warden. Giroiix v.s. Fnhvique de Bcaupcvf, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 476. j 4. Functions of. (See also " Fahri- QI'e" — " Cl'R.^TK .VCTINO FOR ClURCIt- '|i:f fit 'flP *i 1^ '. Brl(iiie |ir()))erty iiy fire tliey iiad liecii oliiified to pay, in coiice- f|iieM(:t' of llic fault, etc., of tlio difeiidanl — Jlelil, lliHl llic uarden-i in \, 1 J.. C. 1{. 222. 2 II. .1. I!. <}. ■172. 6. The e.hnreii-vvarilen in ehar.L'e is res- pon9d)l<' for all the moneys ol the Fithriiiiic. and has tlierefiirc the sole chnrf.'c (if Ihein. Sneh moneys slioiild ho depi^i-iled in I'le Fiiliriijue's safe, if it ha one, or if imt they -honld he ]ilaced in the h.ind- nf the clinreh-warden in c'har^'e. In either case the elniroh-warden in char^re is almie re.sponsildc for them. Hence it follows (hat the chnreh-wiinlen in chartje lias a ri.L'hl to receive the niciieys had from the lialanee of acuonnt of the reii''int; church- warden in charge, ami it is not in the [lower of the Fitliri(jue to order that they he plaeeil in the hands of any otla r person, soa< to have the ellect of discharj^inj: the church warden in eharge of his I'e.sponsihilit y in rei'ai'd to snch liahince of acconnt, and (f depriviiij.; him of his right to receive it. (liiiiuJ vs. C/iori(jnf lie SI. Kitfunl Ji'shi vs. /iVu/, imd FiiliiiiiHf lie SI. I'ltul vs. Fiijefii, C. Ct. I.mT'.I, T) Q. L. \i. ;i27, 2. Judicial qualities oP.— In an action a;;ainst u proprietor for the amount of hi- assessments for the erection of a church par- t>oiu\'j^e—lIelil, cordirmin;; deciHi(ni of conif litdow, that Hmdi toinniiNHi(niers are a special trihnnal e.xercisin;; jmlicial anihority within ceriain limits, nnd that an act ile rcpartllion hy such commissioners makes priimi J'diie evidence of its content". Jienii're v. MiUlle, y.i. U. isr,,->, 5 L. (". 1{. H7, t H. .1. It. Q. 211:;. VII. CANON'IC.M- I)K(11{KI': FOR (US'- STIU'CTION OF— HKVOCATION. A canonical deci'ee for the construction of a. new (dmrch in an oM parish can oidy he revoked hy another decree in the same form a- the tirst. Siinilicn ile In Fdrdi.t.'te S/. Onrt \<. Attitir.C.v'i. 1M7.-I, 7 U. L. .'!. VIII. CO.M.MISSION'FRS FOR ERF.CTIOX OF CIVIL I'ARISIIFS. 1. Commi.^sioners for erection (.f ci\il parishes have no ri;;ht I ) deleL'atc to one ( f their nnmber power In proceed to take evi- (lencein lliecase in ipie^lion : and sucdi delcira lion is an excess cif jnrisdiclion, and the pro- ceed ln;;s had ihei'cnnilerai'cconse.pient'y liahle to he set aside um.ler a writ i.>( rcrtlnrnri. f 1 ) E-qwic Ri.Ual, S. C. ls.-,,s •! L. C. .1 . .Iir.. 2. The commissioners for the erection of civil parishes may order the rai-'inj; of a -iini (d' money less than that which is diu' by the Fahriijiie. Fiihriijiic dii SI. Knftinl Jr.ftis v-. Jidi/, an I F(iliii(jue lie St I'liiil vs. I'ii/i:oii. (.'. Ct.'lH7'.l, .■) Q. 1,. R. ;)27. 3. The ordinance of the coinmi'-sioners for the civil erection of parishes, of dale ihe '.!(illi Novemher, ls'7li, hy which the Fabriijiieof lU*.' Parish of Saint Enfant Jesus i.s permitted Ij assess (he Roman (latholic freeholders of that l)arish for $20,0(10 ifi null, the same not heim; justilled hy the .Statute 29 Vic., ch. 52, sec. I. Fiibriquc lie In I'liroi.i.se du Saint Eiifmit. Jtsm vs. Poirier, C. Ct. 1871), 23 L. C. J. 15.'). VI. ;;OMMISSIONFU.S FOR COXSTRUC- TION OF CHURCHES. 1. Judgment of.— The judgment of the cominisRioner.s cannot be declared null by the Circuit Courton a plea, e.xcept where thejndg- ment is null oti it.s face ; nor can it be attacked except as the jiid<;meut of an inferior court. IX. FABRIQl'ES. 1 . Action by— Authorization— Appeal — Procedure. — The ordinary bureau of a Fahriqie may authorize actions for the recovery of the ordinary revenues of the (1| lint see now Art. .'tStW K, S. Q., and Mlgii.inlt, Drdit I'uroiBsial, p. UI3. CHLKCIIKS. .SI 5 ral>i'i|il(', antl liM II iirvv title. 'I'liiM ailtlicir' I i/iilii n ti('((l nut Lr ■'inu'iil ; a j^t'iic iil uiillmi'- i/ul;(j|i lo tiilu' lij;ul jir^n 1 ('din;:'* ii;;uiiist lliu-c uliii arc iii'lt'lilfil I') llii' KaliiiqiU', uitliont -jicril) iiiK tlif iiaiiii' iif cacli ilclilcr, in hiiIII- ' I'ifiil, t'ltrri il Mtiriiii'dUeis ile KKiivre ei fiihri'iiie lie. Viiri'iiiii" \^. ('Iioijiiit, (), H. iss:,, M. L. II., 1 g. li, :::i:! il),.ii(.ii,c. .I.an.l ' Cm--, ,1. ili-'-ciiliii^'). 2. Till' llliTlirc c,|' linlllnliziltil'll III ii|i|iial ill an aclidii l'\ a Falirii|iu' raniint 1 1' i iiiMikt'M at tlio liiurin;: in n|>|iial, wlirn il vmi- i nol illVnkccI in tllf L'n\ll'«l' lit ll.l' lllnl-clllll', I aiiil ill" »ttonic\>- I'nr llic a|>|i'raiil uric not ' |>iil ill 'Il I'aiill III |iMiiuri' I lu'ir aiilli'ii'i/alidii. i (I/..) I'J. Sriiili/'-, llial an a|i|n'al in mhIi ' inalti r.i .-liiiii!il lio uiillini-i/f.| willi llie .-nine t'liriiiality a-" llir nii'.'inul actiuii, anil llial Ihr urdiiiarv bureau i.f liie l''uliri(|iie cirnM '^wv ilu' ai|ili"ri/alii)ii r'i,ilriMl I'nr micIi ii|i|nal. I (Ih.) 1. C'iiiirili I !i''ri(|iii'M-aiinipU'nli'r iiilu a law f^uit fur anylliiii;/ Itvonil llii' ciirrtiil ailiniiii.-lialiiin nf llicir irii.-l nr the eiijli ciiiin 'I (III ir I in 1 ilia IV iiici'iiie i.r ilelil^ w illiuiil the .•Milhorizalidii ol llie luidy iil' tlie iiiii-hii inr-, iiii'l where till \ are "lily aiillinrizcd hy the I ic.-i III aiil ex-ehiii eh-uardi ii- they niii-l he :Mii.--iiiteil. Ciin's (t Mi(r,/iiilliirs ilc /'(Kiirn cl I'llliliijlll' ill Viirhll-'S \' Cnrjllinilioll <;/ I'.c I'.iiisli ul y,ii-li,i.s, (.). \\. IST.-i, .| U. L ^:. I'rivy Cniiiieil ID !,. C. .1. 1 11, il U. I.. CM!. 5. It i> lint n ■ei'--;ify that a Falirii|Ue i'e -|,ecially aulleiri/e.| hy a ineelin;:- ealUil r.'i- thai ]iiirpo.sc in ..nlec i,, -ne in reeuveiy nl' an a-M''X>, I gne. ITil. 7. Corporate Title.— Fabriipip.s tan niilysneiii llipir eidhclive cor|ioratp title nf /.'' C'ltri' it hs Marijiiillinrt-', etc.. and an aeijon insiitutccl in their i aine hy a so styled altoriiey i-i ha.l. Hxpurtr LcFort, C. Cl. l''-i;2, (i L. C. .1. 200. 8. — Till- Fiilirii|Ur enii only Mie in its curporHte nnini' anil not hy its odicern, and llii' tiirule is nil es8enliiil ineinluT of hikIi I (irporation, nnd liis niiiiii' shoiihl appeio' - • pHrt of (lie corporulo name of the Fahr. ,u('. MiirgHilliers, eti\, m nffice ile. I'iKiirie tl Fabiiiini' de In rurnisne dii St. Kiitniit .Ir.sii.^ \s. Hnndlni, ('. ("'. IST,-, .S K. \,. 711, 0, Curate— Eight of Curate to pre- side over Meetings.— .\t mee'intjR of liie Faliriipie tiie (■((/•(• iias no ri^rht to pre-ide, tlio ehiireii warden in ehur^ie hein;: the jireper otiieer so 10 preside ; and nny sncli iiieeliiiL"' pn sideil over hy ijie . }><■ cnrale an.l llic clioii nuislci X. ORDKll IX. 1. Breach of Decorum. -J'lie | ciiii,,ii. r was fini'il by a Justice (..f the peace for liuving iusulli'd a cluirch-warden out-iil.' the church dour after service. The convictit^n was Inel under the statute Geo. IV.. cup. '.], ijrii\iiiing lor the mainleiKince of go(,i.| Didcr in chuiidus a Ciilh'.lic cliui'cli can make iiiles f..r ihe ;i mis-ion ..I' chori-I.'rs ov olhcr per-...ns Id li, chnir. ami can exci, Ic ilicm iherefrom thcv lail 1. 1 comply with ihe-e rules. ./.../■;/ I'lii/d/i que. 1(11. XI. I'AK'i.SIIlOXI ■Held, lit tliere was no oltenee cummitti 1. Rights of. — In a pr.'cee.ling in tii. hatuic of a writ ..f prerogative by pailii< under siudi stalule, the act not ha\irig cuinmitted during Divine .-eiviee. Diiiiini i.rii. \.- -Ivhlig themselvo 'iltii/ciis lu •iahh iii;amsl a did |iei-..n as illciiallv .Ncicismg the ollu-.' s. DiiVon ci-jK, .^. C. IH.V-i, :; ],. C. U want. 11 Ol a oufi-li — h'dd. iiat such paitie-. ■UK!, I 11. .1. K. Q. U). 2. On a rcrliiiiiiri from a w itimui taking Ihe .pialiiy uf /aiii: '•I'iuvre et I'ab n.|Ui lie .N, I)i nil.' il.' .a keel Jiis liat .111 his lua.l .1 urmg the i.r.e V'ieloire, it was ic-olve.| t.i purchase for the purpose ..f a cemetery eeria n lan.i bel.mgiiig 1. the I'librii^ue lie Si. .loseph de . 1-^, lor the sum of tUlln. Coiiformaiilv to th:, resn- lon a I lee. I if pur Chase wa>- pas ■d cession of the Holy Sacram.'tit, disclo.-.'s no legal oU'ence whale\('r. Filiau crp., S. C. ls,-l,4L. C. U. IJ'), 4 U..I.U. Q. 107. ,,;, 3- '5iil hail the information been pro- lime aflei war.ls between the two Fiibriqiies_ perly drawn up, the defemiaiit cmld not ; In July, 18711, at a meeting of the " .Maignil- jusiify liiiiiself. The information shouM have , iier.s anciens cl n.nneaitx de la Parois.-e Notre stated tlint the dofendani was on the properly Dame de la Vieli of the church, etc. (///.) a par rt of the piircha-e i It was re> 110' \ then ,lve.l I pa fallin;; .|i CHUKCHES. ill :iii(l 10 coiiimciice ilu' wcirk of I'slatjli-liiiij; a iii'H cemetery. 'J'lie cim'' and (wn of tlie iiiari!iiilliei's iippoiiitcd wui'e td em|)l' attacked ilio ino rcHoliitioiis of Noveinliei', 1H74, and .Illy, 187(1, on the l'iciiu I that at tlie time of liic pa-'-in^ of tlie lli'st resolution the Fuliriiiiie liad iii't in liaiul siitlicient money to pay the :iiii"iint ajiree 1 upon; tiiat the price was tuo lii;fh to lie paid out of the oriiiiiary revenues iit'lhe l''iibri(pie ; and that, with rei.'ard In tlie -• cond lesoliitii'ii, the meeting at which it w.ih Ij' 111 was ille^^illy coiunked, and its jirocced- iii^s were irregular. Conclusions lor the imllily of the 'wo reHoiutioiis, arnl that tiie I'ahriipie he enioiiied not In use tiie money or riedit of tiie Fabriipie in carryiiii: tlieiii out — Ill lil.\\\\\\ the action must fail for w.tiit of i';iTe>i liotli raliiiiie ficrsonic mid raiionc ma- .'■liif. Carrier vf. Li's Cure cl MaiijuilUer.s • I' I'dCiirrc el I'dbiuiae dr hi I'ornixse de S'llrc Ddiiic de la Victdirc, S. C. HTil, ."> (I L. \{. -11. XII. I'HWS. 1. Lease— Failure to pay Rci.t— Com minatory Clause.— Wheie the plaintilf -iiiij^ht III recover |io,ssi>ssioii of a ])ew in a c'liiicli uf which he had a lease fur three years Iriiiii liie defeiiinnt, Init the defendant |,'eaded that by a clause In the lea-e it ',\;is to liecoine null and void de phnw, uithout notice or otlier formality, mi tlefault by tlie Ics.see of payiiient of the rent, a.* stipu- lated and alleged, als) that the plaintilf was in -iich default, and that lliey had a right, niitwith-taiiding uffer of the plaintilT to pay llie ri'iit, and the deposit of the amount with liisarlion, to sublet the jiew and to dejirive liie plaintitr of the enjoyment thereof — IL/d, I'liiilirming th" decision of the court below, iK'it a stipulation .such a." that ]ileadeil could not be cousiderv d as comminatory, but must lie strictly enforced. R'uhard vs. Lc Ciirr ct yiiUiiniJUors dc l' Can' and Mari/iiillicrs de Ch(i(e(Ui'CHES. obi gatioi) of fuiiiisliiiii; ■'iicli pi'W, aiiil tli^il they bo allowe I to tiil. ' 1811), Stuart's Rep. p. K!."i. 11. All action in disturbiiiice cannot be supporteil against the Fabriipie for the dis- turbance of a parisjiioner in the jiossession of i liispew. A parishioner cannot have posses- : sion of a pew. K'w/tc vs. Ful^-Upiii de Quebec, \ K.H. 1820,2 R. deL. 277. j 12. .r., an elder and niember of the con- gregation of St. Andrew's Church, Montreal, , had been a pew holder in St. Andrew's Church continuously from 18(!7 to 1872, incliisii-e. Ill I8(;i) and 1872 he occu])ied pew No. ti8 and received for the rental of 1S72 a receipt in the following words : ^ Montreal, Jan. I), 1872. " .•?(;6..")0. i " Received from James Johnston the sum of : ei.xty-six do'lars and fifty centp, being nnt of first class pew Xo. (i8 in St. Aiiilre.v's Church, lieaver Hall, for the year 1872. •' For the Trustees, J. CLEMENTS." On tiie 7th December, 1872, the triistn.-; notitied J. th.it they would not Ictliim a pew f.e- another year. J. thereupon tendered diem II,,. rental for next year in advance. On se\ ■ eral occasions in l^'W, and while slill an eld< r and member of the coiif.'regation, he w,.^ disturb d in the possi's>i„n i,f pew No. ()>< l.v the re-iinndeut-i, the ]iew having been placarded "For .strangers,"' -traiigers seated in it. hi- b)oks an.l cushions removed, etc. For tlie-e torts he brought an action against respondent-, claim'ng SlO.'', 2 11. C. 111. 2. A succursal churcli can ohtiiiii a rejiister Imt only on tlie demanil of tlie curate nf the liiirocliial church- (I) (//».) 3. The church of a cani>iiical parisli cannot be considert'd as a .«iiccursai. (fb.) XIV. TRUSTEES. 1. Mandamus — New Trustee — 'hie iiienihcr of a relijrious conf;rei;ation cannot l,y ai'tion ut law compel tlie trustees of the church ]iroperty toalopt tiie formalities necessary to fccnre the appointment uf a new trnst^e to fill a vacani'v, the remedy heiiij; liy prero^iative writ and not by action. Sinilh vs. Fisher, S. C. n:.7, 2 L. C..J. 71. 2. Right of Survivorship.— Wliere pro- pei'ly was vested in four trustees, two of whom are ilead, for tlie use of a Presbyterian con;^re- gation in connection with the Cliureh nf Scot- land, one of tiie surviviiii; trustees cannot .sue theoliu'r to <;ive pussession fif the property in (irder that lie may dispose of it by liandinjj; it over to another religious Iiidy. constituted out of an amaljiaiiiation of diHerent religious bodies callimr itself '' Tiic Presbyterian Churcii in Caiiala." Morrison vs. McCmiiij, Q. B. Montreal, Jan. 20, 188:i, conllrmin^' S. C. H'1, 3. Tenders by.— Tenders for the ciin. struction of a cluircli when the ]irice exceeds ;?.')ll, cannot be proved liy parol lestimidiy. Chc.rri'fiU vs. Syndics dc bl I'aroisse dc .S'/i.-. Jleleue,S. C. ISOU, 2 R. L. Kll. 4. One of the trusiees t'ar ilie I'onstruciion of a churcli cannot make and present such tender to the trustee-: on behalf (jf a lliiid parly, for iiis position as trustee iind as a^eni for a third ]iarty wisbin.L' to contrai.'t with ilie trustees are iiicomijatibie. {Ih.) 6. The acceptance of .such a tender by ilic triustees cann to the whole bo ly of pai ishioners (lb.) 7. Status of. — Tni-tees electc I for tiie construction of cliurolies before the operali.in of C. S L. C (!ap. IS, sec. 21, do not form a corporation, liarlutrmc vs. M.irri.inn. ,S C. HC) 1,,S L. (.". .). 117 ; and Jnlij vs. Lrs Siin,U,:s de 1 1 I'ami.sse de St,:. .Virt/i,:, S. C. Hi;T, 11 L C. J. 71 an I 17 !,. C. R. 1 II. XV. TRUSTEES FOR BUILDING. 1. Actions by— Authorization. — The pleas of trustees for building, etc., of ciiurclies wdl not be rejected for want of allegation tinit they were authorized by the parisli to tile such pleas. Duchurme vs. Morlnon, S. C. I Silt, S L. C. J. 160. 2. Resolutions of.— A resolution adopted at a meeting of trustees for the erection of a parisli church is irregular and null when the jtruci.i-verbal thereof does not state at wiiat hour nor at what place the meeting was held, and where notice of the meeting was not given to all the trustees and some of them did not attend. Clieoefih vs. Les Si/ndics de la I\i. roi.ssc de Ste. IMinc, S. C. 18G0, 2 R. L. 102. (I) See now 36 Vic , cli. Ki, sec. 1. See Article in '.' Rev. L'rit. 4aO. ' CIRCUIT COURT. (See •• .IfiusuicTiox " — " WiiiT or Sl'm.mons ") Actions under $60 — In cases in the Cir- ! ciiit Court under $liO, a deposit is reniured j with preliniinai'v pleas, and in such case.i copies must be served on tlu^ |)laintiH s att 20 CODES. ■i i till I iiiiili II CIRCUS. A "circus" witliiii tlie iiu'iiiiiiig of ilic Qm'lii'(! ]>icen-c Act, 1878, apiilics only to ( i|iicstriiui hIiows jjivcii in circular inclosuref-j iMi I not to nuTC iicrohiitii; exhibition", without tlie i>resence of horsi>s. Sparrow vh. 7)t'.s- iio;/er.i, S. C. IH.'^d, M. 1>. It., 'l S. C. 'JT;). CIVIL DEATH. Akt. .'!8 C. C. — \ piirty L'onk'niiiril to death \>y tilt' coiirt-niartial wliii'li sat in Luver Cani'ia in ISISD.aiiii suli-('(|uenliy panluiifil, i-i imt lc;j:ally (|ualitieci lo enter puit, or take ).M-oi;teilings to revenilicalc li .-■ property t'.ir- Coited hy rea.^on of iiis attainder. Jloclion vs. J.nhir,'^. C lS.-,0, 1 L. C. .I.'2.V.>, ({..I. H. g. r.2. Art. lil C. C. — A person oonlined in the provincial pcnileniiury, under a conviction for foi-gcry, is not civilly dead, and a si^znilication of a tran-fcr during llint period on his wife is valid. Rowell vs. Ditrali, .<. ('. l>^."i^, 2 L. C. .1. 208, 7H. .J. U. Q. ID. baptisms, tnarriages and .sepultures. (1) Sprntt ci-jMirie, K. B. 1810, 2 Rev. de Leg. 3:i2 and Siuart's Rep. 90 and 149, 1 R. J. R. Q. lo-l. Change of— EfiFect upon party to suit. — When the eluinge of Kiaiiis of a party to a .suit only occurs after tlie )iroceediiigs iiv wav of execution against liiin have comiiienced, siieh proceedings may continue, notwithstand- ing such change of slatiis. Symcs vs. Farnin, S. C. 1.S83, 27 L. C. J. 185. Change of— Judicial adviser. — The appointment (jf a judicial adviser does not change the stalii.f of the party, and therefore il is not necessary to have him intervene for the purpose of continuing the suit. Fullawl vs. Midland, Q. B. Mont., 2 March, 187tl. CIVIL BIGHTS. The civil rights of an individinil in thi.s ciuintry are not atl'ected by the sentence of the court-, of a foreiiin stale, a-^ the enforcement of such sentence by a foreign ]iower would be a violation of public law and of the law of nations. Addams v^. Word'ii, (i>. B. Is.5(;, G 1..C. 11. 2:i-, 5 R. J. R. Q. o:;. CLUB. Suspension.— A memlier of a club who was suspendeil on account of his misbeliavioMr during a public bull given by it, has an action of damages against it where tiiey did not observe the formalities recpiired by the by law« of the club. Cits/iin;/ vs. Victoria Sh-aliiui ('ltd,, S. C. 187D, u'r. I.. 299; same case repeateil 1 R. ]j. 70.">. CIVIL STATUS. (See al-o " Intkiuiic- TION.") Proof of.— Arts, '^\ and 2;!2 C. C— In the absence of registration, the civil status of a person can be proved by the sayings of lii.s jiarents and by witnesses. Motz vs. Moi\'au, S. C. 185.5, 5 L. C. R. -l.Ti, :! R. .1. R. Q. ;J47. Q. B. 7 L. C. R. 147, :i U. J. R. Q. mi Registers of. (See also " Cl'kate.")— | A minister of a Presbyterian congregation, ■ in Communion with the Church of Scotland, i- entitled to keep registers for baptism--, mar- riages and burial.s, mitwithstanding that, in the i)lace where lie ofliciates, another church, also ill Communion with the ('hureh of Scot- land, has been previously established under ! th<' authnrily of the government. Clugstou j rxparte, K. B. 18:!!, Stuart's Rep. 418. I A dissenting minister of a Protestant con- ' gregation is not a ])iiblic olticer nor a person in holy orders recognized by law, and, therefore, cannot keep or authenticate a register of CODES. Amendments to.— Jldd, that notwiih- stiinding the Statute (Que.), lil Vic.,ch. 7, sec. 10, articles of the Civil Code and Coilc ol Pro- cedure m.ay be affected or repealed by snbse- ([uent legislation, without express mention being maile of the articles so affected ( r re- pealed. Brossoil vs. Turcotle, Q. B. 1875, 20 L. C. J. 141. Interpretation.— The works of learned French authors, whether written iiefore or after the promulgation of the Code ^sapidvon, are useful only in so far as they cxpilain what may be ambiguous or doubtful in the Ca:uuliaii Civil Code ; they cannot control its plain letter or express p ro visions. Heme w. Diifanx, P. C. 1872, 9 Moore (X. S.) 2S1, :U0. When the Civil Code refers to existing laws. not formulated in its articles, or in so far a.s on any subject it is silent, inquiry is periiiissihle into the old law, and it will in many case> become ti (juestion of construction what ami how much of that law remains in force, or is abrogated as being contrary to or inconsisteni with the provisions of the Code. Ahliott vs. Eraser, P. C. 1874, L. R., (i P. C 90, 117. (t) .See now Art. .149;! It. ,S. (). and Art.". 3!> to 78 C. C. and Art.'*. 123ii to ll!41j. C. I'. 0. ?f(ire or Hi; liiwP. fai-iisoii my easc^ what iiii'l rco, or i^ oii-if'ti'nl lbllOtl\:-. 117. COEKCIVE IMrRISONMENT. 321 French version to control English in certain cases.— If there be any diflerence between the French version and t'ae English, in a mailer whicli is one of French law, the Freiicli version using a French technical term slioiild be the leatlin;; one. Exchange Bank vs. The Queen, P. C. 188G, 11 App. Caa. 157. (1) (See also 10-11. COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT. (Contrainte par Corps) I. Alimentary Allowanck under title " Aliments.") II. Defence. 1-3. III. Discharge from. 1-2. IV. Discretion of Coi'kt. 1-5 V. Nature of. 1-2. VI. Procedure. Alias Writ. 1. Discussion, 2-4. Fol Adjudicataire. 5. Formalities. 6-9. Judgment — I'rocts- verbal. Married Women. 12-13. Motion. 14. Notice to Di'Jendant, lo-21. Return . 22. Service of New Rule. 23. VII. Time and Place of Arrest. VIII. When it Lies. Amount, etc. 1-3. Actionbetween Husband and Wife. 4. Delay to produce Account. 5-G. Costs. Ca. False Arrest. 7-8. Personal Injuries. 910. Resistance to Execution and Seizure. 11-23. Slander. 24-25. IX. Who Liable to. Invalids. 1. Married Women. Septuagenarian. Sureties in Appeal. Women. 8-9. 12. 2 3, 4-5. t)-7. 1. ALIMENTARY ALLOWANCE. (See also under title " Aliments.") A person who is> imprisoned for resisting process of the court until payment, is entitled to an alimentary allowance. Coti vs. Ver- metti, S. V. 1883, 9 (J. L. R. 340. (1) Se« Bcrioi" of articles by K. Laroau, R. L. 84, 277,7 U. 1.. .I'D, ami Thesis by K. Lemleux (Montreal, ISIIO). II. DEFENCE. 1. Where a rule for coercive imprisonment has been made absolute, it is not competent to the party condemned, by a subsequent peti- tion, to allege payment and non-indebtedness previous to the judgment on the rule. G€- nireux vs. Howley, S. C. 1877, 21 L. C. J. 1G2. 2. The defendant can set up the same grounds of defense ugain?t plaintiff's motion for a rule of coercive irnprisoniuent as he could against the rule itself. Crevier vs. Crevier, S. C. 1877, 9 R. L. 313. 3. Art. 792 C. C. P— A rule for coer- cive imprisonment can be revoked by the same court that granted it, upon petition of the debtor. Leduc vs. C«mo;i,C. Ct. 1896, 2 Rev. de Jurisprudence 9. III. DISCHARGE FROM. 1. Judicial Abandonment— Effect of.— Art. 793 C. C. P.— Art. 2275 C. C— The defendant having closed liis doors and ob- structed a judicial sale of his etl'ects of which he was guardian, was ordered to be imprisoned, under Art. 782 C. C. P., until he should liave satisfied the judgment against him. Pre- vious to the date of this order he had made an abandonment of ail his etlects for the benefit of his creditors. At the date of the judgment ordering his imprisonment his hilan was being contested by the plaintiff on the ground of fraud, and the result of the contestation was that the defendant was condemned to ten days' imprisonment for fraud. This punishment he underwent. The abandonment was acted upon in the usual manner, tiie goods which had been secreted by the defendant were returned to the estate, and a final distribution of the ■"assets was made aniong>i'l I iHHin 1 m ! i, •■ ! ;i-'!-. ;!' ^ :* ,\ i - ■■'■ t t?*^ I 1 1 t i 1 ^ (155 hW h I ( a22 coj:rcive imprisonment. from the filing of the schedule and declaration of abandonment. Winnitig va. Leblanc, S. C, 1870, 14 L. C. J. 335 ; Cut6 vs. Vermctte, S. C. 1883, 9 Q. L. R. 340. IV. DISCRETION OF COURT. 1. Thi? court has not the power to order the imprifiO'iinentof a person until he has done a specific deed, such us to make a return of effects seized, if there bo no specific law author- izing it. Early ss. Moon, Q. B. 1846,2 Rev, de Leg. 121,2 R. J. R. Q. 178 ; and see Whit- ney vs. Dansercau, S. C. 18G0, 4 L. C. J. 211. 2. The court can exercise its discretion in granting coercive iinprisoniiient, and can order it for a limited time. Quenncville vs. St. A%i- bin, S. C. 1892, 2 Que. 72 ; Houle vs. Desau- tels, C. Ct. 18811, 18 R. !.. 3l,-. ; Goyette vs. Berthelot, S. C. 18f^9, 19 R. I.. 147. 3. But will not exceed a limit of one year. Ooyette vs. Berthelot, S.C. 1889, 19 R. L. 14". 4. It is within the discretion of the court to refuse coercive imprisonment in the case of a coi.. jmnation for ])ersonal damages, and in civil cases it is against the dictates of humanity to order the imprisonment of a sick person. McXamara vs. Gaiithier, S. C. 1893, 3 Que. 370. 5. And where such damages have been paid the defendant will not be imjjrisoned for the costs of the action wliicli have not been paid, such costs being no longer an accessory of the debt, (lb.) V. NATURE OF. 1. Coercive imprisonment is a mode of executing judgment. Cold v». Vcr7)icttc,S. (}. 1883, 9 Q. L. R. 340 ; Hoy vs. Jictournuy, S. C. 1882, 1 Que. 1,39. 2- It is therefore not necessary to mention it in the judgment on the suit. Jioy vs. Bdtour- nay, S. 0. 1892, 1 Que. 140. VI. PROCEDURE. 1. Alias Writ.— An alias writ of coercive imprisonment issued without a previous order from the court is void, as being contrary to Art. 7H1 C. C. P. Lamoureia vs. Gilmour, G. R. 1886, 17 R. L. 608. 2. Discussion. — It is not necessary to ex- ecute against the defendant's property before demanding a rule for coercive imprisonment. Roy vs. B6toiirnay, 8. C. 1892, 1 Que. 140. 3. — It is not necessary to discuss the defendant's immoveables previous to demand- ing a rule lor coercive imprisonment against him. Qiienneville vs. St. Aubin, S. C. 1892, 2 Que. 72. 4. But, held, in an action for damages resulting from false arrest by capias, the court, will not adjudicate upon a demand for coercive imprisonment where the ))laintitThas not shown that he has first executed against the defend- ant's property. KennavH. Clarke, S. G.'.Wth June, 1884. Noted at 16 R. L., p. 122. 5. Fol Adjudicataire.— In a rule for coer- cive imprisonment against a fol adjudicatu ire, to compel payment of the loss occasioned by the resale of the proi)erty originally adjudged to him, it is not necessary to describe the pro- perty. Delislc vs. Sauche, C. R. 1881, 2t; L. C. J. 162. 6. Formalities necessary. — Coercive imprisonment may be accorded, in the case of damage resulting from personal injury, after the judgment awarding damages, ninl even if it be not demanded by the conclusions of the declaration. Ouellettc\s. Valli&res,('.d. 1882, 26 L. C. J. 391, and see l'er),iuU\^. Charbouueau, S. C. 1882. 5 L. N. 204 ; Lahclk \s. Pdletier, S.C. 1895, 8 Que. 114; Loznw vs. Charhonneau, S. C. 1880, 3 L. N. 255 ; Bnrthe vs. i)rt. U. IHGO, 10 L. U. K. 457. 13. But, held, a rule for coercive im- prisonment against a woman, separated only as to property, will be rejected, unless notice of the rule be given to the husband. McDonald j vs. McLean, S. C. 1860, 11 1.. C. R. G. | 14. Motion. — An apijlication for coercive ; imprisonment cannot be granted on a simple motion therefor after notice. Ilii/giii-i vs. [ i?(;Z/,S.C. 1873, 17 L.C.J. 274. 15. Notice to Defendant.— AuT. 781 C. I P. C. — In proceedings for coercive imprison- 1 meiit, the party ])roueeded against shouM have notice from the beginning. Roy yi'. Beaiidry, S. C. I861,(;L. C. J. 85. 16. Notice is not required in the case iif iiguH.r,>;an. liodier vs. McAvoy, S. C- 187G, 20 L. C.J. 305. 17. But, heUU that no man could be imprisoned without previous notice to himself [lersonally. Benjamin v^. IF/Z^oji, S. C. 1856, 1 L. C.J. 4, 5 11. J. H. Q.3G1. 20. Personal service of the rule is not necessary, personal service of the motion being sufficient. Delisle vs. Sauche, C. R. 1881, 2() L.C.J. 162. 21. The rule cannot be issued witho\it notice personally served upon the defendant. Leduc vs. CussoH, C. Ct. 1896, 2 Rev. de Juris- )inidence 9. 22. Return.— A rule for coercive impri- sonment against a guardian, nirde returnable on a day when the court is not sitting, is void and null. Lepage vs. Garon, C. R. 18S5, 11 Q. L. R. 370. 23. Service of New Rule.— Service of a rule for coercive imprisonment upon a person while he i^ in custody and restrained of his liberty under a previous order of the court in the same cause, and not made by personal service between the wickets as required by Art. 70 C. P. C, is null and of no etlect. Lamou- reux vs. Gilmour, C. R. 1886, 17 R. L. 611, M. L. R., 2 S. C. 437, 31 L. C. J. 212. VII. TIME AND PIjACE OF ARREST. 1. Imprisonment of a defendant condemned to coercive imprisonment for default of paying the atnount of a judginent, should take place in the district where the defeiidant resides, and not in the district where the judgment was rendered. Lacoate vs. Oastayne, S. C. 1882, 11 R. L. 337. 2. So held also where the defendant was condemned to coercive imprisonment for resisting execution. Maxsae vs. Crcbassa, Q. B. 1.^66, 2 L. C. L. J. 22 ; S. C, 8 L. C. J. 122, and 16 L. C. R. 446. Vin. WHEN IT LIES. 1. Amount, etc.— Coercive imprisonment for personal wrongs is left to the discretion of the court, but it only lies where the damages awarded amount to $16.66J or over, and four months after service upon the defendant of the 18. Service of the motion for the rule ' judgment awarding them ; it cannot be e.\- H(.s'/' is not necessary, personal service of the ! ecuted within the fifteen days after thcjudg- rule being sutHcient. Watzo vs. Jjabclle, C. ment ordering it. Nysted \i^. Darbyson,^.Q, Ct. 1882, 26 L. C. J. 121 ; Roy vs. Bdtournay^ 1883, 9 Q. L. R. 322 ; Morrison vs. Mullins, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 139. ' S. C. 1888, 16 R. L. 114. 19. A demand of payment and notice ' 2. Coercive imprisonment will lie for that application for coercive imprisonment ; damages granted for slander, even where the will be made in default of payment, after the delay fixed by law, must be made and given before coercive imprisonment for non-pay- ment of the amount of the judgment can be granted. Blais vs.Barbeau, C. Ct. 1871, 1 R. C. 246. amount awarded is only $5, provided that such amount added to the costs exceeds $16.66. Hotile vs. Desautels, C. Ct. 1889, 18 R. L.315 ; and see Goyette vs. Berthelol, S. C. 1889, 19 R. L. 147- But see Nysied vs. Darbyaon, S. C. 188.3, 9 Q. L. R. ,322. f • \' m %\ I ■ I Ui liii'i.1 li 324 COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT. 3. Coercive iinprieonmont may be accorded in respect of an award of damage for only $25. OuelldU vs. ValHiren, C. Ct. 1582, 26 L C.J. 391. 4. Action between Husband and Wife. — An order for coercive imprisonment may be granted in an action for neparution from bed and board. Gravel vs. Lahouliire, 1886, M- L. R, 2 S. C. 291. 5. Delay to produce Account — Tiiere is no right of imprisonment against tlie liolderof an immoveable who has been condemned to give up possession of it and to remier an itccount of the fruits and revenues because he has not produced his account within the delay fixed by the court. Crowley vs. Chretien, i^ C. 1882, IIR. L. :i75. e. Curator to a vacant estate, who has been ordered to deposit with the protlionotary the balance shown on the face of his account, to be in his hands before contestation of such account or final judgment thereon, is not sub- ject to coercive imprisonment for non-com- pliance with such order. Wood vs. McLen- nan, S. C. 18G1, 5L. C. J. 25,S. 6a. Costs. — Coercive imprisonment does not lie for costs. McNamara vs. Qauthier S. C. 189,3, 3 Que. 370 ; and see Quenneville vJ. St. Aubin, S.C 1892,2 Que. 72. 7. False Arrest.— The plaintifT obtained judgment against the defemlant in $200 dam- ages for having caused iiis arrest without probable cause. On a rule for coercive im- prisonment, in satisfaction of the judgment — Held, th&t ihc imprisonment of the defendant may be asked for by motion after judgment, though imprisonment was not asked for by the action. Bart/ie vs. Datjii,^. C. 1880,3 L. N. 316. (In this case the defendant did not raise the question as to the validity of coercive impri- sonment for enforcing judgment for false arrest.) 8. — And in another case a rule for im- prisonment was granted in the case of damages for false arrest on capias, but here again the defendant did not raise the question as to the right to a rule in such case. Kenna vs. Clark, S. C. 30 June, 1884 ; noted at p. 122, vol. 16, R. L. 9. " Personal Injuries." — The words " personal injuries " include anything that is said, written or done with tlie express object of injuring or olt'ending a person, but do not include corporal injuries caused accidentally, such as a bite from a vicious horfe. Morri.wn vs. Mullins, 8. C. 1888, 16 R. L. 114. 10. —^ But, AcWotherwise, wliere the in- jury is caused by the gross negligence of the defendant, such as rapid driving in the sfreetR whereby a person was knocked down and severely injured, and the defendant did not stop to see what damage he had done, Gi- rard vs. Gignac, S. C. 1886, 9 L. N. 196. 11. Besistance to Execution or Sei- zure. — A sherifl's return to a writ of execu- tion, setting forth that the defendant has re- fused to open the door of his dwelling-house, in order that the sheriff might seize, is only prima facie evidence of the fact, and is not sufficient evidence of itself to justify a con- demnation for imprisonment. Kemp vs. Kemp, S. C. 1858, 2 L. C. J. 280. 12. But held, later, that a rule for imprisonment may issue upon the return of the sheriff' that the debtor refuses to open iiis doors to the sheriff charged with the sale of the debtor's goods, under a writ of execution. Masnue vs. Crebassa, S. C. 1864, 8 L. C. ,1. 122, Q. B. 1866, 2 L. C. L. J. 22 ; Desharwiis vs. Amiof, C. Ct. 1853, 4 L. C. R. 43. 13. On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, dismissing an appeal from the Circuit Court by a person condemned to civil imprisonment for refusing to open his doors to abailifl— .ffeW, that,by the ordinance of 1785, the defendant was liable to coercive imprisonment, and that by a writ in the na- ture of a capias ad •^atisfacieiidu;::, .ind that there was error in the judgment of tlie Su- perior Court dismissing the appeal. Mercure vs. Laframhoisc, Q. B. 1855, 5 L. C. R. I(i8, 4 U. J. R. Q. 322. 14. No mitigating circumstances could prevent the issue of the writ where llie resistance was established. Campbell vs. Beattie, S. C. 1858, 3 L. C. J. 118. 15. A defendant is liable to coercive imprisonment, under CC. P. 782, for convey- ing away and secreting his effects under sei- zure, where said effects have been transferred to his father-in-law by a sale through the me- dium of an assignee, and which sale is mani- festly fraudulent and simulated. Jacques Cartier fcrmanent Building Society vs. Roy, C. Ct. 1880,3 L.N. 314. 16. On a motion for a rule of coercive imprisonment against the sheriff on theground that he was the guardian of the goods when the defendant offered none, and, as such, was liable therefor, and on a rule for coercive COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT. 325 iir.priponinent it was not neceHcary to offer any alternative on default of producing the move nblcH seized. Levcrsnn v?. Boston, Q. H. 1858, 2 L. C. J. 297, and see Watzo v». Labelle, C. Ct. 1882, 26 L. C. J. 121 ; McCaffrey vo. aarlon, Q. B. 1880, 25 L. C. J. I'Jl, 3 L. N. 292. 17. But, held, by the Superior Court, that, notwithatamling such judgment of the Court of Appeals, tiie rule would he disinisseii altofiether on the ground that it did not itself j.'ive the alternative of jjaying (lie value of the efl'ects seized. Leverson vs. Cunningham, S. C. 1858,3 L. C. J. 97, and 7 L. C. U. 275, and .«ee Lord vs. Moir, C. Ct. 18G.3, 7 L. C. J. 80. 18. A rule against a giuirdian should enumerate the goods to be delivered by him and their value, so that the guardian can free hiniHclf from the rule by piiyiiig the value of such goods. Marin vs. Robitaillc, C. R. 1888, 32 L. C. J. 124, 19. Contra.— C. C. P. 792 applies to all the cases in Section VII, C.C. P. 781-795. And in the commitment of a guardian for not producing effects placed under hisguardian- shi|) it is not essential that there should be an enumeration of theetlects he has to deliver up in order to obtain his liberation. McCarthy vs. Jackson, C. Ct. 1886, 10 L.N. 53. 20. ^— Upon petition for coercive im- prifonment for resisting process of the court ihe proof must be based solely on the bailitl's return and affidavits. Lefebvre vs. Gingras, C. Ct. 1885, 9 L. N. 43. 21. Tlie bailitPs affidavit cannot be admitted to prove an essential act omitted in his return, and to correct an error as to date. {lb.) 22. Neither will the bailiff be allowed to i)roduce another return. (Ih.) 23. Coercive imprisonment for resis- tance to the process of the court must be likened to imjjrisonment in civil matters, to obtain which a close adherence to the neces- sary formalities is necessary. (lb.) 24. Slander. — Coercive imprisonment will not lie for damages for slander where such slander was merely an incident to an action taken by the defendant against the present plaintiff', and although such slander was mali- cious and made with intent to injure the present plaintiff. Eicerin vs. Lessard,^. C. 1892, 2 Que. 70. 25. But, held, by the same judge in the same year that where a woman accuses a person of committing perjury, even slic will be liable to coercive imprisonment for the damages awarded by the court, such injury beint: a " personal " one. Roy vs. Retournay, S, C. 1892, 1 Que. 139. IX. WHO LIABLE TO. 1. Invalids. — See ««pra " DiscRETiox ok Court No. 4." McNumara vs. Ganthicr, S. C, 3 Que. 370. 2. Married Women.— Arts. 2272, 2273 and 2276 C. C. — In an action to recover a penalty from a married woman separate as to property, trading in her own name, for not having made the declaration re(piired by Art. 981 C. C. P., coercive imprisonment will not lie, and a judgment ordering it under such circumstances will be void. Guay vs. Du- rand, C. R. \^T,, 3 Quo. 250. 3. —— A rule for coercive imprisonment against a tnarried woman upon a judgment for principal interest and costs, cannot be ob- tained. Scott et al. VH. Prince, K. B. 1831, Stuarfs Rep. 467, 1 R. J. R. Q. .'558. 4. Septuagenarian.— Z/ic^d, that a sheriff is liable to imprisonment for failure to pro- duce the things seized, although he be over .seventy years of age, Leverson vs. Boston, Q. B. 1858, 2 L. C. J. 297 ; ami see Ouimet vs. Meunier, S. C. 1893, 3 Que. 43. 5. And it would appear that judicial sureties over 70 years of age are liable to coercive imprisonment. .See remarks of Ramsay, J., in Ouimet vs. Dc.ijardins, Q. B. 1880, 3L. N. 108. 6. Sureties in Appeal.— Sureties in ap- peal are judicial sureties, and as such are liable to coercive imprisonment. Dumont vs. Do- rion, S. C. 1871,3 R. L. .SCO ; Ouimet vs. Des- jardins, Q. B. 1880, 3 L. N. 108. 7. Judicial sureties are not entitled to a delay of four months before becoming sub- ject to coercive imprisonment. Dupras vs. 'Saui-&,%.G. 1881, 4 L.N. -299. 8. 'Women. — Held, that the neglect or re- fusal on the part of a woman to comply with a judgment of the court, which orders the mak- ing of an i.iventOi'y, does not make her liable to coercive imprisonment for contempt, and that the right of coeicive imprisonment does not exist against women guilty of such neglect or refusal. Larochelle \s. Mailloux, ii.B. 1866, 16L.C. R. 407. 9. Held, that, under Arts. 2272 and 2276 C. C, 8 woman maybe imprisoned when |l»i w' ; ^1 m ill 826 COMMERCIAL MATTERS. condemned to dama^res for personal injuries, which danmgeH are iinflatisfled. QuenneviUe \^.St.Aubin, 8. C. lt;!>2, 2 Que. 72; lin;/ vs. Betoumai/, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 1.19. COLLECTORS. Collectors have no right to cimrge $1.50 nor any uther sum for cost of writing a letter to a debtor claiming the debt, and wiiere hucIi sum has been collected it must be refunded. La- ehapelle vs. Larose, C. Ct. 1884, 7 L. N. 3j;t. COfilMERCIAL MATTERS. (1) I. COM.MKKCIAL DkHTS. 1. II. WlUT AUK COMMKKCIAI. MATTERS. 1-24. 1. Commercial Debts.— The alterations made in the old law by tin' Civil Code as to commercial debts are too radical to allow of the jurL^piudence based thereon being of pre- sent value. McGreevy vs. McGrecvy, C. K. 1891, 17Q.L.H. 278. II. WHAT .VRK COMMKUCIAL MATTERS. 1. A contract by a carpenter and joiner to build a house for a person not a trader is a commercial matter. Kennedy vs. Smith, Q. B. 185C, 6 L. C. R. 260. 2. A contract to furnish materials for a bou.se and to build it was held to be a com- mercial contract. McGrath vs. Lloyd, S. C. 1856, 1 li. C.J. 17. 3. A contract made by two persons, by which they obligated themselves to furnish to a railway company a quantity of railway ties at so much a thousand, the price to bo divided between them, constituted a commercial part- nership between them within the meanin-r of 65 C. S. L. C. and Art. 1834 C. C, re(iuiring the registration of a declaration of the forma- tion of such partnership. Larose vs. Palion, S. C. 1872, 17 L. C.J. 52. 4. A partnership between a sheriflT and a lawyer for working a .sawmill is a commer- cial partnership. Couturier vs. Brassard, C. Ct. 187.3, 18L. C. J. 8. 5. A contract to construct a railing with granite posts round a cemetery lot by a marble cutter who supplies the material is a commercial contract. Morgan vs. Turnbull, 8. C. 1888, 14 Q. L. R. 121. (1) Commercial Law of Lower Canada. See Articles 2 Itev. de Leg. 442, 3 R. de 1... Ml, defining who are tradere and wiiat constitutes a conniiercinl contract. 6. A blacksmith who furnishes the iron which he forges is a trader. Sirois v^. Beanlieu, C. R. 1887, 13 Q. L. R. 29,1. 7. .\ farmer selling cordwood from hi'* land is a trader dealing in similar articles within the meaning of .Vrt. 1489 C. C. Canada I'aper Company & British American Land Company, Q. 15. lH82, 5 L. N. 310. 8. A partnership formed between two con- tractors for the purpose of carrying on the business of building railways is a commercial partnership. McRae vs. Mc I'arlane, C U. 1891, M. L. R., 7 8. C. 288; McLea vs. Mr- Donald, Q. B. Montreal, Feb. 3, 1876. 9. A contract between an individual avid the government to .■^U))ply stone for the loc\s of ilu' Lachine canal win held by the Privy Council to be a commercial contract. McKay vs. Rutherford,?. C. 1W18, 6 Moore, P. C. 4i:i, 13 (Eng.) Jurist 17. 10. A loa.i by a nontnidor to a commercial I firm is not subject to the limitation of «i.\ years I (before the Code) or to the prescription of live years (under the Coile). ( Wishaw vs. Gilmour, ' \') L. C. R. 177 approved.) Darling vs. lirown, ' Sujireme Ct. 1877, 21 L. C. J. 169, 1 Can. 8. C. R. 360, confirming Q. B., 21 L. C. .!. ' 92; Mac Donald vs. Dillon, 8. C. 1883, 27 L.C.J. 214. I 11. An action by a non-tr.ider to recover moneys loaned and advanced by him to the defendants, merchants and co-partners, and for which they gave an acknowledgment in writing by means of a letter, is not suscepti- ble of trial by jury, and the option therefor, in the pleadings of the defendant, will be struck therefriuii upon motion, upon the ground that the Contract is not of a mercantile nature only. Gilmour vs. Wishaw, Q. B. 1865, 15 L. C. K. 177, confirming S. C, 6 L. C. J. 320, 11! L. C.R. 91. 12. The plaintitr, a tavernkeeper, sued the defendant, a lieutenant in the army, on two promissory iiote.s made by the latter — Held, that this was not a commercial matte'" so as to justify ii capias ad satisfaciendum. (1) Herald vs. Skintier, K. B. 1810, P. R. 1. 13. Held (reversing the judgment of the Court below), that a covenant to sell and deliver hemlock-bark is a commercial matter, and can be proved by oral testimony, notwith- standing Article 1233 of the C. C. Fee vs. Killett, C. K. 1886, 10 L. N. 186. 14. The sale of a wagon and harness by a (1) The caiiia8 nd sal, no longer exists. COMMERCIAL TKAVELLERS. 327 liotel-keep<'r to the defetiJunt, described as a fui'iner and trader, is a commercial fact, and can l« proved liy puroie evidence. Vandal v.x. Grenier, S. C. 1855, C L. C. H. 475, 5 R.J.B. Q. 144. 15. Tiie Hale and u.se of a jiatcnt for manu- fiiotiiring purposef is a conimcrciiil matter. Very ic namel, Q. B. 1884, 7 L. N. 405, 11 Q. L. R. 24. 16. A music teacher who buys jiieccs of nuisic and re-sells them to his pupils at a )irulit does not thereby become a trader. Mor- ,j(in vs. Leboutillier, S. C 1879, 5 Q. L. il. 212. 17. The plaiiititl's and others, bricklayers and masons, having undertaken to make cer- tain masonry under a written agreement from (lie defendant on the Quebec and Richmond Railway, and having, during the progress of the work, been employed with their men at extra work, by the day, brought action against the defendant, and produced their brother as a witness to prove such extra work ; but, u|)oii objection, the evidence of the brother was declared to be inadmissible. Subsequently, the defendant attempted to prove by parol evi- dence payment of such e.xtra work, and, after objection, the evidence was allowed to be taken de bene esse. Eventually, the action was dis- missed, and the case having been carried to appeal— ffeZf/, to be a commercial action, and the judgment of the court below reversed, Faluy vs. Jackson,^, li. 1857, 7 L. C. R. 27. 18. Insurance against fire, by an insurance company, is a commercial transaction. Smith ' vs, Ireine, Q. B. 1845, 1 Rev. de Leg. 47, 1 | R. J.R. Q. 452. 19. //e?(Z, that an action for the non-delivery of a cargo, which the defendants, who were merchants, had, as alleged in the declaration, bargained and sold to the plaintiff, a black- smith, atrial by jury might be had. Hunt vs. Bruce, K. B. 1810, 1 R. J. R. Q. 53, Pyke's Rep. 3. 20. In an action by a merchant against a brewer for a quantity of beer stored in his cellar, it was held to be a commercial matter, 80 as to be within the Statute of Frauds. Pozcr vs. Meiklejohu, K. B. 1809, Pyke's Rep. 11, Stuart's i^ep. 122. 21. A tavern-keeper is s trader and dealer, and his note to a merch.'*nt, payable to his order, may be transferred by a blank indorse- ment; it is a commercial note. Patterson V8. Welsh, K. 3. 1819, 2 Rev. de Leg. 30 ; and McRoherts vs. Scott, K. B. 1821, 2 Rev. de Leg. 31. 22. .S'cm6?e, that, notwithstanding the gener- ality of the language of Art. 2260, transactions between traders, oiitside of their regular busi- ness relations, and . 601. COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS. I, Claim fou Salary. II. Privilk(ie foh Salary. 1-3. III. TA.XATION OK. 1-4. I. CLAIM FOU WAGES. When a commercial traveller, engaged by the year, (piits the service of his emjiloyer without legal cause and against the will of his employer, and without previous legal notice, he forfeits all claim to wages accrued to the time of his (juitting said service. Nixon vs. Darling, S. C; 1883, 27 L. C. .1. 78. II. PRIVILEGE FOR SALARY. 1. Held, thnt the word "clerk" in article 2006 of the Civil Code includes a commercial traveller whose services were also required in the store of his employer containing the goods on which the privilege is claimed. Harris \s, Heyneman, S. C. 1885, M. L. R, 1. S. C. 191. 2. But, in appeal, although not determined by the Court, the correctness of the above hold- ing was doubted. M. L. R., 2 Q. B. 466. 3. And in another case, held, rejecting the claim as to privilege, that a commercial tra- veller was not a " clerk " within the meaning of that article. Ross vs. Forlin, S. C. 1881, 8 Q. L. R. 15. III. TAXATION OF. 1. A merchant who sends out agents and travellers to take orders on samples or sell ,f ■^ '.''■■■ ti \M\ ii 828 COMMISSION TO TAKE EVIDKNCK. "A\ goods is II travelling mcrclmnt witliin thetcrnm of the bylaw ot'tiie i;ity of Quebec, 12 Oct., 1866, inipoHinga tux on such, ami if lie is not proviiled with a licenMO, \\\» clerk or agent Bhoulil lake out one in his own nunie. J'ichi^ vs. Corponitioit (If QiUlicr, 8. C 1882, 8 Q. L. K. 270. 2. Theby-lawof the city of Quebec (12 Oct. 1866), imposing a s|i€cia! tax upon comiiu'rcial travellers, etc., and obliging them to take out a license, in in conformity with tiie net of the late Pioviiiceof ('anadu, 29 und;^0 Vic, ch.67, sec. 20, and neither the act nor the by-law are ultra vires. (1) (Ih.) 3. Discriniination in taxation between refi- dents and non-residents is only an objection, when unjust and oppressive. (I) Corporation of Three Rivers vs. Major, Q. 15. ISSl, H Q, I,. R, 181, II K. L. 2:iS, 2 Dorioii Q. H. Uep. Hi. 4. Such taxes are not in restraint of trade, {lb.) COMMINATORY CLAUSE, A clause in a deed of donation to the efl'ect that, if the donee should alienate the properly given, he should be obliged to pay 2000 livres to the donors, is not comminatory. Cheval T8. JUorrin, S. C. 1862, 6 L. C. J. 229, Arts. 1536, 1537, 1538 C, Code.— A stip- ulation in a deed, that in default of purchaser paying his first instalment when due, vendor might treat deed as null, on notifying ]iur- chaser to that end, accompanied by an express declaration that such stipulation was de ri gueur, ami one williout which the vendor would not have signed the deed, is commina- tory, and therefore not executory d la rigxieur. (2) Eomiervf. Demers, 1856, 1 L. U, J, 12, 5 R, J, R. Q. 368, Art, 1131 et se(i. C. Codk.— A clau.se in an obligation stij)ulaiing " that in case the debtor should make default in the payment of the interest to accrue and become due on a principal sum for the space of thirty days after the interest payments should become due and payable, then and in that case the whole of the (1) In the Supreme Court case of Jonas rs. (Jilliert (New Brunswick) tlie by-law taxing coiiiiiKTcial travel- lers was lit'ld ultra vhva, beoau.se it lUncriminated l)etween licenscH taken out by local travellers and tlioge from outsiile, which the court held was not au- thorized by the Statute tinder which the by-law was enacted, (.5 Can. S. C. K. 350,4 K. N. !«). But, in PlcliiS vs. Corp. of Quebec, such disciiniinatlou was expressly allowed by the Statute. (2) But sec Kichard fs. Fabrique do Quebec, Q. It. 1864, 5L. C. K, 3,4 K. J. R. Q. 2G0, apparently con- tra. Andsee Beaudry vs. Barellle. Q. B. 1845, 1 R. J. It. Q. 447, principal sum, with all in'ercst then due, Hhonid immoiliately become due and exigible," is not a covenant which will lie reganied as a cliiusc cnmminutoire, but will be enforced. McNirni vH, Hoard of Attn and Mannfaduren for Lower Canada, 8, C. 1862,6 L. C. .F, 222, i: L. C, R. 535. COMBSISSAIRES D'ECOLEB. (See "Schools.") COMMISSION MERCHANTS. (See also "Aokncv.") Who are.— In three cases the plaiiiiiils sued to recov ^50 levied on them by the (jiy of Montreal • a by-law imposing a tax or. brokers, ni iilers id commission mer- chants, and winch they hail ])aid under ))ro- test. The plaintitls were whip agents, ami in two of the cases were part owners of the vessels of which they were the agents — Htld, that the nuestion was governed by the Arts, of the Coile 1735 and 1736, delining brokers and commission merchants, and that, as the plaintilFs did not come within thatdelini- tion, they were not liable to the tax and had a right to recover. ThompKon vs. City of Mont- real, Shaw vs. City of Montreal, and Sidey vs. City of Montreal, C. Ct. 1881, 4 l>. N. 327- A coniiiiission merchant who receives money as the price of wheat for a party for whom he deals, has no right to pay it into his own ac- count to be applied generally to the creditors of the purchaser. Kershaw vs, Kirkpatrick, Q, B., Sept., 1876. Confirmed in I'rivy Council 18T8, 3 App. Cas. 315. COMMISSION TO TAKE EVIDENCE. I. Affidavit, II. Api'i.ication for. 1-2. III. Delay to suk ott thk Commission'. 1-2. IV, ExEocTioN of Writ. V, Foreign — Witness, VI. GllANTED IX ClIAMnERS. I. AFFIDAVIT. For old cases relating to necessity, or other- wise, of affidavit, see Willis vs. Pierce, S. C. 1858,2 L. C. J, 77 ; Lane vs. Ross, S. C. 1860, 4 L. C. J. 295 ; Johnson vs, Whitney, 8. C, 1862, 6 L. C, J. 29 ; Lane vs. Campbell, Q. B. 1863, 8 L, C, J. 68, COM MISS ION KUS* COURT. 32'J II. AlM'LICATIONFOlt-DELAYTO I DKMAND. I 1. A conitnisHion to tiiko pvidonce will not, i be uroiitpil after tlie cxpiriition of tlii' onlirmry delays, iinlosH mitruMciit ri'ivsons arc nivcii to ' fntiNfy tlie jml^e that tlii> |)»rty deiniiniliii); it I is in f^ood faith. Dc.hhhuIm v.s. llii/rfinnntt, ' Q. n. I8fi5, 12 n L.fiOr. ; Harecyvx. 'Phillips, S. C. 1869, It L. C. J. 279. j 2. An a|)|iliuntion for a ('on)iniA!>ion to laUe evidence against tho validity of a power of ; attorney, not attackeil hy any pleading, can- ' not l)e allowcil. Canada Tunning Extract Co. vs. Foley, Q. U. 1875, 20 L. C. J. 180. III. DKLAY TO SlIR OUT TIIK COM- MISSION-3I6 C. C. I'. 1 . The mere orihrr for the is.suing by the de- fendants of a eonuniwsion to lake evidence is gufTicient to prevent the plaintiffs from inscrib- ing their cause for judgment, although the plaintiffs formally notify the defendants in writing to use due diligence, and although an interval of fifteen days has elapsed between tho date of the order and the day named in the inscription for hearing without any attempt being made by the defendant to sue out the eommis»ion no allowed to issue. Tarratt vs. Barber, S. C. 1865, 10 L. C. J. 27. 2. In the absence of the return of a commis. sion to take evidence issued by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be compelled to proceed with his enquite. Mac Farlane vs. Bresler, S . C. 1852, 2 L. C. R. 238, 3 R. J. R. Q. 169. VI. OHANTKI) INCIIAMHERS. In a case of rapian — Uclil, that a (MUMent motion for a commission to examine witnesses in Up|)er Canada would he granted in clmm- l)ers. Mosn vs. Wil^nn, S. C. IHGI'., 14 L. C. II. 20. IV. EXECUTION OF WRIT. Where a commission has been addressed to six commissioners, of whom three have been named by each party, and the writ directs that any two of ihc commissioners may exe- cute the writ, the execution of it by two of the plaintill'a commissioners, without explanation why the others did not join, is sufficient. Tarratt ts. Foley, S. C. 1865, 11 L. C. J. 140. V. FOREIGN— WITNESS. In consequence of the Dominion Act, 31 Vic, oh. 76, a witness may be compelled to give evidence under a commission issued out of a foreign court. Exparte Smith, 8. C. 1872, 16 L. C.J. 140. COMMISSIONER OF RAILWAYS. Cannot be impleaded before the ordinary Tribunals.— The Commissioner of Railways under the Quebec Ruilwiiy Act 1880, being a n)emberof the Executive Council of the Province, represents the sovereign iin- thority, and cannot be impleadeil before the Civil Courts of the Province for an net per- formed by him in tlue discharge of his duties as such commissioner. Mohnn vs, Chnplfnu, S. C. 1883, OL. N. 222. COMMISSIONERS' COURT. I. Jt'lllHDICTION OK. 1-11. II. JlKOMENT, 1-3. III. POWKRS OF Cl.KIlK OF. IV. PROCEDUIIK IN. V. RECU.SAT10.N OF CoMMISSIOSKRS. I. JURISDICTION OF. 1. Art.s. 398 and 1042 Mlxicii'ai. Codi-:.— The Commissioners' Court 1ms no jurisdiciion to hear an action for the recovery of rates imposed by the road inspector for work done. Gauthiir vs. Corporation de Ste. Marthe, S. C. 1892, 2 Que. 432. 2. Nor an action to recover a license im- posed by the Town of St. Henry upon pedlars. L'Abbe\a. Fichaud, S. C, 1893, 4 Qne. 409. 3. Arts. 11«8 and 1189 C. C. P.— Nor an action of damages ex dclictu, Legendre vs. Lemay, K. B. 1820, 2 Rev. de Leg." 337. 4. Nor action for tithes, Roy vs. Bergeron, 2 R. L. 532. 5. Nor in a ca.se for the recovery of £G 5s., sued for as due on a note for a larger amount, without remission of the balance. Exparte v.s. Desparois, S. C. 1859, 7 L. C. J. .35. 6. Art. 1188 C. C. P.— The Commis- sioners' Court has jurisdiction for the recovery of the balai.ce of a sum exceeding $25, pro- vided such balance does not exceed that sum. Bourbeau exp., S. C. 1862, 13 L. C. H. 65. 7. Art. 1187 C. C. P.— The Commis- sioners' Court for the trial of small causes extends to cases against a party sued as an » 1;", r f ■'"vii^j 330 COMMISSIONEKS OF THE PEACE. heir. Exparle Charbonneuu, 8. C. 1863, 7 L. C. J. 122. 8. Held, on certiorari, that in an action before a Commissioners' Court, praying for a condeni nation ofX'65s or for an account of the defendant's gestion as tutor, tiiat a judgment condemning the defendant to pay a sum of money would be quashed. De Montigny exp . , S. C. 185G, G l>. C. R. 484, 5 R. J. R. Q. 149. 9. A Conjinissioners' Court lias jurisdic- tion to bear and determine a cause against an Indian, and to issue a writ of execution upon judgment rendered in such cause; and the fact that goods have been seized which are bv law declared to be exempt from seizure, does not justify the issue of a writ of prohibi- tion to the court from which the execution issued. Chevrier \^. 7'(;)-(7io?iAo!c, Q. B. 1889, M. L. R., 5 y. ii. :!;i. 10. The proper proceding in such circum- stances is an o)>i)osition afm d'annuUer, {lb.) 11. In suits in the Commissioners' Courts till' jurisdiction must be manifest on the face of tliewrit, and, therefore, a summons of a party residing in the village of Acton Vale, to appear before the Commissioners' Court for tlie township ot Acton is bad, unless it appear on the face of the writ or otherwise in the jiro- ceedings that fjc villai»e is within the town- ship. Exparle MacFarlaue, S. C. 1872, 16 L. C. J. 221. II, JUDGMENT OF. 1. When a judgment of a Commissioners' Court hiis been once pronounced, it cannot be altered so as to increase the amount of con- demn<\ti(.n. Maclarlanii vs. Bourgeault, S. C. 1872, Irt L. C. J. 22i. 2. A judgment rendered by a commis- sioner who can neither read nor write is null and illegal, and will be quashed upon certio- rari. Mehche vs. Brnnet, S. C. 1892, .S Que. 128; McCormavk vs. LoiscUe, S. C. 1888, 11 h. N. 413. 3. Art. 1183 C. C. P.— Cause heard be- fore and taken en dclihi'ri by two commis- sioners for trial of small causes, cannot be adjuJ. c " by one of such two commissioners alciit Ktparte Brodeur, S. C. 1857, 2 L. C. J. 97,6 J. H. Q, 400. in. POWER OF CLERK OF.— Art. 1191 C. C. P. Clerks of Commissioners' Courts have no authority under 14 and 15 Vic, cap 18, to receive the necessary affidavit and issue a writ of attachment before judgment. Carpenter exp., S. C. 1864, 4 L. C. R. 319, 4 H. J. R. Q. 174. IV. PROCEDURE IN. -Arts. 1206, 1208, 1214 C. C. P. An opposant 'n a case before the Commis- sioners' Court is not bound to proceed to proof on the return day, but is entitled to have a subsequent day fixed for trial. Lamoureux vs. Luttrell, S. C 1881, 4 L. N. 298. V. RECUSATION OF COMMISSIONERS. Commissioners of Commissioners' Courts may be recused like other judges. A judg- ment rendered by a commissioner personally interested in the suit will be annulled though the ground of recu.sation was not invoked at the trial, liadii/cr exp., S. C. 1881, 4 L. N. 305. COMMISSIONER! FOB THE EREC- TION or PABISHES.-See Chukciiks. COMMISSIONERS FOR ERECTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.— Arts. 1041 and 1715 C. C A contractor for a public building cm maintain an action against the commissioners with whom he contracts to erect it, if they have received from Government the monoy wliich is due him. Larue vs. Crawford, 1819, 2 Rev. dc Leg. 124, Stuart's Rep., p. 141,1 R. J. R. Q. 177. COMMISSIONERS FOR TAKINQ EVIDENCE. Where a commissioner hal been appointed to take evidence in an election case, and ha .jg transferred his claim for fees, etc., for such services, the transferee brought actioii against the parties— //eW, that such trat sfer was legal, and tliat the parlies were jointly and severally liable for the amount. McCord vs. Bellingham, S. C. 1857, 2 L. C. J. 42, 6 R. J.R. Q. 33.3. COMMISSIONERS OF THE FEiiCE. The words "commissioner of the peace" and "justice ot ,e piace" are synonymous. Falconhridge vs. Tourangeau, 1847, 2 Rev. de Leg. 188. COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 331 COMMISSIONS OP INQUIRY. (1) (2) I. Powers of Commissioners. 1-4. II. Proceedi\03 by Mandamus against Commissioners. I. POWERS OF COMMISSIONERS. 1. CommissioneM appointed under Arts. ij'Jfi and ."JOS R. S. Q. to inquire into certain iiiatter^i atf'ecting a corporation, have not a L'ciieral j)Ower to order the production of the stock book of the corporation, but it has first to lie shosvn that the stock Ixxjk contains matter pertinent to the inquiry, and then they only liave the right to the inspection of sucli i)or.ions as mi^ht have reference to the subject matter of their inquiry. In re Arm- slroiKj, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 108." 2. A commission of inquiry issued by the Lieut. -Qovornor-in Council, under section 59G R. S. Q., has the same power to enforce Httendance of witnesses, and to compel them to jiive evidence before it, as is vested in any court of law in civil cases, and has, therefore, •.lie power to punish by fine or imp 'isonment, or both, uny contempt of its authority by any per.son sununoned as a witness refusing to appear, nr to answer questions put to him concerning the matters which are the subject of such inquiry. Turrotte vs. Whelan, Q. B. 1891, M. L. R., 7 Q. B. ^63, reversing S. C, M. L. R., 6 S. C. 289. 3. Even if the commissioners, in the course of the inquiry vvhich they were duly autiior- ized to make, had permitted some irregular or illegal questions to be put to a ."itness, their improper ruling on the subject oould not have authorized the isstie of a writ of prohi- bition, which only applies to cases of want of jurisdiciion, and nut to cases of erroneous judgments, for which other remedies are jirovided. {lb.) 4. \n inquiry into an alleged attempt to inlluence and corrupt members 'f the pro- vincial legislature is a matter connected with the good government of the Province, and the Conduct of the ptiblic business therein, within the meaning of R. S. Q. iM. (lb.) 8, to inquire into tlie conduct of appellant as a justice of the peace, was required by the latter to furnish a detailed statement of the accusation, to allow him the assistance of counsel, to allow him the right to cross- examine the witnesses, and to allow him to produce witnesses on his own behalf, ^>hich demand having been refused, appellant peti- tioned for and obtained a writ of mandamus addressed to respondent as such commissioner, directing him to accede to appellant's demand or show cause to the contrary — Held, confirm- ing the decision of the court below, that respondent was not bound to grant the four things so demapdei 1 — . <. Rights of — Action on Behalf of Company in own Name — Retro- cession of Shares. 9-10. Voting at Meetings. 11. XXX. Shares. Donation of—Formalities. 1. Forjeiture— Siifficiency of No- tice. 2. Forfeiture — Sale oj Forfeited Stock. 3-4. Issue of, at a Discount, 5. Subscription to. Alter Incorpuration — Allot- ineiit. fi. After Incorporation— Director. 7. Before Incorporation — Name in Letters Patent. 810. Before Incorporation — Name not in Letters Patent. 11-17. Compensation of Liability on Shares. 18. Conditional. 19-26. Conditional — Parole Evidence. 27 29. Defects in Organization of Company- 30-34. Di.-iorjfanizution and Insolven- c} of Company. 35 36. EtVect of Truiisl'er on Liability. 37. Erasure on Stock Book — Bur- den of Proof. 38. Forfeiture of Charter. 39-42. Irregularity in Appointment of Directors. 43. Illegal Acts of Directors. 44. Liability not aflected by Fail ure to make Calls. 45. Mandatary. 46. Name of Comi)any changed. 47. Obtained by Fraud. 48-60. Obtained by Misrepresenta- tion. 51-52. Where Capital has not bee* wholly subscribed. 53. Transfer of. 54-69. XXXI. Transfer of Ihuoteables of a CoMPANT. XXXII. Trosth asi) Trustees. 1-2. XXXIII. Ultra Vires Acts. Increase of Capital. 1. Lease of Franchise. 2-3. Reduction of Capital Stock. 4-6. XXXIV. Winding UP. Applicability of 45 Vic. ch. 23 (.D). 1. Applicability of — To Provincial Companies. (Allen »». Hanson.) 2. I Immoveables of Company. 3. Jurisdiction, 4. j Orderfor. 5-6. I Liquidator. Authorization to sue. 7-10. r isqualification. 11. 'ntervention in his own Name, 12-14. Power to make Calls. 15-16. Procedure — Interrogatories. 17 Right of to Sums paid into Court. 18. See also Acquiescence. " Agency. " Banks. " Benefit Societv. " Bii.i.s AND Notes. " Building Societies. " Cluu. " Constitutional Law. " False Aukest. " Mandamus. " Municipal Corporation. " Quo Warranto. " Railway Ccmpanies. " Ratification. " Skrvick. " Taxation. " 'i'Ei.EPiioNK Companies. " Turnpike Trustees. ■ 1^ [•H kii 334 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. I. AGENTS. (See under title "Aoenct.") 1. Contractors as Agents — Appoint- ment of Sub Agents.— See Quebec and Richmond Ry. Co. vs. Quinn, P.C., 1858, 12 Moore P. C. 232. Noted under title " Agency." 2. Liability of Corporation for Acts of — Corporations are tx)und by tlie acts of tlieir agenta in tlie same way and to the same extent as persons are. Ferrie & The Wardens of the Bouse of Industry, Q. B. 1845, 1 Rev. de Leg. 27. 3. Where the charter of a corporation does not provide for the exercise of its powers otherwise than by giving it the right lo make by-laws for the " govortiniont of the institu- tion and of the officers and eervurits be- longing thereto," and no such by-laws are made, the persons wiio are udniilted to have, de facto and by common consent, acted as the governing board of the body will be held to be its duly authorized agents, whose acts, performed within the limits of the char- ter, are binding upon it. IlopUnl du Sacr^- Occur vs. Lefebi-re, S. C. 181)1, 17 Q. L. R. To. 4. Powers of. — Arts. 1704 and 1727 C_ C. — (See " Secketakv — PowKRS OF.") — Action was brought against an insur- ance company for the vahie of advertising ordered by its agent at Queljec. The defen- dants denied all knowledge of the advertising, and all power on the ]ian of the agent to order jt — Held, confirming the judgment ot tlie court below, that under the ciroumstaiice the agent had not exceeded his jiowers, and the company must be held responsible. Commer- cial Union Insurance Compaaij \a. loote, Q. B. 1872, 3 R. C. 10. II. AGREEMENT TO PAY IN .STOCK. Appeal was from a judgment condemning ap])ellant to ])ay respondent the sum of $H)4,^il7.'10, a- commission and for iulviinces' Plaintittand defeiidiuit entered into an agree- ment in 1872 for the purpose of carryiug on the works of the Montreal, Portland anil Boston Riiilwiiy, under which ap|)ellaTit was to make certain advances. Subsequently, by another agreement, plainlitr was authorized to proceed to England to obtain a loan not exceeding !?7')0,- 000, and was authorized to take a commission in Company's bonds of one-fourth of the esti- mated joint profit on the contract. The action was under this .agreement, and judgment went for the amount claimed — Held, that the judg- .tfiit was erroneous in condemning defendant to pay in money instead of in the Company's bonds. Hibbard & Baylis, Q. B. 1879, 2 L. N. 208. III. BOOKS OF CORPORATION. 1. Ilule to produce in Court— Con- tempt of Court for not producing. --The commissioners appointed hy virtue of Articles 596 and 598 R. S. Q. to inquire into the aflairs ofan incorporated company, Lave not the power to order indiscriminately the production of the corporation's books ; they can only order the production of books containing entries concern- ing the matter they are appointed to investi- gate. In re Armstrong, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 408. 2. Before committing a witness for contempt in not producing the books of a cor- poration, such witness should be allowed to show cause wiiy he should not be committed. ab.) 3. — — Commissioners appointed under Art. 590 R.;S. Q. have by virtue of Art. 598 the same powers as courts of lawtocomjjel witnesses to appear and give evidence before them; and can punish for contempt of court by tine or im- prisonment, or both, all witnesses who refuse to appear or answer questions put to them re- lating to the matter under inquiry. Turrntte v,s. IMque, Q. B. 1891, 21 R. L. 4,52. 4. Right of Members to examine— A person proving himself lo have an inter- est ir) the atl'airs of a joint stock company is entitled to a ma ndamus to compel the direc- tors to allow him to have communieaiion of the books. Hibbard vs. Barsalou, S. (.'. 186i5, 1 L. C. L. J. 98. 5. — ■ Where the plaintiti caused a writ of mandamus to issue to conipel the com- pany defendants to allow him, as a sharehold- er, to inspect the register of letters sent and received by the company — Held, that a share- holder had no right to insist upon an inspec- tion of the register of letters when orders to the contrary have been given by the directors. Murphy vs. La Compat/nie de.i Rcmorqueurs duSt. Laurent, C. C. 186G, 16 L.C R. .'iOO. 6. The shareholders and creditors of a joint stock company have a right 'o demand inspection of the minute books of the directors, when it appears by the evidence that said min- ute books may contain certain entries required to be kept in the company's books under 40 Vic, cap. 43, § 36. Anders &. Bagar, S. C. 1883, 6 L. N. 83. 7. Rule against Bank to produce in Court. — In an action atrainst the directors of a bank for having issued false statements wi COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 335 reports, a rule, after much diflSculty, was granted against the bank in its corporate capa- citj for ret'ufing to bring up its booir«m({ facie evidence is not rentlered inetlectual by the mere denial of the defendant, but continues to be operative until some evidence be adduced tending to disprove the facts of which the certificate is ofiiered as evidence. The failure of plaintilfs to answer a plea denying that the proper formalities have been observed in re- spect of such calls, cannot be regarded as an admission ofthe allegations of the plea, under C. C. P. 114. Stadanona Ins. Co. vi. Tnulel, C. R. 1879, (1 Q. h. R. 31, reversing S. C, 5Q. L. U. 133. 2. Debentures accepted inpayment of — Resiliation of Agreement. (Sue also under title "Action — wukre it mat iik BiioUGiiT.") — In an action by liquidators for calls — Held, that ihe company, now represent- ed by the plaintiU', iiaving accepted railway de- i)enture8 in payment of calls, anil disposed of the debentures, the plaintiff could not ask for the reiiiiation of this transaction, especially without oll'ering back what had been received. Ross vs. Angus, S. C. 1883, (> L. N. 292. 3. Foreign Company.— In an actio.) for calls in this province by the receiver of a company incorporated in Ontario, the action will be dismissed in the absence of proof that the calls were made regularly according to the laws of Ontario, and that the directors had the right to make such calls at the time they were demanded. Primeau va. Giles, Q. B. 1887,31 L. C. J. 271. 4. Action for— Formalities for mak- ing. — The enactment of a by-law to regulate the mode in which the calls shall be made is not imperative; where no by-law exists, the calls may be made as prescribed by the direc- tors. Rascony vs. Cotton Manufacturing Co., C. R. 1886, M. L. R, 2 S. C. .381. 6. No call can be made ujwn shares subscribed to a company unless the conditions precedent to such demand have been fulfilled. Massawippi R. R. Co. vs. Walker, S. C. 1871, 3 R. L. 450. 6. Notice of— Proof.— Proof that notices claiming payment of calls were mailed to the shareholders was sufficient evidence that such calls were made, Ross vs. Converse, Q. B. 1883, 27 L. C. J. 14,3, 6 J.. N. 67. 7. On increased Capital— Failure to make Calls.— By sec. 11, 31 Vic, ch. 25 (Que.), it is provided that '■ no by law for increasing or decreasing the capital of the company shall have any force or ellect what- ever until it shall have been sanctioned by a vote of not les-i than two-thirds in amount of the shareholders at a general meeting of the cotnj)any, duly called for considering the same, and afterwards conlirmeil by supple- mentary letters patent." In virtue of the above provisions, on the 9th March, 1875, at a mectinir of the board of directors of the St. John Stone Chinaware Company, a by-law was passed increasing the capital stock of the conjpany by the issue of 250 additional shares, each payable by monthly instalments of ten per cent each. At the general meeting of the stockholders held (in the 8th June, 1875, for the election of directors and other business, the by-law passed by the directors for the increased ca]>ital wa^ conlirmeil. Tliere was no evid- ence as to whether the by-law was .sanctioned by two-tiiirds in amount of the shareholders. There was no day appointed for the payment of the calls, and the Imoks of the company contained no other entry relating to the calls for tlie decrea.sed stock than the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of tlie 9lh March, 1875, and of the general meetini!; ofthe 8tli June, 1875, aforesaid. In an action brought by the assignee of the company again-it W., an original stockholder and director, for calls of 20 shares of new stock, it was held, affirming the judgment of the 336 COMPANY AND CORPOKATION LAW. bri !■ 1 ' ■> I ' i •'■fKf Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, tliat there was no evidence of calla for the payment of (he shares in question liaving been duly made, and therefore W. was not ]iable. Per Fonrnier and Henry, JJ., there was no evidence that the by-law hal been sanctioned by a vote of not less than two-thirds in amount of the shareholders at a general meeting of the company duly called for con- sidering the same, and on that ground also the appeal should be dismissed. Knight vs. Whitfield, Supreme Ct., 1(J Nov., 1885, con- firming Q. B., Cassel's Digest, 2nd edit., p. 187. 8. But held, that shareholders of railway companies, incorporated after the passing of The Railway Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 14 and 15 Vic, ch. 51, are liable to the creditors for an amount equal to the amount unpaid on their stock, and in an action to recover the same it is not necessary to allege that the directors called in all such stock. Cockhurn vs. Starnes, S. C. 1857, 2 L. C. J. 114. VI CEASING TO DO BUSINESS. Rights of Creditors.— Although an in- corporated company has ceased to do business and to elect directors for carrying it on, thft creditors do not cease thereby to have the right to execute their judgments against the company. Hughes vs. Lalonde, C. R. 1889, 18 R. l" 205. VII. DIRECTORS. (1) 1. Election of— Delay— 28 Vic, Ch. 32 (Can-)— Insurance Co.— An election of directors made at a meeting called by a corlain number of shareholders of the defen- dant company, before the expiration of the delay fixed by 28 Vic, ch. 32 (Can.), is irre- gular and void. Williamson vs. Vemers, S. C. 1881,12 11. L. 71. 2. The sale of the Kay stock re- ferred to in the plaintiffs declaration was regular and legal, and was made in good faith, and was also acquiesced in by plaintiffs. Gihnan v.". Robertson, 1884, M. L. R., 1 S. (\ 5. 3- — The defeiulants, Archei', Ostell, Hodgson and Moss, had no need of re-election as directors on the 7tli of February, 1884, (I) Art.4Ti:i K. S.Q., ami'iuli'd by r,?, \w. (Q.),ch. ,37. pioviding for inorfiuju or (lecieiipe of nuinbur of airt'ctoii'. and such re-election did not legally aflect their then status of directors until the annual meeting of the company in 1885. (76.) 4. —^ The remaining directors were all duly and legally elected at the meeting of the company held on the 7tli of February, 1884 ; all the said directors were duly qualified under the charter ci the company. (Ih.) 5. Notice of Meeting — Litis- pendence. — Where an action has been taken to set aside new issue of sliares, an action will at the same time lie to have the election of directors, who owe their position to such issue of shares, declared void. Milot ya. Perreault, C. R. 1886, 12 Q.L. R. 193. 6. An election of directors made at a meeting, of which all the shareholders have not been notified, is void. (lb.) 7. A resolution whereby other direc- tors are named does not exclude from their charge the directors in office, although the meeting had the power so to do, unless their dismissal is declared. (76.) 8. Liability of, for Torts of Company. (See also under title " Master and Servant.") — Held, the directors and shareholders of a joint stock company are not, as a general rule, responsible for the contracts and torts of the company ; to render them so, there must have been some imlividual fault on their part personal to themselves. In the absence of such gross fault, or fraud, there is no lien de droit between the directors of a company and non-shareholders ub regards the public ; the directors occupy merely the position of agents of a disclosed principal, viz., the company. Thdrien vs. Brodie, S. C. 1893, 4 Que. 23. " 9. For false Representations- Damages. — Directors of a company are per.sonally liable for injury caused to third parties by false representations contained in a report of directors to the shareholder.s, but the injury must be immediate, and not th? remote conseipieoce of the representation, and it must appear that the false representa- tion was made with the intent that it should be acted upon by such third persons. Rhodes vs. Sliirnes, S. C. 1878,22 L. C.J. 113, 1 L. N. 314, and see Article 1 L. N., p. 313. 10. — A shareholder cannot claim damages against directors for having been induced to purchase shares by misrepresenta- tion, if ho has continued to hold them without objection long after he had knowledge, or full COMPANY AND COEPOKATION LAW. 337 means of knowledge, of the untruth of the representations on whioli he bought them. 11. For declaring fictitious Div- idend.— The directors of a joint 8t0(:k coni- paiiv are personally liable toward the com- pany, itH shareholders and creditors, for all direct and immediate injury arising to them liy the fault of the directors ; for instance, where tiicy ha''e declared a dividend out of capital without the concurrence of the com- jiany, its shareholders or creditors, and wher. third parties have been indu<'ed to purchase etocli in the comprmy at exaggerated prices, owinjr to the declarution of fictitious dividends by said directors. Banqne d' Kpanjiie ile }Ii>tiir^al\!>. Geihles, S. C.1890, iyR.'L.684, M. L. R., C S. C. 24!!. 12. And, although tlie cre f i-\:\ 9> ■:?» -i; 338 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW, Hi 22. To dismiss Manager.— Direc- tors may disiniHH manager of corn pnny with- out notice wlien the latter is insolent and iDSuhordinate. Dick vs. Cmwda Juic Co., 8. 0. 18bG, :iO L. C. J. 185, 23. Quorum— Where the quorum of di- rectors of a railway company was fixed at tliree, by a special statutory provision, and the company was subsequently amalgamated witli another company, and it was provided by tlie Act of Anialj;amation that the board of directors of ilie amalgamated conipany should net be less than five nor more than seven direc- tors (without expressly ciianging or regulating the quorum), tliut the original provision, mak- ing three directors a qnorun), continued in force. Fuiibaiiks vs. O'llalloran, 1S88, M. L. R., 4Q. B. 103. 24. Resolution of Board of— A resolu- tion of a board of directors to enter into a con- tract with a third party gives no right of ac- tion to such tliii'd party until Ibnniilly com- municated to and accepted by him. Giranl vs. Bank of Toronto, 2 L. N. 40G and 3 L. N. 115, C.ll. 187'J. 25. Sale by, to Company ~ Ratiflca. tion at General Meeting — Vendor's Right to vote as Shareholder.— Ontario case appealed to Privy Council, reversing Su- preme Ct. Northwest Trnnsiwrtation Co. vs. Beatty, 12 App. Cas. 58'J. VIII. DISABILITIES OF. (1) 1. Acquiring Lands Mortmain— Art. 3G6 C. CoDi;.— Action was brought against the Grand Trunk Railway Company to recover the sum of £1852 3s 2d, being amount of hnh ct vcnie.-< and indemnity due by defendants on the acquisition by them of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway, whii^li passed tlimugh the seigniory of the plaintill, together with the in- demnity due to the seignior because the defen- dant was a (orporatioii holding in mortmain— Eeld, that the defendant was a mere trading corporation, incorporated for commercial pur- poses, with perfect freedom of acquisition and alienation of its property, and the fact that its existence and succession was continuous and perpetual did not make it a corporation hold- ing in mortmain, Kierzkow.ild vs. The Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, 4 L. C. .1. 8G and^ L. C. R, 3, S. C. 1857, and 10 L. C. R. Ill >iec. 94 Dominion Ciimpimles' Act R. S.f ,cli 119 replHced l)y 58 ami 59 Vic, cli. 21, re Pow.t8 to liold real estate necessary lor business ami limitation as to holdnig oilier real estate and reversion thereof 47, Q. B. 1859; 6 R. J.R. Q. 93, S. C. ; G R,.I. R. Q. 124, Q. B. 2. Modern civil corporations establish- ed for commercial and trading purposes, as joint stock companies or incorporated bank- ing, juanulacturing or railway companies, (.au- not be considered mortmain corporations, nor do the restrictions )ilai;ed liy law on the latter apply to them. (.lb.) 3. Foreign Corporation.— A corpo- ration cannot acquin^ land without the per- mission of the Crown or authority of the Leg- islature, and, therefore, a foreign corporation, not having such permission or authority, has no right of action by way of damages against the vendor of lands in the Province of Quebec sola to such corporation, by reason of eviction from such lands. Cliaudiere Gold Miniinj Co- vs. Dcsburats, P. C. 1873, 17 L. (", J. 275, L. R., 5 P. C. 277, confirming Q. B., 15 L. C. ,T. 44 anil S. C, 13 L. C J, 132, L R. L. S2. 4. — • The charter granted to a buililiiig society liy the Dominion Parliament is not ultra rire.s. Colonial Building and Invexlmcnt Association vs. Attorney- General, P. C. 1S83, 27 Fi. C. J. 295. 5. The fact that the operations of the company (allowed by the charter over the whole Dominion) have been limited so far to the Province of Quebec did notalfect the val- idity of the charter. (.11.) 6. Under the Dominion charter the up. pellant had a right to deal in real projurty in the Province of Quebec in the absence of any prohibition in the laws of the province to llic doing so. (II'.) 7. Under the issues as raised thr court had no right to pronounce any opinion rogard- iiig the etlect of the laws of the Province of Quebec on such dealings. (Ih.) 8. The provisions of C. U. 3G4-3G(') are general and apply to all corporations without distinction, and therefore a building society incorporated by the Dominion Parliamint to carry on operations throughout the Dominion issubjectto the disabilities imposed by C. C. .'!GG,and cannot acquire immoveable property in the province of Quebec without the permission of the Crown or the authority of the local legislature. (1) Coojjcr vs. u1/c/«rfoc,Q. B. 18S7, 15 R. L. 27G, M. L. R., 7 Q. B. 481, conlirm- ingS.C.,M.L. R., 2 8. C. 388. 9. The defendant being sued for part of the price of an immoveable purchased from (1) Hut SCO Art. 4702 R. S. Q. n» to lands necessary for occupation or prosecution of business only, COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 339 the plaintilT, pleaded that the plaintill' liad ac- i|nirfd the immoveable in question by purchase frutii another without haviriij; the power no to lio, lieiiig a corporation and by Art. 3G6 C. C. iucapuble of ac(iuirin,ii or holding real property ill mortmain without i^pecinl authori/.alion. J'hiintill demurred on the ground of want of interest in defendant to so ]>lead, the purchase liy tjie jilaintifl' being res inter alios acta — Ifeltl, tiiat the incapaeity referred to in Art. .36G WHS not absolute, and the burden was on the defendant to show that it existed in the case in (piesiion, which he had not done. St. Ann'.i Mutual Finildinij Society vs. lirmcn, S. C. 1381,4 1.. N. 1S4. 10. Bequests to— Art:*. 3(;G and S.ia C CoiiK.— The Coile contains no restriction as to bc(|iiests in favour of corporations to be tiicrc- at'ter formed ; and as to the devise, the prohibi- tions contained in Arts. liCd and M^fi C. Code relate to the acquisition of immoveable pro- perty by corporations already formed. A devise liy which property is given, not to trustees with power of jjerpetual succession, but simply to trustees directed to convey to a corporation only in the event of its bein;; lawfully created with permission to possess it, is not within the flciipe of the said articles. (1) Ahhott vs. Fra- srr, V. C. ls-4, 20 L. C. J. 1!)7, 6 H. L. ;iG5. 11. Lapsed Legacy.— And the be. quest of a sum of money for the benefit of a cor])oration not in esse, but in expectancy, is not to be considered a lapseil legacy. Dc.sriv- ii-res &, Jiichanlsoii, Iv, H. ls2ii, Stuart's Rep. 2 is. (VEpargne vs. Gcddes, S. C. 18'J0, M. L. R., 6S. C. 243, 19 R. L. 684. XI. FINE r YABLK UNDER ART. 1025 C. C. P. To whom Payable— Mandamus.— Tiic line which a corporation may be condemned to pay under Article 102.') C. C. P. should be ordered to be paid one half to the Crown and one half to the petitioner. Montreal I', and B. R}j. Co. vs. Hattun, 1885, M.L. R., 1 Q. B. 331, modifying S. C, M. L. R., 1 S. C. 69. IX. DISSOLUTION OF. Appointment of Curator —Judge in Chambers. — A judge in chambers has no ju- risdiction to appiviiit a curator toil dissolved eorDoriition until its dissolution 1 as been judi- cially pronounced in due course of law. lu re Montrcid Patent Guano Covipanij, S. C. Isi74, 1^ I.. C. J. 120. X. DIVIDENDS. A coniiiany cannot declare a dividend based on the augmentation of value of the company's real property, but a dividend may legitimately be declared, based on a reconstruction fund approjiriated from the annual profits, where it appears that the line ami plant of the company were maintaiiied in good order. Banque (1) For argnmeuts of counsel liefore the Court o. Appeal in tlie " Fraser Institute " case, see2Ke\. Crit. yj. XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. J.. Action against— Service— AiiTS. 34, 49, (;4 C.C.P.— Cause of action.— A (!(.ri)ora- tion whose jiriucipal place of business is in a foreign country may be served with process at any jjlace in the Province of Quebec where it bus an ollice for the transaction of (msiness. So, where a foreign corporation liail an office at Montreal, for the saleof sleeping car tickets, and the plaintill', who had bouglit a ticket from the defendants at New York for a sleeping- car berth from that city to Montreal, brought an action of damages, alleging that he had been unlawfully expelled from the sleopin" car. It was held that the service of his action at the ollice of the company in Montreal was a sulHcient service to give the court at Mon- treal jurisdiction. Further, that, although the expulsion took place beyond the provinces line, yet as it continued until the plaintill' reached Montreal (he being forced to ride in a first-class car), the cause of action arose in this province. New I'orlc Central Sleepinr/ Car Co. vs. .'^ novan, Q. B. 1882, M. L. R.", 4 Q. B. 392. 2. Disabilities of.— Where a foreign cor- poration had purchased land in the Province of Quebec without permission of the Crown or Legislature — Held, that the corjioration could mt acquire land without such permission, and having done so it had no action of damai'es against the vendor. Ckaudiiirc Gold Mining Co. vs. Desharats, P. C. 1873, 17 L. C. J. 275, 4 R. L. G4."). 3. Order of Ontario Court. Skc. 84, 85, 11. S. C.Ch. 129.— Under 4,-) Vic. (D), ch. 2,3, sec. 86, t'.ie courts in the Provime of Quebec will enforce an order for the execution of a ludgmcnt, i.ssued from a competent court in Ontario, in like manner as if it had been issued from a court in Quebec. Queen City Redning Co. vs. Calculi, S. C. 1886, M. L. R., 2 S. C. 425, 16 R. L. 43. ■■ Ail -' 340 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. Hi I III 4. Powers of, to carry on Business in Quebac— Questiun whether the Nius;iira Din- Irict Mutuiil Insurance Coinpiinv.orj^ttiiizeil in Ontario, uniler n Williiim IV., liad pnwor to curry on husincss in the Province of Qncboc —Jlelil, that llie conipnny, by suliscqiieiit HtalutCK puNned by the Legitlaturc of tlic late Province of Canmla, oxtcnJeJ tlio powcru of tlie company, and jjiivo them lull authority to transact biiHineHS in Lower Canada. Tlie action brought by plaintiff to annul the policy, and to recover the ca.sh preniiuni i)aid and |)reniiu(n note given, dismissed with costs. Quintal & T/i<' Niaijara District Fire Insur- ance Co., 8. C. \>.) 12. —— llelil,i\w li(iuidato''a|ipoint(l ill the course of the voluntary winding up of a comjiany formed in England under the .(oini Stock Comjianies' Acts Is:(;:i-S8, lui.s no right to the possession of monies of the com]iariy in this province, jjrcviously attached by process under a judgment renilered against it, and an COMPANY AND COKPOKATION LAW. 341 intervenlioM by liiin to qimHli tbe attachnicnt ami oLiaiii hiicIi pi)H,«e»Hion i,s properly , M. L. R., (;Q. B.231. \IV. INCORPORATION AND RKOIS- TRATION. (I) (See " iNTiauKiiKNCH of Attou.vdv Oknkrai,.") 1. Annulling Letters Patent. — The Crown alone has the right of di'uuiuiling that letters patent, granted under tlii great seal of the province, be annulled. Compagnic dr N'ar, Union vs. Rascoinj, S. C. 187G, 20 L. C. J. ;!ot; . 2. For what Purpose Incorporation may be had — Navigation.— A company may be incori)orated by letters patent for the purpose of navigation within the limits of (his province under the Proviticial Statute. Mac- Dou()iiH vs. I'ninn Naoii/ation Compan;/, Q. B. 1877, 21 L. C. J. (i,3. 3. Forfeiture of Charter. — The fact that a railway com])any has not made the ne- cessary (I'posit, nor commenced construction within the three years prescribei! by its char- ter, does not ipso facto extingui--h thi com- pany nor revoke its charter; and at all eventa extinction can only be procured upon special suit by the Attorney-General, l{oi/ vs. Cie. dc Ch. dc /■-!)• (l M. '\ 0., S. C. 1S8S, n Q. L. H. iS',. 4. The appellant company, by its act of incorpDiation, 14 Vic, c',.tjl (D.), was author- ized to carry on business, provided $100,000 of its capital stock were subscrlljed for, and thirty per cent, paid thereon within six months after the passing of the act, and the Attoruey- General of Canada haviuj; been informeil that only $t)0,.')00 had been bond fide subscribed prior to the commencing of the operations of the company, the balance having been sub- scribed for by G. in trust, who sub.so(]uenlly surrendered a portion of it to the company, and that the thirt}' per cent, had imt been truly and in fact paid thereon, sought at the instance of a relator, by proceedings in the Superior Court for Lower Canada, to have the (1) CliiUtiTS liy Letters 1' .lent iiiiiy lie granted, etc. It. S. Q. Art. 4(ilKi, as replnci .1 l.v ."iC Vic, ch. Xi, aec. '.'. Granting of Letters Patent niider Art. 4710 R. S. Q., amended bv ."W \ i'., ih. 37, uniittiug wnrila " In (,'oun- ciL" r.M 342 COMPANY AND CORrORATION LAW. i " • HI company's cliarter Bet aside and declared for- forfeited. Held, tliat the honn fide Bubscription of $100,000 u'itliin nix montliB from the date of the poising of tlie act of incorporation, and tlie paytiient oftlie thirty per cent, tliercon, were conditions precedent to the lej^ul orj^ivni- zation of tlie company, with power to carry on business, and aH these conditions liail not been ^'oiifi fide and in thct complied with within such six months, llie AttorneyGenernl of Canada was ''iititled to liave the ciinii)any's charter declared forfeited. Dominion Salvaije and Wi-fckinij Co. vs. Ally.-Qcneral, Su))reme Ct. 1802,21 ('an.S, C. R. 72. 6. Illegally acting aa Corporation.— Art. 997 (1) C. C. P.-Petiticn under Art. !»!)" C. C. p. (1) to restrain defendants from acting illegally as a corporation under the nninc of the Silver Phinie Miiiin;; Company. Plea that defendants were a private association and never held tliemselves out as o uor()oration to the knowledge of the relator. The proof was that they were regularl^v organized as a company. Tlie capital was set -' wn us a million, divided into 10,000 shares. ■ ;e of the defendants was pre8ith Vic, cap. 47, in a district wlieri it Ims no broncli hou-e or office or jilace of business, but merely sells its goods to or through local agents selling on commission, and therefore is not liable to the penally olSlOO iiiijiosed by said act.-. Armilage vs. ^fallliey MJy. Co., S. C. 1880, 14 R. L. CM. 9. Where an action (/ui tani was tiiUcii against the defendant as one of the sharehold- ers of the Three Rivers Navigation Company for not having registered the company at Montreal in accordance with the provisions oftlie .Statute 12 Vic, ch. 45, and the defendant pleaded by declinatory exception that the company's business was not transacted there — Held, dismissing the action, that the company wa> only bound to register under the said act at the place where their head office was situated. SfUK'cal vs. Chenccert, 4 L. C. J. 2.30, C. C, and (i L.C. J. 4G, aud 12 L. C. R. 145, Q. ii. 18t;0. 10- The production' of a notice and powerof attorney by the agent of a foreign com- pany tiled in the office of the prothonotaiy ill conformity with tlie Federal law is not sufficient for the purpose of the Pnivincial Act (ls7ti), 40 Vic, ch. 15 and (1882) 45 Vic.,cli.47, which requires a declaration to be filed and ffijistered in the office of the prothonotary. Brown vs. Lord, Q. B. 18.^9, 18 R. L. .S8,3. 11. Bailway Company— Penalty. — K. S. Q.,Abt. 4757, 4754. — A railway COMPANY AND COKPOKATION LAW. 343 coinpnriy wliicli linn no purtion of its track williiri the province, iiixl iid pliice of biiHiness tliercin, except tliat of an advertiNin^ and caiiviisfinK agent who does not make any contracts for the conveyance of paaseiigers or j;of)ds, is not liable to the j)enalty enacted by R. S. Q. Art. t7r)7 for oinissiou to register tlie (ieclariitioii required by II. 8. Q. Art. I".')!. Jin tin vs. Northeni I'w.ific Rij. Co., 8. (', 1^1),!, I Que. ;!21. .W. INTBRFKUENCB OF ATTOIINEY- (JH.NKIiAL. (See " Ixcori-okation.") 1. Art. 997 C. C. P. — Petition by liie AUi>rtieyGeiieral, under C. C. P. W', priiyin;.' Iliiit tlie defendants, lor reasons given, should be declared to have forfeited their charter. The case was before the court on the merits of an txception d lajorme made by defeiidiints on the ^^round that the proceedinj^s should have been in tiie naiiu' of the Attorney- {jeneral of the Province of Quebec — Held, that the Attorney-General tor the Pmvinceof (Quebec had a rij;lit to petition, under C. C v. Wi, to have it declared that the Montreal 'l'ele;;raph Company Imd forfeited their charter. Ldrnnijc)' vs, Montreal Telegraph Company, S. C. ins-.', .5 L. N. I2'J. 2. The Attorney-General for the Pro- vince of Quebec can jiroseciite, under Art. !tt)7 C, C. P., a company incorporated under a Dominion charter. Tiircolte vs. Cie. dc- Ch. de Fer Ml. mi Nord-Ouest, S. C. 1889, 17 H. L. ;{|if^, and see Pacaud \f. Jllikal>y,Q. B.\f<''>, 1 Q. L. K. 24."); Roy vs. Cie- du Ch. de Fer Q. .v..) 0.,S. C, It Q. L. 11. r.s. 3. III the case of a Dominion statu- tory charter, proceedinj^s to set it aside were properly taken by the Attorney-General of Canada. Dominion Salcayc .(' Wrecking Co. vs. Attorney-Oeneral, Supreme Ct. 1892, 21 Can. S. C. 11. 72. 4. Such proceedini;s taken by the Attorney-General of Canada, under Arts. 997 etxe.) 5. 'i'he Attorney-General of the Pro- vince of Quebec is the sole dominus of a suit instituted by him in his otticial capacity, whether there be a relator or not. Accordingly, fimandumus will not lie at the instance of a relator to compel liini to continue proceedings under Art. 997 C. C. P., nor need he obtain the leave of the court before discontinuing such proceeilings. A succeeding Attorney- General cannot retract adiscontininkiice by his predecessor. Casiiniin vs. Atlantic A North West lly.Co., P. C. 1894.11 "The Hef)ort»," 449 i [189,>1 A. C. 2H2. Contlrming Q. H. 1892, 2 Que. 305. XVI. LAND AND LOAN CO.MPANY. 1. Powers of.— The Montreal Loan k Mortgage Company can by virtue of its charter (Que. 1875, :19 Vic. cdi. ('.:», sec. 1 I) contract for the lease of iinmovcaliles with promise of sale and delivery without such pro- mise of sale having elfect according to .\rt. 1478 C- C., and it is not necessary that the deed should recite that tiie contract was made under the provision of the said caarter. Mac- doHijall vs. lioy, S. C 1SS7, 15 It. L. 40ti. 2. Purchase of speculative Claim.— \ company incorporated as a land and loan company cannot lawfully purchase or deal in claims of a speculative (diaracter. Land ,{• Loan Co. vs. Fram-, S. C. lrtH9, M. L. K., 5 8. C.392. XVn. LETTERS PATENT-CANCELLA- TION OF. (1) (See " Sharks, SuiiscKip. Tiox TO." ,\nd see " Incoiii'ohation and IIeoistkatiox.") XVIII. LinEL. 1. A corporation is responsible in damages for liliel. Brown vs. The Mayor of Montreal, S. C. 1871, 17 L. C.J. 4G. 2. An action for libel may be brought by one corporation against another corjwration, L'Listitiit Canadien vs. Le Xoureau Monde, 8. C. 187;!, 17 L. C. .I.29G. XIX. MEETINGS. 1. Interference of Court with— In- junction.— An individual shareholder in a railway company is not entitled to an injunction forbidding a special meeting for the purpose of sanctioning a lease of the road to another rail- way company, until a meeting has been called at which the accounts of the company have been submitted, unless fraud by the majority or corrupt influence upon the tniiiority have been proved. Ani/iin vs. The Montreal, Port- land .0 Bc.ston R. W. Co-, S. C. 1879, 23 L. C. J. 101, 2 L. N. 20:i. (1) Granting of letters patent under Art. 4710 K. S. Q., amended by 5S Vic, ch. 37, omitting words "In Council." r 1 ' ' 1 , i ft [■ :'fikr- ' f 344 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 2. The petitioners by agreement witb B., a slmrelioldor holdinj; tlie majority of shares in railroad company, obtained an op- tion to acquire within two years a certain proportion of l?.'s interest, nml in tlie mean- time until such option wasdouiared, B. was to hold his shares as trustee for the petitioners, but lie reserved the right to vote on the shares. B., after obtaining large advances from peti- tioners, became insolvent and Icfl Canada, and petitioners applied for an injiiiictidi, to prevent the annual meeting on the ground that, as they were precli'.ded from voting by the reservation to B., the meeting of shareholders would be controlled by the i. iuority, and they asked that the status quo be jireserved until their option expired — J/cId, tliiit the petitioners had not established a case justifying the inter- ference of the court, and t.ie injunction was dissolved. Stephen vs. Montreal, Vortland Jt Boston Railway, S. C. 1S84, 7 L. N. 85. 3. Bailway Company— Railway Act, 42 Vict. (D), ch 9— Mandamus— Duty of President. — The annual lueeting of the railway company defendant (a company .'sub- ject to the provisions of the Consolidated Rail- way Act, 42 Vict. [Can.],c. 9), did not take place on the day appointed therefor, in coti- Kuquence of an injunction suspending the holding of such meeting. This injunction was subsequently dissolved at the instance of a shareholder (7 L. N. 85) — Held, that ser- vice of notice upon the pre.iiilcnt ami secretary that the injunction had lieen dissolved, to- gether with a copy of the judgment dissolving the injunction, was s.itlieient to put the com- pany en demeure to call the meeting, and a mandamus might issue in the name of a share- holder, under C. C. P. 1022, to conijiel the company to call the meeting. Ilatton vs. Montreal, Portland it Boston By., S. C. 1884, M.L. R., 1 S.C.tUt. Confirmed inajipeal, M. L. R., 1 Q. B. 351. 4. It was the duly of tlie board of directors, as soon es the injunction was dis- solved, to proceed to call the said meeting, in order that the election of directors might be held, as provided by sect. 11) of the Consol- idated Railway Act (42 Vict. [Can.], cap. It.) Ob.) 5. The calling of the annual meeting is 'not a duty sj)ecially appertaining to the office of president, the Railway Act (42 Vict., cap. 9) making it the duty of the " directors " to cause such meeting to be held. {lb.) XX. MEMBERS OF CORPORATION.S. 1. Action of Guarantee egainst.— It is not competent for one set of corporator- who may be sued, in respect of debts du(> liy the corporation of which they are mcinbe:-, as if they were members of a mere eojuirlner- ship, to call in their co-corporalois in :,ii action of guarantee, to indemnify them iignin-t their proportionate share of loss. Howard \ -. Childs, S. C. 1857, 1 L. C. J. 160, 5 R.J. 1{. (». 473. Confirmed in appeal, 12 Oct., IS.'jT.ihr court being equally divided. 2. 'Expulsion of. — At common law. a^-o- ciations liave the right to expel a meudur for legitimate causes. Where a member refuses to submit to tii,- rulings of the president at meetings, and in- terrui>ts the meetings, preventing tlicin from liroceeding with their regular business, un 1 tises language calculated to annoy and irritate the other members present, he can be exjielled from such association- Lapoiute vs. .I.s'.soci'a- tion dcs Commercants Licencies, etc., S. C. 1888, M. L. R.,4S. C. 1. 3. Impleading. — The individual niciiibers of a corporation cannot be impleaded in re- pect of the alTairs of such corporation, ('artier, Attij.Gen., vs. Yule, S. C. 1857, 1 L.C.J. 28!)', fi R. J. R. Q. 91. 4. Liability of.— Where the men.ber- of a corporation have regularly passed a resolu- tion, they cannot be held personally respon- sible therefor, even when such resolution was in contravention of a statute which establi.sheil punishment by fine for such contravention. Audette vs. Duhnmel, S. C. 18GH, 1 R. 1,. 52. 5. Rightci of. — An action will not lie by a member who considers liimselfaggrieved to correct even errors or illegal acts in the gov- ernment and administration of a corporation, until the remedies, by way of appeal to the domestic tribunal of the corjioratioii, ])rovideil by the by-laws or the constitution, have been exhausted. Mclrer vs. Montreal Stock Ex- rhawje, S. C. 1888, M. L. R., 4 S. V. 112. 6. Voting— Quo-warranto.—Th;it members of a corporation or public body are not disqualified from voting at tlic election of it.s officers, although fiiies which are still un- paid may have been imposer'. on such mem- bers under the by-laws of such corporation, if such fines have not been formally pro- nounced, and such tnemliers have not had an opportunity of giving their reasons why such fines should not be paid by them. Ifeffernan vs. Walsh, Q. B, 1886, 33 L. C. J. 46, M, L. R,, COMPANY AND CORrORATIOX LAW. 345 2 Q. B. 482, reversing C. R., 14 R. L. 24H. Apii«al to Supreme Ct. qnnslieii for want of jurisdiction, 14 Can, S. C. R. 73S. 7. That an appeal provided by tlic by- laws of such corporation to a liitriier otVioer of tiie same does not take away tlie jiirifKlicti.iii of llie courts, unless such appeal is expressly ]irovi(leil for in the statute iiicorporivting such society or public body. (//;.) XXI. POWERS OF DOMINION PAR- LIAMENT TO GRANT EXTENDED POWERS TO COMPANY INCORPOR- ATED UNDER LOCAL ACT. Sec discussion in Dominion Parliament "ti this subject reported C Legal News I'itj. XXIL PROMOTERS. 1. Liability of— Incorporation under R. S. O., ch. 172.— Partnership.— Six persons, the plaintitl' and defeiidmit being among the number, signed a declaration under Revised Statutes of Ontario, chap. IT2, and became incorporated under the name of the Home Benefit Life Association, and thereupon the association incurred certain liabilities in connection with its ail'airs, but the proposed busines.s was not proceeded with, it being beyond the provisions of the statute under which the association was incorporatcil. Judgment being subsequently obtained against the plaintift' and his associates as partners, for a debt of the association, he paid the same, and now sued the defendant in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec for half of the amotint, alleging the above facts, and that the other members were insolvent and un- able to contribute — Held, the nriicles of the asi-ociaticn did not make the corporators liable as partners ; llicie was no indiviiiual respon- sibility for the debts of the as.sociation, which, though unable to carry out the conicin])lated object, still exists as a corporate body, and the defendant iiever having become personally responsible for the payment ot the debts the action could not be maintained. Ellis vs. Drummoml, S. C. 189.!, 4 Que. 173. 2. Solicitor's Pees.— A. was employed, through the instrumentality of W., by divers persons who had signed a petition for the purpose of obtaining letters patent for the in- corporation of a company. Tiie parties faileil to pay for the services of A., who issued an action to recover the amount— //cW, con- firming the judgment of the Superior Court, that the parties signing the petiticm were bene- tiled by the fcervices of ])laiiitifl, and were liable for the value of such services. (I) Atwaier vs. Importers and Tnclirs Co., C. R. 188(J, ;U L. C. J.iVi. 3. Provisional Directors— Where persons allow their names t i' sed as pro- visional directors of a pr. ,.', I ■ mpaiiy for the purpose of obtainiiit, a clu' ■ for such company, and who sign pt :ion^ t<. that etlect, such persons are liable for in, lees i>l' the attorney whose services hav>> been retained by the promoter of such 'ompany. Aiii/rr vs. C'orneilUer, Q. B. lt<',)2, 2 Q ■'. 29:i. 4. Obligations contracted on behalfof Corporation— Repudiation.— The party who Contracts obligations on bihalf of a company not at the time incorporated, but wliich it is proposed to incorporate, is per- sonally liable firi the execution of .such obliga- tion if the company after its incorporation repudiates it. Irivin vs. Li'j^saril, Q. 13. 1889, 17 R. L. 089. 5. Who are.- (i^ee article 2 I,egal News, 2G5.) XXIII. QUASI-CONTRACTS WITH. A corporation can come under a liability by a quasi-contract n\ (he same manner as an ordinary person, and therefore ■• municipal corporation which avails itself of, and is bene- fited by, services rendered in procuring its act of incorporation is lial)le for such service. (2) DeBclhfeuilk vs. MunkipalHy of Mile End, S. C. 1880,4 L. N. 42, 25 L. C. J. 18. XXIV. RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS. 1. Acquiring Immoveables.— A body corporate empowered by its charter to acquire property, " for the use and objects of its incorporation," is not limited in mtiking a purchiise of an in\moveable b}' the uattire of the latter or the use wliich has hitherto been made cf it, and it is sudicient that sucli immo- veable \» susceptible of yielding revenue or value applicable to the use and objects of the incorporatioi\ to bring the purchase within the charter power. Hopital du Sarrr Caur vs. Lefebrre, S. C. 1891, 17 Q. L. R. ;-;5. 2. Actions by.— The Superioress of the Hold Dial cannot in her own name solely, sue on behalf of the community. L'Hv/d Dieu v.s. Dmi'chavd, K. B. 1816, 2 Rev. de Leg. 27(1. (1) See He liellel'ouille vs. MiuiiMiKilitj ol MiloEiul, S. C. ISisn, 4 1.. N 4'i, 'i') r.. f. •!. !.'<. (.a) See articlo on lUis suliject, J2Thoinisll»3. 1 !- i •:"; i-iU'j ' li .: :.i: il i, I, ill A II I \i! 346 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 3. Exercise of Powers. — The jwwers of a coi'i)orntioii created by an act of the legis- lature, and tlie mode of exercising them, are only to be fonnd in or deduced from such act, or in and froni the general rules of law appli- cable to all corporations. So, where it is not 60 provided in the act incorporating a religious liody, the approval of the bishop of the de- nomination to which it belongs is not required to make its acts lawful. hopUal du Satr^- Caiir vs. Lcfehrre, S. C. 18SU, 17 Q. L. R. .35. 4. Powers of.— In an action by a church committer entrusted witii the management of the teiii|;oralitie8 of the churcli against the defeiidaiils as trustees under the will of the Rev. James Somerville, requiring the latter to account for the execution of a trust in Anil see A'/smi/iV vs. MuiiiiUiji.'t (.'an. .S. C. It. 417. Tlie iiliovi! principle liax nlsi> hecn allinncil l>y tile Privy (Joinicil in llmnitip irilorliiliiijii v.s. .Miirrnii, !,"> -Viip. CiiH. 414, wliicli eoiitlrnu'd ilie {iiil);iiiciit i>r the Q. 1$. in tlii.s respect. Sec 15 Api . Cas. 4J5 himI 4is. (•-') "This question was ruiscd on a )vr/»<'7c .iiv7<, but the petition illil not briiiK iippdlants witliin llie icniis of Art. ,")il."> C C. 1'. Strictly speiikiii);. Ilicrc- fore. the petition was not (lisniisseil on tlic merits. ' Itanisay's Dig., p. lOii. COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. 349 14. The appellant pigned an (iijiU'ilaking to take ftock in a company to lie i)iLMr|iorute(Hiy letters patent under Q. 31 Vict., c. J.i, but was not a petitioner for the letters piuiiit, nor was his name included in the lift of intending .shareholders in the schedule sent 111 tlic Provinria' Secretary with the petition. The appellant's name was not mentioned in the letters patent incorporating the comjiany, nor (lid he become a shaieholder at any time after it? incorporation. Ill hi (reversing (he judgment of the S. C, Cro^s J., dissenting), Ist. That the appellant IK VI r became a shareholder of the comjiany, aiiil Cduld not be held for calls on stock. 2nd. T/ii Vnion Navigation Co.d: Couillard, svpra Ko. 1 1, and Itasromj und the same Co., supra No. 12, followed und approved. McDoiujall d id. and the .sv/wic Co., .mjn-o No. l.'i, distin- guisiied. .'Jrd. (Per Tessier J.) That a sub- scription to stock Id a company to be incorpor- all d is a mere proposition and not a binding promise to take and pay. 4th. (Per Ramsay J.) Tli;it under the terms of the Statute 31 Vict., Q., caj). 25, flie only persons who are share- holders in u company incorporated thereunder iire those named in the letters patent as such and those who become members utter incor. poration. Arle.ss vs. Belmont Manufacturimj 6V-., 1885, M. J.. U., 1 Q. B. 340, 2!) L. C. .1. 204. 15. Contra.— A stock subscrip- tion to a company to be incorporated is binding on tlie subscriber, notwithstanding that the Act of Incorjx)ration subsequently obtained by )iersons other than the subscriber declares tlmt the cori)oration shall consist of the per- sons named in the Act (of whom the subscriber is not one) and of such j)erson8 as should thereafter subscribe for shares in said corpora- tion, and notwithstanding that the ])erson so suliscribing never renewed his subscription ami never took part in any way in the affaivs ol -aid corjxiration. (1) Wind.sor llotel Co. vs. Dute,i>. C. 1881, 27 L. C. J. 7. 16. U. signed a subscription list for a i;oin|)any which it was proposed to form, and which subseiiuently obtained letters ]]alint. For some reason, which was not shouii, ll.'s name was not inserted in the letters patent, and there was nothing to show that he aflerward.s made any application for nicnibcrship in or hud any connection with iii,iiiiio>til, S, 0. 1810, -1 Quo. 473, siijira p. ,'itu. the company. H., a creditor of the company, against which he obtained judgment, having first discussed tiie property of the company, brought an action against R. for an amount as for unpaid calls on shares — Held, confirming the judgment of the court below, that It. was not liable, as he had never been a member of the company, and that the circumstances which led to his withdrawing his name from the subscription list could bo proved by verbal testimony. Darling vs. Rielle, 32 h. C. .1. 28, Q. u. isse. 17. P. signed a sub.scription list, undertaking to take shares in the capital stock of a company, to be incorporated by letters patent under 31 Vict., chap. 25 (P. Q.), but his name did not appear in the notice applying for letters patent, nor as one of the original corporators in the lettens patent incor- porating the coinjiaDy. The directors never allotted shares to D., as required by 31 Vict., chap. 25, sec. 25, and he never subsecpientjy acknowledged any liability to the company. In an action brought by the company against 1). for calls due on the com[iany'.s stock — Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Uencli (12 Q. L. U. 200), that P. could not be held liable for calls on stock. Magog Textile and Printing Co. vs. J'rice, Supreme a. 1887, 14 Can. S. C. R. 6G4, 10 L. N. .331, Q. B. 1886, 12 Q. L. R. 200; Magog Te.tiile and Printing Co. vs. Dobell, Supreme Ct. 1887, 14 Cun. S. C. R. 6G4, Q. B. 1881), 12 Q. L. R. 204, 14 R. L. 600. 18. Compensation of Liability on Shares. — A sharehc.lde; w. an insolvent rail- way company cannot avoid his liability to a judgment creditor of the company for the amount due on his uniiaid stock, by claiming to compensate the same with a tlebt due him by the company where no calls on the unpaid stock have been made by the company. Kijhuid vs. Delisle, P. C. 1809, 14 L. C. .1. 12, reversing Q. B., 12 L. C. J. 29. 19. Conditional. — The defendani subfcribed for stock in a company about to be formed, and received a letter from the secretary stating that U\< stock wa^ taken on the same condition as that subscribed by three jier.*ons who^e names preceded his on the book, and who had appended the condition to their subscription that the company was to be a hydraulic company. Tlie defendant did not append such condilioii. 1 iic hydraulic com|iany was not formed out a cotton mill company only — Held, that tiie defendant m i 11 H' ' ' liln if R;,;. \:>r:' \ [in i. 'i; Mi;. : Y'J- ! ri \ \ i :* ; .^i 350 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. m having signeiJ tlie book unconditionally was not entitled to be relieved from liability for calls. Junes vs. The Montreal Cotton Co., Q. B. 1878, 1 L. N. 450, find 21 L. C. J. 108. 20. The plainlitfri, a railway company, sued for $1,000, tlie amount of ten shareH subscribed by the defendant in a small book opened by the secretary- of the company, as a special sub'cription list, by which the defendant agreed to pay for the ten fhares when the railway in question ran to West Farnhani, and on condition that it was con- structed to Granby, " or within three-quarters of a mile from my tannery" — Held, tiiat although the railway in question did not run to within three-quarters of a mile of deti'nd- ant's tannery, that as it ran near to it, the con- dition was substantially fulfilled, and that the defendant was liable to i)ay for the said shares, and that, without regular calls having been made therefor, the subscription being a special one. Stansicad, Shcfford and Cham- hly liailway Co. vs. Brigham, S. C. 1866, 17 L. C. R. 5 1. 21. Subscription for stock in a railway company may be conditional, and in siich case the nun-fulfilment of the condition will operate as a bar to any right of action for calls on stock. Rod(jers vs. Laurin, Q. B. 18G:!, i:! L. C. J. 175. 22- — An agreement between a promoter of a company and a subscriber for shares, that the latter shall pay for his stock in services, will not bind the cotupany. Na- tional 7».s-. Co. vs. Ration, Q. B. 1879, 24 L. C. J. 26. 23. — — — — Even if the shares of those who subscribed before the respondent were re- duced, without his knowledge, after he s\ib- scribed, yet if he, after obtaining knowledge of that fact, did not immediately repudiate his stock, but, on the contrary, paid a first instal- ment thereon, and took an active part, both as solictor and shareholder, in promoting the affairs of the company, he will he liable lo pay the calls on the stuck helcl by him as they are made by the directors. (Ih.) 24. The plaintitr, an American railway company, were induced to extend their railway to the Canadian line on the con- dition that those in the neighborhood of the line would subscribe a certain amount of the money necessary to do so. The defen- dants subscribed for two shares on the follow- ing condition: " If I obtain my money from the St. Lawrence road." Subsequently the defendant refused to pay the instalment or call upon his share-", and to an action bv tliu company pleaded that the money had been subscribed on the understanding that the tn-. minus of the road was to be fixed at Derby Line Village, whereas it was fi.xed, contrarv to the wishes of the defendant, at Walker Place, which was some distance o^—IIeld, confirm- ing the judgment of the Sujjerior Court and reversing that of Court of Review, ihut lim company were not bound to fix the lerininns of the road at the place indicated by the.lef( n- dant, but were at liberty to select as it- t.r- minus any convenient place on the bunn- (lary line, and that defendant could no; be relieved from his obligation under such con- tract in consequence thereof. Connwlinit ,f; Fassiimpsic Ricir lii). Co. vs. Com.stork, Q. B. 1870, 1 R. L. 58'J. 25. — — The Dominion Salvage- ('..n)- pany coiiH only organize conformably with the provisions of its charter Subscriptions to the capital stock of the company are presniupd to be made under the guarantei that tlie cuin- pany will be organized on the lii.-"s laid down in Its charter. Brown vs. Dominion Salni,/,; C'o.,Q. B. 1891, 20 R. L. 557. (An appeal from this decision to the Supreme Conn was quashed for want of jurisdiction. 20 Can. 8. (.'. R. 203. Afterwards jiroceedings against tiiis company were taken by the Attorney (lemriil and the charter ileclared forfeited for iion •com- pliance with conditions precedent to the ligal organization of the company. 21 Can. S. C. R. 72.) 26. Severed condition.— lies pondeiit, to an action fur calls on the shares subscribed by him in the company appellant, pleaded that he had subscribed the sharns only on the solicitation of the compiinv'-^ agent, and on his express promise that he would never be called upon to pay— Held, re- versing the judgment of the court below, and without deciding as to the legality of the plea, that the respondent had not proved his alleL'a- tions, and on the contrary that the production by the company of the secretary's ceriifieale that respondent held so many shines was sufiicient proof of his liability to support the action. (1) Stadacona Insurance Co. ic Ci- hana, Q. B. 1882, 2 Doriun's Rep. 380. 27. Conditional.— Parole Evi. dence.— The plaintift in warranty alleged that the defendants in warranty, who were directors (1) See Bnrncil's Itaiikiitg Co. vs. Heynolds, 40 (^ Fi. Upper Can. Keports 435, ami Supreme Ct., C'ass.'l's Dig., 211(1 Kdit., 17(>-f7J. COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. ]51 of tlie company plaintiff, Lad induced him to subHcribe tlie stock on an express guarantee that iliey sliould taiie inercbandise in pay- ment— i/l'Za, that the guarantee, wliich was a formal guarantee, could not be proved by parole. Compctf/nie de Navigation Union vs. Chrislin iD Val'ois, S. C. 1878, 2 L. N. 27. 28. And held in appeal, con- firming the judgment, that in such cases the admission of the defendants on interrogatories could not be divided so as lo obtain a com- mencement of proof in writing; sufficient to admit parole evidence, lb., o L. N. 59, Q. B. 1880. 29. Parole evidence is not ad- missible to prove that a subscription of stock was conditional, when the writini^ contains on the face of it an absolute promise Wilson vs. Socii^te dc Consiriirlion de Soulanyes, S. C. 1880, 3 !•. N. 79 ; and see National Insurance Co. vs. Chevrier, S. C. 1878, 1 L. N. 591 i Dirk vs. Canada Jute Co-, S. C. 188G, 30 L. C. J. at p. 188; Banqac d'llochelnga vs. Gurlh, S. C. 188ti, M. L. R., 2 S. (J. 202; JoHi'S vs. Montreal Cotton Co., Q. B. IS78, 21 L. C. J. at p. 110. But the case of Ban- que e re- ferred to by the garnishee was united witli the present case, and by the judgment ren- dered in the case the action of the company against the garnishee was dismissed, on the ground that the company had no direc'tors, had held no meeting, and had given no authority to sue (so /(«/ti in Company die Cap Gibraltar vs. Lalonde, S. C. 1889, .M. L. R., 5, S. C. 127), h\\l~Held, that the garnishee was a debtor to the company, and condemned iiim to pay the plaintilt the amount found to be due the said company. That the de- fendants were a corporate body which had never been dissolved, and the (|uestion as to whether they had or had not carried out their charter, so far as to enable them to authorize j suits at law to be brought, could not be iu- i vokod to discharge the garnishee from liability t.'i \r>9 COMPANY AND CORPORATION" LAW. .ii as a slmreliolder of tlii' Baid coinpany. Tl.at wlietliertlic company was iiire}|ulai' operation, or wlietliiT it was insolvent or not, the debts due by said company to \U creditors still re- mained exigible by such creditors if they hold jndjrnients ajjainst said company, lluahes vs. The Cape Gihrallar Villa Co., C. U. 188'J, 34 L. C. J. 21, confirming S. C. ISSII, M. 1.. K., 5 S. C. 129. 36. Disorganization and Insol- vency of Company.— Action by Com- pany. — AlthongU an incorporated company which has become completely disorganized and insolvent always retains its legal existence so long as it is not extinct, yet it cannot take an action to recover from shareholders the balance due on their subscriptions to stock, imless it has been duly and previously au- thorized to do eo. Compdc/nie du Cup Gil- hruUiir vs. Lalomk, S. C. IsfeO, M. L. U., 5 S. C. 127. 36. Hut in an action a^'ainst a shareholder for the amount of his unpaid shares in a joint stock company — Held, on proof that the officers and directors of the company hail resigned ami had not been re- pl'iced, that, notwithstanding Q. 31 Vic, cap. 2j, sec. 20, tiie court would order the company to proceed to the election of new officers or of a curator a<;cording to 371 C. C, and produce acte thereof before proceeding witii the case in question. Costs reserved. CompagniK d'In- xiriimcnts A. B., Cassel's Dig., 2nd Edit., p. 187. 46. Mandatary.— Under Art. 1710 C. C. a mandatary who subscribes stock in a coujpany in his own name is liable to credit- ors of the comi)any us a sharehohler, without prejudice to the creditors' ri^'hts against the mandator al-o, Mohon's Hanks s. .'Stoddard, S. C. 1>^'J0, M. L. K., G S. C. 18. 47. Name of Company changed. — In an action for unpaid calls where the delVndaiit denied tliat he had subscriL'''d for stock, and in the subscription book produced, the word" Windsor " had been substituted for that of "Royal" (in the Uesigiialion of the Conipiiny), the action could not be inaintaiiu'd ill the absence of evidence that the change of name had been nutde before the defendant subscribed. Windsor Hotel Co. vs. Lafram- boLsc, C. R. 1h78, 22 L. C. J. 144, confirming S. C. IS77, 1 L. N. 03. 48. Obtained by Fraud and Sur- prise.— Art. 991 AND 1,000 C. C— Subscrip- lioMs of Stock obtained by surprise, frauii and false statements of the atlairs of the com- pany nuide by its olliocrs and directors are mill, and produce no obligation, and thesha'-e- holders thus deceived may even recover what they have paiti on their shares. Glen Brick Gimpan;/ vs . Shackell and Shackell vs. The Gkii Brick Company and Welsh vs. The Glen Brick Company, S. C. 1870, 1 K. C. 121, 2 U. L. G2.J. 49. Ratification.— But where the jiurchaser of shares who claims he was deceived as to their value ratifies the contract by acting as shareholder of the comjiany, he cannot plead fraud in action against him by the company for the value of the shares. Montplaisir vs. Bantpie Villi' Marie, i-i- \i. 1889,18 11. L. 15:i,.33 L. C. J.;!17. 60. The .Stadacona Insurance Company, incorjiorated in 1S7I, employed local agents to obtain subscriptions for stock in the district of Quebec, such local agents to re- ceive a commission on shares subscribed. At the solicitation of one nf these local agents, F. X. C, intenilini; to subscribe for five paid- up shares, paid $5(10 and signed his name to the subscription book, the columns for the amount of the subscription and the number of shares being at the time left in bhiidf. 'i hese columns were afterwards, in the jiresence of appellant, filled in with the iiuml)i'r of shares (50 shares) by the agent of the company, without K. X. C.'s consent. Having discovered his position, one of appellant's brothers, who had also subscribed in the same way, went next tlay to Quebec and endeavored, but inef- fectually, to induce the company to relieve them from the larger liability. At theeod of the year 1875, the compiiny declared a dividend of 10 per cent, on the jiaid-up capital, and the plaintiff recei\ed a cheipie for $50, for wliich lie gave a receipt. In the following yeir the company sutlered heavy losses, and, '.otwith- standing F. X. C.'s lej eated endeavors to be relieved from the lari;er liability, brought an action against him to recover the ;!id, 4th, 5th and 0th calls of five i)er cent, on fifty shares of $100 each, alleged to have been subscribed by F. X. C. in the capital stock of the company. —Held (Sir \V. J. Ritchie, C.J., duhitanlc), reversing the judgment of the Court below (10 R. h. 289), that the evidence showed the appellant never entered into a contract to take 50 shares, that this receijit given for a dividend of 10 per cent, on the amount actually paid was not an admission of his liability for the larger aiuount, and he therefore was not estopped from sliowing that he was never in fact holder of fifty shares in the capital stock of the company. (1) Cotii vs. Studacona Insurance Co., Supreme Ct. 1881,0 Can. S. C. Ii. 194, reversing Q. B., 10 R. L. 289,0 Q. L. R. 147. 51. Obtained by Misrepresenta- tion. — In an action against a shareholder of a company for calls due on two shares, it is no defence for the shareholder to plead that he was induced to subscribe to the shares by false representation, it having been repre- (1) Soe remarks on this decision Itiunsay's Dig,, pp. lOU, 107. li»K|!!' II' !i! ! ■ 1 23 'i'l V,f l 3.14 COMPANY AND CUlirOllATION LAW. H V sented to liini tliat llir capital ali'ea'ly .sub- scribp.l tu \va- bon't fiik, wheiiiH kucIi sub ecriplions were rcallv liotilious ami fjiimilatt'il, anil dial llic ilircctor.s liaiiiii(i;/nif 'li: Nin'i'il'di"" I'lu'oii VH, Jlancoiii/, S. C. [i'i>, 20 L. ('. J- 30i;. 52. Parolo Evidence —Anion for tiiriT calls ..r 10 p.c. caclicii ,*l,0(iii aortli of Htorl< siihsiiritit'il liv liefi'iiilaiit. 'riiejik'a wii^ that tlic (Ifrt'ii.JiinlN si;.'ti:i' •'■{' iiad ln'cn <;ot iiy iinpi'oprr rcpi'i'scnlatioi. tlif aj^fiit uf iIr' eoiiipaiiy, ami dial li'" \».i- mil lu'iil liy Ip" .-uli-L'i'ipiioii — Held, inai xcrbal icsiiinoiiy of wlial die ajri'iit r'niil al lli.' time of the snli- Pcriplioii coiiM not \<" ici'civtMl tu vary the wriltcii (■oiisi'iii of Ihr jiarlv. Xnlinintl Ins. Co. vs. Clnnic.i; S.C. I8TS, 1 L. \, ,V,)I. 53. Where Capital has not been wholly subscribe 1.— The tact thai the capital sIojU of acompaiiy has not heeii wiiolly stibscrilic I, is not a dufonco In an action liy the company against a shanhuMer for calls on .shares sniiscrili.'il for by him. Jiiixcoin/ vs. Cotton Mf,/. Co., C. H. l>s,;, M. L. U., 2 .<, ('. 381. 54. Transfer of (1)— A.rt. 1022 C. P. C. — Mandaiu us. — Where a petinon foi a man- iliiiniis \v. IS ih'nian It'll a;fainst a railway oni- l)any to compel it to make the necessaiT entries in their biok of tiie sale to the petitioner of ii niimlier of sliiuvs in the capital stock of tlie company— //r/'/, to In' die duly of a clerk or Hc.ietary to enle" the nann'.s and ]ilaces of resi- ileiiji' of the owni'i's of stock in the company, and that the Superior C mrt had jurisdiction to iMif iroc sirdi duly iin It 12 Vic, cap. II. McD'iift! I V-. .\f,nlr.ul a'll .Vrm I'ork Hail irii/ (', ,ni en/.^.t'A-iy,, (! N. C. li. 2:i2, .J K.J. R. Q.sii. 55. Agroemoat to— Refusal of Company - Kffoct of.— I'he respondent ajrreed wn., plaininr. appellant, tojiay him SM)0 cvsh and to Iraisfer him certain shares which he held in the stock of the Montreal Railway and Xew-papt^r Aiherti.sing Com- ])any, on which S.5.> per share had been paid iiud ,■?(") remained I i lie |)ai.l. 'J'he company, however, refused to acce|)t the plaiutill' as a (1) As t') sijj'iiillo.itiuii of triuisl.T of shares, se.' 157^ C. U. Art. transferee, and the respondent wrote hmi to thatelleel. Infoniiiii;^ him he would be nnalilo to carry ./iil the ajireement. The pianlitl then took action for paid up nhareH or dieir cipiivalent ill cash — //e/(/, that he was o:ilv entitled to the shares u.s they stood, and, as the company refused to transfer, the a),'rei'- iiieiil was ut an end. VlhUn vs. Weaver, <}. li. i8>io,:i I.. N. Ill . 68. Liability of Tmnsforee. — T. i aa action \'or calls tlic defen iani pleaded u va- riety of pleas, /, '.,• rt//(A, that the enmpaiiv was insolvent at llie time the sha ts \m.io Iranslerred to him, thai the Iran-fer li id i.;i n obtained by fraii I, Ilia' the lomp.inv wm ' illej;ally in lorporaled, etc. I'Mdencr lliat de- fendant fully Ulid i.lood the |,ositiijii ol iKl' Company wlien he a'cepl"ii ih- lraiis|',.r. I'iea dismissel an 1 iiil;.'ment f.n amount claimed. Colnn'ml /Inildini) Assi.ciatioa vs. Flclr/>,;;ti. C l-Sl, I h. N.'lJTI. 57. .Soiii'ii';, that a par/haser, sub- . ipiently to incorporation, of shares siibscril.'d prior to incorp tralion, and who has paid a rail alter his purchase, is I'si .p|ied from conle ac- centing die irausler, and as m this ca-e tiie appellani iiad n it accepted ib'i traiist'ei' on the coiii'iany's bjoks, but the shares hi I been traii ried to another parl\ who li.il accepted die transfer, the appellant ci.iuld conipL'l the eohipany to transfer said shues in its books, especially as it ^vas proved n.al the transferor had no other shares to traiisler than iho-e whose transfer was already ma k to and iieeepte.l by the other party, llmi \-. Moiitri 1' Maiiiilaoturinij Co., Q. li. Miiiitie.il, mil Dec, H2S. 59. EffJCt of— Where a sliareholdei transfers slock, not fully paid, to a solvent parly, all die oalls then due beinj; jiaid, and the Iran^terhas been aci|uiesced in by the company, the ori^iinal stockholder cannol cum 10 1 CUMPANV ANI> CORPOEATIOX TAW. 353 Hf(' iwnnls lie callcil upon to make jjoud lliP rcniaiiiiiij: culls. Jloss v-, Ihiiilmull, Q. B., QiK lie. Till Miiy, 18«8. .\.\M. TitANSl'Kl! OF I.MMO VKAULKS OF. Tlic |iiii( ipal sliau'lioliitTf of a company caiiiiol iiKliviiiiiiilly traii^lVr an iiiUMovealjh' lifl(iii,i;iii;; tlicKtii; MK'li tiaiixfcr can only Ijc iiiadi' I'y llic (onipany. McNniiijIitun \ ■^. A.t- vliitii.n' \al. lUiiik, llicr place, and cii'j.'iini •■ij lliciriMUcs loi' olijccl.- >iinilui' lo tli(j>c of llu' oii^riiiiil a.-x'cial.un, Iml taUini; a (iillnnl iiumc. Tin- 1 1 usttH fi of nioni;\ - liclunyiii.' to tlic oil! a-.suciiii,"n were amonj; tin- nuinlier. Ill an action, liruu;:lit in the name of the oil a.-Mi('iiilioii,callini,'on I lie lni^(ee> to account — 77(7./ (Kmiiimiv ,1 . (//,s'.), that llie inemlKro of llie ne« iis-nciatiuii, a;tliougli lliry had cliaii;:e>2, 1\} I,. C. J. 170, 7 App. Cas. 1,!G. XXXIII. LLTKA VIUKS ACTS. 1. Increase of Capital.— The directors of an iiicorporatui company, e\. u where the act of iiicoriioratum authorizes an increase (.>f the caiiiui,, h::ve not the right to order .-iich in- ereu>e iiiu I..- proved, as in the present case, that (lie roiiipany',.. hridge is in good order and Lii^ iio need of repairs, if there he sulHcient funds on hand, all debts paid, and if iJuch iiicria-^e !'e ordered simply to secure to the direcn.r- the cunti.d of the adairs of theconi- paiiy. Innauli v~. ^filot, Q. li. 1886, 12 Q L. U. -.i^, It K. L. 417. ] 2. LeaHc of Franchise— or Lease and Hire of Work.— An af;ieement liHWidi the I Montreal Telc'raph Co. and the Oreat Notth- I western wii^ suhslanlially as follows i-l'lie former company a;_'reed with the latter to lease all its lines to it for the term of '.'7 year-. The Great Norlhwe-lern Company to manage, administer and work iho liin^s and to pay to the .M.'Utreal Company ne mho of Sl'i-">iO'lU' per annum n ipiarlei ly paynienls. The .Mohireal C'.mpaiiy reserved its ollices anhould not he alicred hy the Great Northwestern, hut the latter iiii,L'lit ie( lesl the Montreal Company to alter the I. ill-, and I he .Monlrtal Company would ha\' In alier (liem — Held, that the Montreal Tele;iraph Coin|niiy had siillieient liiiwer under its i harler to make and carry out -uth an aL'reemenl. ( l)iiriiin, CI., and Ham- say,.!., ilisuciilhhi ) Moiifreal Tilei/i(ip/i C7, reversing s. C. 'ir, L. c. .t.:\:v>. 3. When a >iii<;l paid lip. In February, 1.^77, the directoi's made a sulisequent call of lo p. c., hut the company heinj; in ditlicultii -, it was ie,o|vi.,J to apply to Parliament for an act to n luce '; their capital Slock to s^250,O00. AsiIikwouM take some time, a resolution was passed thm any -hareholder having' already paid 10 p. e. upon his stock should have the opiion of |)a\ - inj; 15 p. c. more, and miirhi then iranst'er the stock for which he had subscribed lo the inanaL'in;: director, who would transfer to the stockhcdder one fourth of theaniouiit of stocic, the same being fully paid up. Money was raised suflicient to pay up a certain amount of stock, which was ])laced in the hands of the managing director for this purpose, and near- ly one half of the capital stock of the company i M J I th-Tf; 356 COMPANY AND CORPORATION LAW. HUM rodiicpil in coiiseqiit'nce. 'I'lie pliiinlills wen' up^iiitilcd assi^necn of tlii' coinpniiy muler cliiif). MM, 41 Vic, Canndii, uikI pro- occilfd Id iiuiiCy tlie cuniriiiitnl .«tO(dl' the Cdiiii, iini), tlierel'iire, in llie |irpMent cane the iniiiKivi'nlileH of the oonipiiiiy could not lie 8oM in ordinnrj- course for hcIiooI tuxen with- (int siu'li periniHsion, Corp. ihn Commis.iairi'.i d'Krole (V llfclnhiiiii vh, Mnutvenl Ahnlltiiv Co., Q l{. 1SS7, M. L. K., :i Q. It. llii. 10. • 'I'lie li(inidiit()r of iin in- solvent oonipuny cnniiot take proceedin^'^ nf.'iiin>t the coinpniiy's deiilors witinpot the |ii('vionH nnlliorizntion (i( the Court, and on Mich notice to inc creditors. contrilmtoiH, slinrclioMer^, clc, as thcC'onrt niiiy presciihe. Such aiiliiori/.ntidn of the Coiiit ciiniuit he ilcnmndcd iil'ler proceediii^n liavc hren taken ; it iiiiisl he oi'liiiiied before, lionx vs. I'lrras, S. C. IS'.t|,r) Quf. t'O; corliinit'd in appeal. 11. Disqualification.— I'lircha^^e of clniniH against insolvent conipiiiiy hy li(|Mi (lator of company n reason I'.ir ilisniisMil of li(pii(latui'. Aijrinilhiriil Auburn iice. Co. nf Caiiailti vs. Jiosn, S. C. lH8!i, .T! L. C .J. 2C5, iCie. (VAi'.snrduce A"., M.L. H.,2 S. ('.2(11. 13. rJiit /lehl later, tiial such in- tervention niiist he ill the nainc of the in- solvent conipiiny, and not in ihe luinieof the liqnidatdr. JidiK/iie il' l/or/irhii/ii s?. liimijiie (Its Cantons dv 1' Kst, S. C. ISiH), lid H. !,. \W. 14. Contra. — Xotwitlistaiidiii).' tjie tprin« of sic. .'il!, ch. 2.'!, 15 Vic. (Can.), the jiqnidntor ( f an insolvent cunipniiv can take va'id proceedin^rs in his own name and stiiliiiL' the (|iialily in which he is actiiiLT, as well as ill his sole (piality of " Liipiidator of the Company." Bonqnc d' Htichehuja vs. Muson, S. C. 1R8-I, Jl. 1.. K.. 1 .S. (\{\i;Sam- son vs. Mdnicounar'H Fish and Oil Co., C. R. 1891, 17 Q. L. H.'dr). 15. Power to Make " Calls "—41 Vic. Cii. .'i8.— Action hy the plaiiitills as assifrnces of the Canada Agriculiural In- surance Company for $200, amount of four calls. Tlic first two calls were made hy the directors of the company prior to liquidation ; the latter calls were made hy the plaintill.s es (juaUli'. a« liquidators of the company's atlliirs — lUld, tliat tinder tl Vic, cap. ;W, hy which thi' company was placed in lic|iiiilation, the li(|ui<1, I L. N. •11.-.. 16- Liquidators of an A;;ricnl- tiiral Insurance ('ompany appointed iimler II Vic, ch. .'i><, hy virtue of that Act. and II Vic, (di. 21, luid sec. 147 of tiie Winding-up Act of IH7.'), have the same |)owers as director- in ret'ard to inakin;; calls, and where such calls have heen made rej!ularly they are not hound in an action on siicn calls to estahli-h their nei'esHJty. Hosk vs. Fiset, 8. C. I.'^s2, .s(^ L. R. 2.-.i. 17. Procedure— Interrogatories- Appointment of Liquidator— Effect cf. — The company defendant, liefore the aiipoint- ment of a li(piidator, was summoned to an- swer interi'o^iitories upon arlicnlaleil t'act-, hut a li(piidntor was appointed hefore the dny ti.xed for answeriiifr. The rule was contiiintd liy consent to a snhsequent ilay, and on that day, no one appearing' to answer, ilefanlt was entercil — Held, iniismindi as hy section :! 1 ol the Windiiiu'-up Act, upon the appointment <<( a licjiiiilalor, all the powers of the directoi- cease, e.xcejit in so far as the coiiil or the I liipiidator sHiiction their continu;incc, the directors, after the appointment of a liqui- dator, could not authorize any persons lo answer for them, unless their powers had leen specially continued to that ellect. The , company was, therefore, relieveil from the default, and the li(|uidiitor allowed to answ( i-. Graham vs. Th<' Cassclnuin Lumber Co., S. C. 18!).'!, 4 Que. HI. 18. Right of to Sums paid into Court. — Fund.s paid into court hy a company witli oppositiijii to an execution of a jiid^rment a;:aiiist it, and to cover the amount of such ; jud;:menl, l.eion;! In the plaintitl ; and where the com|)aiiy hecomes insolvent hefore -ueh ' funds have hecu paid o\er to him tin' liipiidator cannot c'aiin ihem. Snmson \-. M,inicoH(iiian Fish -nd Oil Co., C. U. ISHl, 17 Q. L. li. ori. COMPENSATION. (1) I. Action iiv Crowx— Lawyku's Fkis 11. Action iiv IIkir of DKct-ASKO Insol- vent Dkhtoh. HI. Ai'tion Qii Tam. (1) iSec Article in Hii'ui' ili Lti/isliilion, Vol, 1, ■-'HI). ¥. m !■■' K ■ '.-^ n ii . ■'■, i I f jilE !■! in IH ^lit 358 COMPENSATION. IV'. Action to accui-nt. V. AoasKMENTTO coMrENSATi:— Goons rrniriASKi) from Firm. VI. Alimentary Ai.i.owanci;. \'I((. Attoiinky ani> Ci.ik.nt. VII. AllTlONEKK — UeIIT |iI K IIV. VIII. CiiKiji>; civKN I'oii I'lMitiiK Lanp. IX. COMMIMTY (II' I'llOi'KlllV — DuNA- TIUN. X. Cun.-:iinmi:nt (.r Coon.-— 1)i:kt hie :',v CoN^ioNoi!. .\I. r)LllTS MA.-II.I I,|iinilATi:ll. ] ti. .\1!. l)ii:ii "I- Sam:— li'iM i.->iciN — 1?i:nt.- AMI I'Roi'n>. XIII. Di-Kii OK Sam:— 1mii( ATiDN 111' Pay- .M1...T. M\'. 1)a.m.'.m:>. ( 'iiiiiiei/ci/ u-ilh I hilt rlaiiwil. Mil. Ihhl (■lillljli'llSilliil (n/iiiil.sl l>aiil- ii;/c.f mviirdeil . 1 I-IT- I'/lli'/lli'lillril. .\i'i.-iii,!i i'.\ ('iiiilriicl II. l.'^-'Jil. Aii-in_^ ex Dciiiic. 2 I 'J.V XV. Insoi.vi:ni Y. (icil- I'll! rrillrijili V. I .'p. /)'/// iip. :',2:). II. ACTIOX HV IIKIR OF DKCFASKJ) INSOLVENT DFIlTOIt. In iiii action liy llie lieir cit'a ilecfa-oil i'.-ul. vent ileiiior 10 reonver a ilelit emitraele.! uiih lii> e\ecul.ii-,>i— 7/(/'/, lliMt a ■lei'l .luc iiy tho ili'ce.i^ei! tn tile ilclVniiiint i-"iili| lie pleaiK i in rciiiipi'iisa'ioii , ^f,, .■■■.•< \-. Itiiiwii k, lliifihj. ^. C. I'^C.l, VI L. ('. i;. 2n.', III. AC I ION gl'l TA.\I. A penal uclion is neitlier liivi-ilije nor si;li. Ject :o Conipeii>alii.in. Xnf/iiiiinlhi vs. Ilir. '//li.ni.nr. S. C. 1-si. .M. !,. I!.. 1 s. C. :i:i:i. Conliniieil in a|ipeal Jan. 21, l->-T. IV. .\CTK)X TO ACCOI'XT. I 1 an action to account the ilct'eijilain raiMici I'lea'l coniiiensalion i.'I'llie ainouiiis l'..r mI: rh an accoiinl i- ileiiiaii'iel : llie cie.liloi'- ri^hi loan accoun(iii<; liein.i: ali.-oliUe. -nrli a -ii'- iVnce can only I.e |ileailc.l on ihr conlr-i:!;! .n of llie arrounl. r'lith'ii vs. MrCur'l, S. C. |-:i::, I Qnr. 112. V. AC :\ii;xT Tf» (■•!.Mi'KNs\Tr.- XIX. I' \HiNI.K>IMI' l)i:iiTS .NX. I'iiOMlssoi;\ XoTi:s. 1-11. X.XI. ,Il IMIMKSTS. XX 11. Pl.EAlllN.;. X.XI II. l'ni;;-ii;iiii:ii |)i:iii — r\i'iii:sri!ir.i:n M11M.Y L ASKU OK AN I.MMOVKAIII.E. XXIV. Pi.Kiii; XXV. Pun 11 X.W'I. PiEIIKN OK nKl'O.-IT. X'.W'II. Sami: Dkht -iicli riiiiird accoiinl was )iroveil 1 1 c.\i-i — Ilil'l. that the iilainlill's claim wa- r..iiip.'i]- saii'il ami the action shoiiM have heen ii-- niisse.i. /■'..,///( v-^. Diipiii.f, 0. Ii. 1<-'.K :r. I,. c. .1. Ii;:;. VI. AIJMFNT.UIY ALI.OW.VNClv Dehlsiliie lo the lestalor's estate liy an ah- mentarv heneliciai'v caiiiio I" I he set np in salion of the aliinentary allowance. Miiir, P. C. IsTl. l^ L. CI. '.••;, P' 228, conrn-miii.' Q. IJ. iMVl, :;n'j. COMPENSATION. 359 .sued upon, Imt no others. Dorian vs. Dnrian, ■) L. N. i:!0, S. C. IS-L'. VIA. ATTORNEY AND CLIIiNT. An account due to a defendant's attorney-; cannot lie opposed in compensation of a claim ' — — ajiainst the client, and evidtnc. of Huoh alle-red i\-. COMMUNITY OK PIlOPKliTY— coMira acconi't is inadmissible. Fulinii vs. DONATION 2),/;-//;/7, S. C. 1887, >r. L. H..:;.'^. C. 47,'). , ,. ",' , 'V , '' In an action on a deed nl d(i:ialiiin pure and 5 .simple, a claim arisiiij; ..nt of a community vir. ArcTioNi:i:u-DEBT due nv. A didjf dne liy an auctioneer loa purchaser at an(li S. C. 2.55. X. CONSIGNMKXl OF (JOODS-DHUL' DL'K l!Y CON.SKjyoi!. A mercliant whn receives :i (Mn-i^nment (if I.' 'Oils has a right lo apfily the proceeds of such L'lMils in eompen-athin nl a dehl due h:ni hy llir ciin-ii:niii'. S/ii/>li \->, Loril. S. C. l.-^T:l, .", i;. L. !.- an.oiiiit of .>s.'!,:!.l:{.'J I, ..f date -Irh l''ehniary, I^-d, liir (lart (if tl." price n| a piece d' Und : pli a I f coni|i( iisaiicin liir the anmnnt di' s."i,- 7I10.Ih;, c.')nsi'-tin'i III' 'he fnllowing items : 1. $'11 I. Ill f(ir cumniui.itinii nmiiev- in I'aviir '•' tile Seminaiy of .Mmitrea). 'J. (".u'pnial' ii '' ' a>M.--ni(nls paid hy di i'endiuit for pliiiiili! $;iT:i.''ri. :;. ,<1.()IM), iieiii'^Mheanuinni ul'a |ii'( nii-i.ry luile ,aid hv .lefendant ,.|, the Hi o '""'"■ 1 '"mnrred lo • m the ;rr-M,d I hat a plea XI, DldVr.S F,.\SII,Y l,I(i; IDATKII— ll-^,-* C. 0. 1. A(ii(ei 111 i('C(i\cr freight un lei a iliartcr larly. Ple.i inl, r nliii th.-il the cargo was lianiaged hy phiii'lilt '^ I. mil. and ihe Ireight -hniild he iiimpeii-aled liy the damage p/o (if .^lal'cll, ls--(i, ill i|i-(diargei I' ihe pl.ainlill'. ■t .- ].('i:','J, lieiii!^- L' II'- .niiiaimd in ii di-cliar:;e aiiil -iihrirjaliiin. of ii:i|.. H.'ilh April, l-ilil. hv S. H lodefendaM. uhopaid 'lin, I In- .^uii, as i >""l "tcler ■ nir pn.ee.liuv .|,>)le miii,ip..rla, f (iiin penpal uai i.c' iiam.ig will iml he ajiiin-t a lii|iiidatcd ciaini. /'i;' < 'urniiii. — l n\errnle the deiiiuner. I' is niiicix a inaUei- of I'linn for pl.iiiililf. The p.'eU'ii-i..|i- df tht ll niav he aihiiil led thai liie deiiiili rcr would hciiiruere: 1. Tiial ihtiLlanl could ..ot 1'"' i" Knglaad . Imt mile-- the Kn-h^h pmec- dure i- to govern here I mu-l adhere lo our praelice of allowinir i;i-ily liiiuidale.j dauiajes to he made ^rroiinl of coiiipi'ii>al imi. '['\\v ca-e of (i'ii!i(,/i/ \<. Tcrrmici'. [(). I!, l-rrj, il L, C. .1. :il."i) is directly ill jioiiit, 'ihe judgment tliere, iti express leriu-, allowed ihe p'la of (ippi'-e in ( oinpeii~iitioii iui\ of !ii.- claim-, l(e;iii-e ihe iielion wa- fouiel d upon a (dieipie gi^eii ill piiyinii' of ihe price of :i piece of liiii I. and aiilerior caiiiis cinild not he -el up ill e .iiipeii-alion, nor -ulise.|iicni claims not cUar .iiid liipiidated. -. Thai all the ])avm( nls thai he could make f.r plaiiitifl were made '^'Hid""-"!'"'" hu- dama-je a.^ainsl Ihe action forfreiejii. /;,,•.;., vs. .I/.,//'.;//, S. C. i--l. t 1,. X.hl, 2. .\ dehl need not he ahsoInlc!v i:liiirc it will, ihe money .^ if piaiiilill' which he had in haii'l lo the nmoniit of more than ;<|i)iMioii. i>. 11 at he owe- lo pliinlill' end owe I alihe dale of thise )irel(iideil paymenls, ihc three //'/'"'(/'' to he -et up in ci m|i(ii-atioii against a "r.llen acl;i,owhidi.'ih( iils of Is;;;, 1>7|, (',,|. deht certain, provided it he ea-ily pirovnl; ¥'2.^-1. ijl.n.'ill, Sl.llli'h with interest. Iiirlher i'oiise(|ueiil ly an accouiii f,r "no 1- -ol.j and $l.iMill, hre\v(ry, Ac. I'lr Cii iiiiii .~\\'i\at dcdivered may he oppused I hhl due under the di I'eiidant may lia\c i.aid for the plaintill' '^ notarial iii'^Irument. }['i// \--. Il'midel, (2. will enter into ihea.a'oiiiii uliiidi he owes him. Ii. l^^a'i, lih. 0. R. 7,'i, ."i !!. d. K. n. I ,'.. and what is now claimed is heyond the parti- 3. Bonrd.-7/cA/, liiat an accouni forlmard, ciilar- of thisacoouiil. !t was part of the price where the debt is easily proved, i-^ a dehl e/,,,',-^ of l!ie hmdcon-idereda-paid cav llic plaiiililT I'of llieilcfeii'lanl, iiini t.>r tln> vdliio which he cliiims hy hia U(;lion, i~ a iio(i'\ I'hii iin I well fiMiihlcd if |)rove(l ; ami it i~ nni lle^:l■s^lu■y in siu'h a case that surh ilaniaL'f'S should hi' r!aiiiU'J hy un incidental cniss (loniand. Beaulica \-^. Lef, S. C. l^.")i;, c L. c. l{. :;:;. I U.J. K. Q. 180. 3. In an actinn by a i:ontract(ii' A. (nr till' pi'iro iif sloni's di'livcrfd to 15., thi' lallir (•annul olI'iT iii C(ini|ii'iisalion damages alli'^ed t(i havi' hi'cn iiicuned in tin' Imiidinj; of 1!."-; 4. A debt not liquidated may some- | 2. A plea of |)i>i-peti;al exception, hy tiincH he oH'cred in compensation when it is ; which it i.s alie.ircd that the .«iim claimed 1 y easily lir)nidati'd (as the price of board), and the plaintiff' i.s set oil' hy a Mini claimed by when it is connected with the debt claimed by defendant for dama^'es sullered by him in mn- the plaintilT, which is itself contested. ««'(•'/-■(/ scipiencc of the nei;U'cl and carelessness of the vs. roiiiinville, S. C. 18811, M. L. K., •"» ■'^. <'• plainiiil in the doinjr of certain works ai 3GG. 5. In order that a claim be snbjecl to i .m- pensation, it i.s suflicient that it be snscepliblo of easy liquidation. J'oss .'s. Unmet, S. ('. \^r^, o R. L. '229. 6. A Jiid'.'nicnt afiaiiist the ilefeiidant can be compensateil hy the latter by an acconnt fnr groceries dne by the jiidiimenl credilcr to the defendant, an action lor which is pendin;,' in another court. But unless the tender of cnm- pensation includes interest on the jud;.'ment, it will be rejeeted. Thihnwhmt vs. Gi,-nutate. I'rvfi/xl vs. Lryoiix, S. C. l.-.V.i, :iL. C.J.:!2I. ^Se.' //(,'/■'( N'o. f^.) 5. I'amage occasioned to the >hip by the mi^ci'nduct of the pilot may be sei up anain-t bis claim for pilulage, and in -urh action (he master may be admittdl asa\sil- ncss, The S(,pliia in n: V. A . ('. I8.'!(), Stuaii's Vi.'C Adm. Rep., p. :m;. 6. Where, to an aci ion by a shipwi'iglit |..r I'epairs dmie to a barge, the ilefendai.t pleadeil in compensation a claim fordamagcs I'oi' the niineces-ary ditenlion of Ihe bai'ge in the doclc aller the repairs were finished, bv XJI. DKEI) Ol'' SAl.K— RIvSCISSlUN— R|;N"1\S and PROFITS. In an actiin mi rescis-^ion of a cjeed of sale — Held, that the reiiH, issues an I piulits of ibc properly from tbedate ol'sale would bode(dar(d to have been cm ip"iisated. and would be set off against any sums paid to ihe plainlill'or mi his behalf by bis immediale vendee. I'oirier vs. 7V.Mr', s". <:. i.^ii;!, i:i i-. c. u. i.v.i. XIII. hVA'A) OF SALK-INDiCATION OF l'\Y.MKNT. An acliiin by the jiarly indicnted in a dee.l Ol" sale as Ihe pcrscin to wlmm the nioney is to be paid, will be di>mis>ed upmi pica "I' ci'Mi- pensation by the ilel'endanl as the bolder cil wlii(di he sullered loss — //e/i/, thai smcIi notes previmisls made by the plainlill', lln' ibimages. being proved, could be set up in indication of [layncnl not having been accepi cmllpen^alion of ibe ammml due lor repairs, eil by the plainlill', and thai the registralinn 'j;,/, vs. Cinin. ('. Cl . 1>I)7, 17 1,. ('. 1!. Hl'.b of the decil by ihe plainlill does nol ailed 7. In an action ol' I'cvenilicaliiin by a landlord lo reitover fi'mn llie Iciiaiil ubdliad lell the biiililing scnne elbcls taken '.y liim IVom the liiiililiiig lea.-ed ; the tenant admilled he was responsible for a certain value of such ellects, Imi set up in iMUipensation a claim of damages which be alleged to have been siiller- tlie defendanl's right in such c.ise.-. Senrtr v-. Nye, S. C. 18.-.7, > L. C. U. 221, C li. ,1. R. (,i. 21li. XIV, UAMACl'lS. 1. Connected with Debt claimed. Damages for the iioii-peiiorm.uice ol a special ed by him through the faiill of the plainlill in agreement for the Iranspcu-lalion of goods, and during iiis occiip;incy of the premises wliere a pari has been Iransporle.l, delivereij leased — Ifc/d, that such damages could not be and accepted, caiiiio; be pleaded again-' a set up in compensalion of Ihe action in reveii- quantiim meruit for freight earned fm- siudi dicatio.i ; llial Ihe defendant iii'ghtset up by part so dclivercil and accepteil, the proper i incidental cros»-demand to the action in reveii- course being hy a cross-demand or a separate dicalion such (daini for damages, both claims action for damages. Giun/ \-^. Huiitir, K. B. . ., ,■ . ,,,,., ,,,.,, , .,:. , „ , ,, ,, ,., I (11 Si'osinuliir I'louch case rei)}rte(IVol. II, 1'. 1 o, 1810, Pvkes Heporls, p. ,il., I it ,1. R. Q. T.). u[ I.chuI News ! Mmr"'' ! COMrENSATIOX. nc.i arif-iiiL' out of the same contract. Lockic vs. JUulliii. S. C. \Sf<6, M. L. R., 2 S. C. •2(i2. 7a. III an action of cjcctinent aecoiii- panicd by an attacliir.cnt for rent, ilie tenant pensateil by tlic iIcIjI iliic on which the .tai-ir rtcri'Mvas iss\ic(l. Bi lli:l>:lc \-'. Lyiiuui,^. K. 1870, lo L. C.J. :!(),'). 13. Anil aniiiii, in iiciimi of (lanui'-cs cannot .'et np unliqnicialcd (iainages in com- fur niaiiciouH pruscciitiini — Urhl, thiil a ju'lj;- ppn.'ation. Such [jica will he ilisiniisei! on | incnt ohliunci Ky (iefiiiiiiint in ri^lit nf lii:< (ien.urrcr. Chaperon vh. Jluinlier, C.C iss.'i, ! wife aj:ain>i iiliiintili' iiiis.'lil l>i' placed in ccini- 11 Q. L. 1{. .')ii7. But Fee Lockic Vf'. MuUin, |)riisatiun. Landa v^. J'uulciir, S. C. l-^T^, supra, No. 7. , 1 L. N.iill. 7b. Where a lessee was entitled hy a [ 14. Also diinia<:i'.s fir pi r^onal injuries clause lit the lease to hecoiiie proprietor nf ihe can he compensated hy a ileht due hy the premises leased upon payment of a speciliid olleii led parly to the person halile for the Funi. he could not ]ileail, when sueii in (ji'ct- dama;;es. H'illUans \-. /i'o'(.v.vf,n(, S. ('. 1 s-^G nieiit, liiat this siiiii had heeii compensated iiy d'er (."asaull, .1 .) . 12 l^ I.. I!, llii, IT K.I/. ilaiiiai.'es siitleretl hy him tlirijuj;h the inter- ' ''■''. niptioi) i.lhis husiness. IhN \^. Court, Q. V,. i 15. ^,>)(,,-/v — a- lo llie ri-ht to oppo-c IsSb. M. L. K., 2 i}. !!. 80. ; niher idaim- in coniiiensiiiioii of tlie ihuiui^^cH 8. In an action on a deed foi' halance a party has lieeii eiindeinned to pay fur adeliet of price of sale, the hiiyer cannot set oll'nii- or '/((O.v/ delict, .ii' to sii/e in his ,,wii hands h'lui dated danuiL'es re-ultmt; fmm alleL'ed ; the sirn- so iiwarded tn hi- di htnr. In the violation cf the ciinditinns (pf sale hv the \eii- ' rnurt h^dnw -iiitwas decided in the allinna- ilor. (riii/U'iii \s. Giiiiilri/. ISS.'j, M. I,, U., I ti\''. .Irihamhitiilt v-^. L'lhiiiilf, ^). B. l^^^T, S.C, •;!••. (Si',' supr,i,So. 1) M. L. I!.. :;<,). B. l-il. 1 ■^ I!. L. IHI ; S. C. 9. A demand for indemnity under a l-^-^IsM- L- !{.. - >■ l'. -t Hi, :'.! 1.. t'.d. '.12. fire in-uranec pduy cannot he set oil' a'jainst 16. Altliou,L;h aii Uiili.piidaled deht, an amount due fm- premiiiin, the former not cannot lie compen-atel a^Min-t a lii|uidated heiii;; cl'i/r' d li'/iiiili' in the terms of Art. one, yet if in an action of .iama.;es the detVn- ll>^^ C. <'., and the latter heim; a condition dant, uilhoul admitting th.' p'aintilt 's claim, preeedeni to the aeipiirement of any risihts on sets up in compensat ion of the dama;;es that the jiarl of the insured under the policy. G/7w may lie found against him a diht due to him vs. Girou.r.S. ('. I^^s.'i, 1:! 1;. I.. (;."i2. he the plaintill', the court in its final iiidj;ment 10. When the damages claimed hy dcclarimr the ilama-es will allow tlie eon, pen- the defendant tlow from the contraet heiween -nation, hiil only from the d. He of Ju l-mi nt, the parties on which the action is founded, he de'^endant heni,;,' condemned to pay co-ts, A,,- is entitled to comjiensate them af,'ainst the pnhnc \s. Elliot, C. R. IS',111, :M L. C. ,1. 22^. lilaintitr'siiemand. l),ivlds„n \<. d-n/nr, S. 17. |j,„ /„,/,/^ (1,,^, j,, .j,, ,n,,i„n of C. IS'.IO, 20 K. h. :!0I. and see Brrari/ \-. I'o- ^]an^iv^^■< the defendant cannot -el iiji in cun- miiiril/,; M. !.. II., ."1 S, C. .•!('ii;. pi-nsiuion a li.piidale.l dehi due hy the i)!ain- 11. Debt against Damages awarded. 'H'- A\'/ vs. MrS/mn., ,s. C. 1-'.', 17 H. L. -AV here the plaint itl hi'onjht action aLrainsi the '''"• (lefendant I'm' maliciously and unlawfully i//, S. C. 138V, IT, ir I,. '2.".:; ^/ //(/i^/'/c, aiiM tocxliii'iui-h tlu'iulverseclniin. ] J'oberi/e \-. Mn'jiiin, S. C. H-^.'i, IT 1^ I., Arrh.imbaiilt \.-. Are/iiinibiiiilf, HI li. C K. 1 li:il, ■V12, (1. 15. isr.d. I 20. Arising cxcontractu and I X\'. IN'SOLVlCMliy not connected with the Debt claimed -~ j General Principles. — I'lh m ry in- Ii] an auli Ml liy [\m' vimi.I.ji- oI' ^'no N to ic slant a (Icbtnr lunioinos iii-dlvciil aii///. S. ('. ^,„t any 'priority i)f inclcirucf lictweeii thein. !-^'.', 1 1 !'. 1.. (ill. j |<'i'oiii that inoiui'nt the liirhts of his crc'iilni'- 2\. .Sm'li dahja.'i'- mu-l In' arc dually lU'tiuiniiK'il, au.l no roiiipcusaiion claiuKvl l.y liircct action ,.r iirU'h ntal (knuaihl. , which di.l not exist, belore the a- not. conn. 'M-aiion a claim lor daiiia.'o due hini l.v '■,,,, ,, , , , ,,...,,.,. I 11, , ■ ,-,; iiaid, t he holder Wii-^ lo sidl the wool and the p aiiil'll lor lonuer -■.)(»!- -old to plainlil;, : ' ' , , , , „., , ,. , 111' 1 • iilace the p'oceeds to Ihe owner - (U'cdil. Ihe bill ■vliich Were I'lii-ed l'\- liini. and in cou- , ' ' . , , . , , , draft wis not paid ; the owner ol llie wnodhr- caiiie insolvent, aiei the pled'iee sold the , , , , , , , , .■ I \vood, of wiiiidi be had never bad actual di'- ceed- 'he amount pi iinliil ha- -iicl luiii for, I ,,,, , , , , ,, , , .. , , . ,1 1 1 ' liverv — //e/(/, thai the iilnl:;ee cuuld not phne but which claim iilaiiitul denies, I li us lemh-r- ■ , , , ,. , ,r ^ ,, . ,1 , tiic balance of the price of -ale. after pav stipi'iice were sia'i d and re-old by Ihe de- fendant at a lo-- 1 ) him whicii, he claim--, .-x. 111.' U lltlilloll^ IT I,'. L. :n. ,S-e al-o l>,L,i./ Q.!!. l-'.Mi, :;i I.. C, ,1. :!:!i. Mall.lh- 23. .\ claim of damaLies re-ultiii;. i,L' the draft, to the credit cif a t'ormcr iii- debt.'diie.-- of the owner. I'erkitis vs. Juisy, (I ]]. 1^8 0, II Q.I.. If. i;.".. 2 .\nd So a di\idend nil ler a di\ idcnd from a ill 111 rem conti a cl call! lot be plea led 111 , , i „ , i ,. i , . i,. ,, , \ ., r i v'-- . ,, ' sIk'cI, uu Icr tin' lii>o[\ciil .\ct ol 1 '^i .i, cannot '• 'en-^ationtoa:, aclioaoaa contract, but p,, ,„ai,,,,d l,v t he a-s,;:nec of the e-t.Ie he ■^1'""^'' '"■ "■■-'■'' '■>" iiicidcnial ilcniand. „.,^,. ,,,• sel-oll or compcn-alio,, iejain-t a debt Urr,.,in:y.. .l/c/;,o„, S.C. isuo, v.. L. K., T ,,,,;, ,^, ,,,^. ,^,^,^„„„ ,,,. „,„ ,,,.^,,|„,„, ,.„||„. .S.( 2i Arisini; ex-delicto — .\ claim of eafel, a- iiidoi-scr of ciu'taiii not.-- L'iven ui pavmenl ol a sale of the sto,-k m trade of tlie uiri.iui latcl dania;.'c-i c\-delict.i, e. ;;., .lam i'l^nlvenf by the a-si.j:!iee to another parly. aL'- o.iu-.'.l In wr..iiL'lul i-^-iic ,,[■ capia-, H',;//,-,,- v-. />o»/c.', (,). 1!. i T"^, 'S.t 1,. ('..I, cannot be plead.' I in c. .mpcusatiou to an iic- ;i|7. tio:. for pio.js -.ill. Li: .{-,• \ -. li'i,i,urcly can a .li't'cii.lant .-^U".! in damages for libel can 1 e.xa'd from an insolvent debtor d.ies not per- jilea.l provocatiO'i on ih- pan of ihe plaiiitill'. > mil him to set oil' the didit for which lie ha-t cnMrl'iNH.ATlox. 3G.^ ill}; Act, SCI'. ■)>! iif ill Vic.,clki\|i. ,"). K.iclvni'ic Ihink ^■<. niirl ivn\ aiininnls will' ri'ceived im Mich nutes, ciiinin n-alidii ilid not talt d.ii' t(i il. Iwr/ul inji: H^iiik <■! C'ln. ! \ -. ('(in'iih'((ii llliik of Cdiiinirrri', l--ii, M. I,, i;.. -1 Q. li. ITii. 10. r.ut /('/•/ that ciiii,|,"i,>aii.Mi can lake (i'mI'-'' iiiaiii-l an in-ulvenl liinl; il' llie dehl- lieeanie d)n- \'vi:rr ihe .rdei' I' ■>■ win iin:4 ' uji tiie hank-. aUh(nc_'h alter its -u-i'cn-ii.ti. \ AuH.iir. S. (', 1-s-,, i:; i> 1,. 1 1:;. ' wi. ixTi;iii'.sr ON i.oAX— si:i;\'1(m;s j 1!i;niii:i!1'.i». ! An aecnnt fm- -en :.■, - ivi^lrr.^ 1 hy a I u-"fkiiiL' lahiirei' II a\ h" ~i 1 np in eiiin|ieii-a- ■ li.iii (if an aiii.Hinl dnr a- inlerc-l mi iin'iiiy lent. < 'nrjii,rii!i(iii >'/,', M'uii- M(iiiii"ir \~. Ilili- I /a-//,',S. ('. l^«-■J. \1 li. I.. 11 n. ^iiiie -nuly ai.'ain~t the in-nluiil's dehl. S7. ■ .■ »- floiiilieii. ('. U. l.'^ST, l:'. il L. 11. 2:1:!. 6. Bill of Exchange— Accommodation Bill.— On the 2,")th,luiie, H>s, ihc detVieiant aree|i|ed I'.i.T.'i at three nn.nllis. On the 2 Ith ,1 nly, 1' , the dtl'elidant |ilirehased 'joods I'niii (i. to the ainDiint nl' S21.'i. On till 2rilh .Inly, ISSS, fi , made a judiiiiai ahaii- di nineiit I'nr the heiielit df Ips creditcil'.s . On 1! e 2>tli .Se|ilemler, l>ss, delVndarit [laid the aei I'liiniuilatinn dial'l. In a suit hy the cnra- Iiif tij O.'s e.-late fm- the ricnveiy nf the !J21.'). jivire (if ;;iH:ds, d( reiidaiit |ihaded that he \vii~ nititlcl til e(im|i(n-ali' this siiin \\\\\t the aiiii'Uiil 1 e liiil|iaid(in llie draft fur iiin claims a.^aiii-l the hank which he has jnirehi' ed since llie -n-|iin-i(iii. (:i/i,i,iii vs. Com/, Q. I). 1--2, 1:; 1!. !,. fillh 8. A ile|iliari - liiiider .if iv hank" hi hiiiiiilatida nn lei Tie liankin, Acl, ami uhich u as in-nhcnt when -^'-^^ i'A !iT N KHSlll l> DKlldS. il • n-|iiiidei| I a' iiu 111. is nnt (i.ti'ledln dlhr 1. .\ di fendan' siu-d f.ir a |i.r-.iiial didit till am.iiint of his d<'|idsit in eiim|iensali..ii ef 1 linnet set 11 |i in Cdiii|ieM-aliiiii a (daim dee lalU made n|idn liis >id(d( hy the I iiuiihiter.- j..iiil ly an.l ,-in erully 10 him hy a iiiirlner-lii|) iin.ler 1 he ddiihU' liiihilllv clau.-c of liie Hanii- i.if whicii the iilainlifi' is a iiieinher. llnttm \ XVII. MIST III', .-i;i' 1 1' i\ noiii) I F.MIll. 1 \ (" im|i( ii-ali.i!i inn-l he -el ii|i in 1; I i.iiih, an. I a crciiiiur iml h 1 i.f a icle w hu hiiys 1 .mm h'- dehlnr nil h r |i,ileiice lii.il \v I- '.:..iiij to I \,\\ la-h, hIi li^ kie|iimj hn k ihe iiif. ima'i.ni ilial he i- the I'.m f. i.'e of -a'.d dei.tm'- ii..te, caijiidl diaiiaelidn a;.;aiii-l him n ir 1 Ic L'n. ds h.iiyiii.l -1 1 1111 the imle in c 1 .miien-al ;i'ii i ihere. f. Iho.nst \-. i;,„ilri .„.V. Cl. I--.;, 12 It. L. 101. XVIIl r.W.MI'.NT IN ! IMIOK. d'hi' riu 1 !■ . .diiiiii 1. all' an amonni |i li'l in ei'Mii' nr Wilhiiiil 'ejal eail-e ari-rs 1 h" iir 'inent the |ia\'ini'i;l i- madi', and imt nieniy ,'il llie dale df the acli.iii 1,1 , , j,,'ll/n,ii f.'i' .-11. 'ii aiiiiiiinl lU-iiihV, \ -. /I'.'d/,'/.//. I'. K. |s7l,l'.) 1,. (' .1."-. €'^ m V I i 3C4 COMFENSATION. mi^ ■i*i; vs. Dexhnrats, S. C. 1><5.1, Montreal ("niidenseJ lie port c, p. 5. 2. A ilchi clue liy Olio of llic nunibers of a partnership iruiiviilually, caninU be set up in compensation of an amount due to llic pirt- nor-liip itself. Howard vs. Stewart, S. C- mvi, L. C. J. 2-)(;. 3. 'I'iic ilefeiiilaiit Imij^lil wood fioin one nf flie partners in a linn, in ipnoiunce of Ilie exis- tence of a parliiersliip. 'J'lu' partner owed liiiii iiKiiiey, Init the wood was the property of tlie ])arlncrship — llrhl, conlirminLr decision of court below, that tne defendant could not set up tlie an^ount of Iim piirehase against the debt due l.iiii by the ])artner fnnii whom he bou;^ht. allhouL'h the hitter managed the aflairs nf the partiiersh ii. Unlland vs. St. Denis, Q. B. IsCC, ■> L. C. L. J. 11(1. 4. 'I'lic debtor of a liiiii can, after its di'^so- Iiition, set up in compensalinii o\' its cliiiin against him a claim which In' has agaiii-l one of the partni is, nnd I(j the ( xK nl (.f thm part- ner's intcresi in the tu-in. Gnnlhi'v vs. I,ii- croi.r, Q. ]}. 18t;8. 12 K. I., .-,1)8. 5. Where defiiidant is sued fni' a persuiial delpt, he cannot set up in i iim|iensiilioii the plaintilTs sliare of a |)arlnersliip debt, wliiidi tlic defendant as (ine of the pnrU.er- paid in its entirety. McLnin vs. Birlanlili', Q I!. 188'.i, 18 li. I,. 277. 6. Wlnre defemliint is -unl Uiv lin' valiir nf gOtJiis sold anil delixered, l.e (aniicl -i'! up in compeiisaiidii a claim iraiislern' 1 in Inni bv the |iliiiiiliir 's (x-parlner arising fi(.m iheir partnership reliilinns, where (here ha- nut been an acrounling li-lueen the paitiurs. DfiLuet \<. Mv one P. S. .M. In Dcm-iir, Ism:, r,. i;, briiiigiit an action iigiiin-l ]'. S ,^I , i^ ave a sale made by the hitter to one liai sa' iidiehir- od franilnlei;!. and the new piircliaser restrain- ed from |iaying the lialanee due to tlie panics ni.nidl in the d (d of sale. A ph a nf Cdinpen- PBtion was filed, and pending the aelmti a Fcqreslialdr wiis iippninted to whom BarsaKm paid over the inonty. In Sept., 1S87. another actif)n v^as insiiiuted by Vt. Ji, against 1*. S. M.. asking f 1 an arcoiint of llie dillerent real estate tiansaclines they had ( (.nfoniiably to the term." ol the ci.nnter-deed . 'I'o this action a iilea ot eompensaiifiii was also filed. 'J'he i>iiferior Court dismissed the first action, on the ground tlmt G. 15. bad no right of action, but maintained the second actiun ordering an account to be taken. The Court of Queen's Hencli nllirmed the. judgment of tlie Superior Court dismissing the first action, and 1', S. .M. acipiiesceii in the judgment of the Siippriov Court on the second actlnii. On an appeal lo the Sii])reme Court from the judgment of the Court of (Jueen's Bench dismissing the first action — llvlil, reversing the jiidL'ment of the Court below, that the plea of coinpensatinn was unfoiindeil, (). B. iiaving the right to put an end to P. S. M.'s mandate by a direct action, an! therefore, until tlie ac(H)uiit which had been urdered in the secmid aiiioii had bem rendered, the iiiDiieys shiiuld remain in iIm- bands of the seipiestratnr appointel with tie' consent of the parties, liiirii vs. Mitrplni, Supreme Ct. 18:1,!, 22 Can. S. C. It. l:!7. 8. Case of .VeAc-ni vs. Strwuvt, Q 1!. l^'JI, !'. t^ne. -I!!!. Iteversed by Supreme Court. Ke-lored bv I'rivvCouneil, lit L. N. 17. \.\'. I'ROM.'.sSOKY NOTES. 1. The aniniint of a note not payable lo order, bill Iransf'-neil by notarial act at a time when a much larger sum was due and nuin^ by llie [layeo In the maker, will not suppnil an aeliciu, both claims at the time <\f the Iran- saeiimi beii.L' compensated /)/■'/ tiihla. Gi/isoiie vs. L,,^ K. n, IsM, I 11. do 1.. :5t7. 2. III an ai-tieii on a proiiiis-or\ note — //(/>/, reversiiij I he Jiidgmenl of the ConrI below, that llie maker eo^M set up another note made by the pavee and bearer more than five ye.u- pre\ ioii-, i'lit endorsed to the maker of the Ills: note, l.el'ore llie lime ae.pnred for pi' - seriptio'i. //((//f.v ,i- Ihiii'i,!). 1!., :; K. ,1. i;. Q 15.-., A 1.. ('.It. 112. 3. .\nd licl'l, ihi.l in -ileh case eonipen-,i- ton lakes place without any iii'lice of the en dorsemenl and transfer of the note s-: f up iii C( inpeii-atimi beiiiL' re.|uired. and that the il.il'' appearing on .-iieh endor-ement is snUicieni evidenee in the absence of coni radictory pruoi'. [Ih.) 4. Where lo an action on a iiroiuissory not" the defend'inl pleaded that, al the time the note became due, the ])laintitls had in llieli' ))ossessioii goods 1 olonging to the defendant of the value of the note, and that the K'bt was tl'.erefore compensated, the jilea was held to be bad, inasmuch as the value of goods or n.er- cliandise cannot be pleaded in compensation of a demand for a sum of money, liijan vs. Uunt, S. C. 180(1, 10 L C. R. 471. COMPENSATION. 365 5. A (Iclit iill('f;pil to lie v mean-' cf ilaiit^' own ijromis.-orv imte. rurions v?, ' , , . i.i "i ."n .1 , ' , _ ,•„,,, two iromi.-^siirv iioti'S at 12 and 24 inonili-i. (iniliitw, S. C. ISTti, 5 L. C. J.41. rp, , " . ,. , , -,. ' 1 lic'-c iiiilc^' were traii^tcrrcd l^y I urri.tte to 6. ('oin|iC'iisatioii laki'.-* place only lictwccn the appellatit, who tonU action n'_'ainit the iIiIjIs ((pially Jiqtiiihited an I demaiidahle, so ri'-pondcnl, in 'I'lircottc's name, imt iipmi th: iKiit where the defendant endeavours til setup iintts, Imt upun the oriirinal ohli^iatinns. Res- liL'iiiii-t a priiniissury note, an allet:rd clann fur ])ondenl then piirehased ii drhi dni' hy Tiir- lii- f-hai'e of a harve>t, which the plaint ill had colte, and caused a >i;inilication of the transfer niL'licted til render him fin account of — llihl, tn he .-erved iipmi him, wherenpun tin- appel- ihal ,-uch a claim did not i:ive rise tn ccnnpen- laiit disi'ontinned hi-^ .~uit, wilhuut nutice to, -aiion. I'cridull vs. Heribniin, V . U. 1^71,. "> or leave nl', rt -pondci;, and hronL'hl :i new H. L. nil, 2 K. ('. lliil. 7. The appellant, who was plaintilV in the CiiUI't ludow, sued the lespnndeilt llpuli two pn)nii~-^ii|'y niile?-. Ilr silecled iIkm' two imie-- (.i;l iif seven (ir ei;;hl llial were dr.e In him. Oiii' of ihe-e miles fieaiiie due im I In- 1 1'ltli Dre. and the olhrr on the l-t nf the same innnth. Till' ilcfiMidant answei-ed ihis action, alleLiinir ll.al lir had sold the plainlitl, li(f..re the lUlli p.r, fuur hiiilers and a lot nfothrr article-^. One Jiidj.'ment may he -et up aL'ain-l another, and that the plaintilfs claim wa^ cmnpen- nr hy opposition iijin 'Viiiiiiiili 1; fur payment ,-al.d and paid. 'J'his jilea had heen t -lalili>h- /"■" l<(iili'. Frasl. \~. /v'.s'.so/;. K. Ji. 1S21, .". cd ly the eviMence. Jt \\a~ pos>ihle the plain- Hi'v. de l,i j;. IT.'). till Mii;:hl lia\t' ( ther claiui-, hut he shciuld action, in his own name, upun ihr n.ilcs — llibl, thai rr-p(ind( Ill's jilra of rimipen-alion was LiiHid; 'rurcntte wa- only a jni/i'iKini tor the appellant, hul i/inin'l tlic ri-pniidenl he was the real crrditor. Ilnuhl v.-. Tuii.'iii/naiit, (.). I!. IS',12, 1 Qae, ')i;i. X.\r. .IIDGMKXTS. lia\e-liowi. them; plea nl ciini|ien-alion sus- la^iied. (iilhcrtx^. Lianui.-i, (;. I!. l^"i;. 7 It. I,. :;;;ii. 8. 'J'I.e deli'ndani was entitled I'l p'.ad, In ail ictiiii on a promis-i.ry null', tliat .iieplain- lill '.'.a- under ari ohli.'atinn In deliver Ic Irni a null' I'm- a larger aiiiouni in paynieni of Liniiii- sold and de!;\ei-rd, hut had (i.ade 'Irlanll; .inii In a.-k ilia' n' iinle Mied ..i, l^- iliclared cciinpen-ali'd l.y v inuidi uf what was liir hy llie plaiiilill . f/m'/i/ii/ v^.Anbiil, C. 1!. f-'^:;, M. ]>. It., 1 S. r. 1 III. 0. C'lmpiaisatiiin iiiu-l hi' -it up in ;;oOii laith, and a cndilnr, iiolderofa note who huys Iriini his dehtiir under pretence tiiat he is ^.'iiiii;; to pay casii and Ueepun;; buck tli( infor- mation that he i.s the transferee nf -aiii dehtor'.s note, cannot in an action a;;aiiisl hini for puids hniiglit set np the note in conipen-alimi. 7''m».s7 vs. C'od'rion, C. Ct. 18S;i, 12 U, ].. ml. XX I r, I'LK.VDINC. Wlierr enmiiensation can he ur^'ed it .-hnuld he pliuded hy jieremptory exception, llruncl v.s. Lr,. K. ii. 1.S12 :; Piev. de l.ei:. i:)7. 10. H. irave tlio note ofC. ■d bvH. to Ilia creditor L. in [laynient of lii> d( ht ■ the note pas.H'd into tlie liaiul- of 'J'., wife of L., and slm settled witli C, the maker, for the note hy deed passed before the institution ^)i X.MII. PRESCR[liHl) DKHI'-UNIMII';- SCRIHKD .lUDGMKNI Win leadehl, whirii uiidrr nl'diiiaiy riiriim- ■lance.s wmild hi pri'-crilud, isoll'eied in Cnin- petisation to an iinpii-ci'ihrd Judtiment, the action nn the lalirr will hr disini>sed, if it appear thai, piinrlo the prescription of the fnrmer, holli dehl.f had cmne within (he con- ditions necessary for compensation. Li/ndou vs. Casey, Q. 15. IHs", i:i"y. L. R. 2:!7. aXIV. PLEDC.K-MUXKV I 11 N'T. I claim for iiinuev lent is not nf the same nature as one lor tl iifcliiis('ii since tlie siis|)(>nsioii. Gilmaii. v^. >vXV. PlKClIASEll OF AX LMMOVK AI5I,1':. TIm' i,Mrdiiiserntuninitn.>vciil,Iewli,)M'lll(w <'<""'' Q- f^' l^f^'A '•'! '<• '•'• 'H'-'- 11 cliiini iijiaiii^t >\u:h iMinmvi'alilc lor wliiiili — ^ — lie in ■.niuriuitctd, ciui sol ,,11 I lif iin.ouni p:ii.l \XIX. UNIVEItSAI, LKO ATHl': — |)0( to settle -H,'li,'l;iini ii,L'iiin-t tlie |,un!liiisi' price TOR'S liILL, KTC. of ti,e i,Min,.veuMe. Forhcs vs. Jiurn.-.-. C. K. j_ j^^/j^ „^.^, ^^,^ in,lel,te,lness an.i,,), onl , lMn,21 K. L. 'iU;!, coi,lim,u,- S.C, 21 H. L. .^„ ,.i|,..„, j ,i,„ ,r,„„,,„i^„ ,,,„voen ihe ,l,.f,., 16:!. I iini irnnsuciidn neiween me ii,i,mi ihlMl mill II ilei;ea-etl |iersiHi ,'iiiin,,t lie pleiiil,'. ill coiii|ieiiS:ili< ;v.,», S. C. ISsj, 7 ],. X, | ();) jiensuli, II ii^'iiiii-l 11 elaiiii l,ir Ilie reliini ot a l.s'.m. |i; 1,1. 1.. U. 'Jii.!. 2. Jim nioneys puil ,'iil hy iltfeiulaiil Ww ileceii-cil, money- icceiveil liy llie ilcMa^e.l lo till' u-e iif ili'fenilaiil, aiiil the luiinunl ufalull fdi- pi-iif,'>s|i,||ii| s( ivir,'s I', ii(l,'ir.l l,y ill,' III' n- XX Vll. .'^AM I'l Iil'.r.T ()l''FI'',i;i';i> IX ("O.M- ilam as iiie'lieiil iiii, iiiluiil m lied, em-i'il. \u-\\ i>i':x.s.\ I iox IX TWO Acrioxs. Jii UN a'-li.:i' f..)- ll,i' aiiiuiinl nl a |'niiiii--"i'y not'', wlirii' tlif ,|,'l<-ii a- .-I'l lip \va~ that "f compel, -at inn nf ii iillaili am, mill iliir the appel'anl a- ii'~ C'-l- ;ii an ai-limi lurnn'rly pcinliir.' 1 ri\\> ■11 ilifiii, aiel il wa- iirui'l llial ihc .-aiiu' I laiiii I, ail lieeii phailel in luinpi h -iiliiai III liirii' ililli-n III iii-,'- lielnn — //,/'/, fiailirniiiiL' lln- i|(>ci~ii'ii i'^' llie ciniil IhIow, lluil the a lint nf a il'll alrcaiiy nllerc'l in eoiiiiii'n-at:iiii in a ean-i win re mi, I; cnnipen- sati, 111 hail alrs'ailv I'lvai pi, a hil inulii nnl he -.,oll,-r,ii in anotlier vaii-e ivcn llii.iii_;ii llir III -I cans,' he slill p< leliii.; helm,' l li,' eniirl . UiKjij vs. /)';,.«•/(, *>. IS. i-iia. Ill I., c. R. :;u:'. X.Will. >llAl{Kll01A)I':i;s MAIlll.lTV -i)i;i!T DIM i!V coi;i'oi;.\ ru)X. ). .\ sliai'( hiijilci' ni' an iiisi,l\eiil cnrpnra lii.n eannnl nlhn' a ileht ,liie In him hy the cni'- pnialinii. wiialevei' may \> the iharaiiiT nl lilt ilehl, in cninpensa'.ion nf a ylaim ajiiiin-l him hy a cniiitni' nf the cniiipany. I'l/l'ind vs. /.',',((//,, ('. 1',. iMli;, 1 L. C. !,.',!. 111. 2. //'/'/, re\ei-iiij5 the iiiiljimiail of the Coiii't m C>ii,,'irs lii'nch (12 !/. ('. .1. 2'.)), thai coinpen-alinii ili'cs nni take jilac,' ])lciiii Jiiri' nl the ilchl line hy a sliiii'elinlil,Tiii a hankiaipt railway cmipany to a jmliinieiit. ereililor of llie eniiipany, Willi n ileht tine hy the ennipaiiy In ih,' .-hai'i'holiler for arrears of sa'ary as presi- (l( 111 nf the I'ninpany, where the lir-t inentinn- e,l ilelit i.- mr stnck nnt paiil up, ami wher,' im calls have heeii iiiinle hy the company on .«iii:li niipaiil slOLk. Ryhnul vs. Ddish, I'. C. ISfi',), It L. v.. J. 12. 3. A sharelioliler of a hank cannot niler in CO).' jiensaiioii ofculls on sioct after it.s stis- he plea leil in (:oin|ieii ill mil lo iin aeliui nf tin natiiin iiK'iiliiiiieil ilhin e. ( U\i /.) COMPETE NOB, .'^i,' .1 1 111 nil 1 io\. COMPOSITION. See Insoi.vkmy. CONFISCATION. See Ckoun. CONFLICT OF LAWS. Si ,' I \ti;rn.\ I loN.M [i.\\\ . CONNAiaSEMENT. See A 1 rUKIIllir.MK.NT. CONSEIL PRIVE. See Al'I'K.M. — TO I'llivv Col NCll.. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Ij I. li.VXKS AMI 1!.\NKI.N(!. I 2. II. (Jo.M.MissioN- oi' Ini;iihy. 1 .1. III. CoNTli.Vrr WITH ('lOVKRNMKNT — CoN- SKNT OI' Cllit;!' i';.\('lTl\ i;. Kti'. I .1. I\'. Cnlll'Oll.VTIONS. 1-."|. \'. DlSSOI.lTlOX nr IjKOlSI.ATlKi;. VI. I'^l.DiTIoN Act.-*. 1-2, .^ee al-o iiiiiier title " MiaX'TlON.s.''' V'll. L\sui.vi:.\t'v .\Ni) IUnkuii'tcv. 10. (ll S,'i' .Artii'le 1, I'lViii' Ciilii/n,'. p. l-:i. cniipliiiliit at 1). Y(U, liy l>. Ciroiiaril. .Also "Clnii/li ami .sinie," by same .iiillior, 1 /,',/•. ( rH. 4.11, J /,', r. (/,/. 1, ;;:i, li:i .Ser '.l^t nf r,,iistitutioiiiil C.ise.s in Caiiaila mi to LSSI, 7 L. N. IS. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I I. HANKS AM) HAN'KI.Vd. I 1. Alllmugh § 14 (if .-CI'. '.II i.r tlic l;nii-li Xiii'lli Aiiierli'n Act df HilT ^'i\o- !■> Ihr liiiiiiiii- inii Purliiiiiii'iil tlic c'.\(lu-i\c ri;.'lil ici cimrt I laws ri'liitiiiL' III liiiiiU- itml liiiiklii^', ihc iiiliiiini-lnuioii 111' >iK'li laws IicIihil'- In iIil' I pl'ovitict'S, iiiiil tlu' Altiiricv-Oi'iicral fur Can- I mill i.« mil (.'ovfi'iicJ l.y Ail. '.i'.)7 <'. C. 1*. us .. , , , u 1 i.'T .„v. ' to (lie jsMieof Ills //((Miif it ui'it lit .v//T /,(c;,(,v. -)e|iarliiunt of .lusii.'i', is-^l, 'jO l;. 1,. ,-,^0. ' 2. 'I'lio udl-iN " liiuikitiL', Iiu'ui |iur:il;.iii ,if I I'aiiks and tlu' i--iie uf iiap.'r niMiicv "' In .scrliuii '.II (l.'i) III' the l)|-i(i

  • P (jf warcliniiM' ivc |,|^ I lakcii n- sixMu ily liy a Imiik in iIh' ri.iu>c nt tiic l.nsinr-s (if liaiikirij;. N.ii 'a ii li-lan IIiil' \ .I- eel lull I'll ul I 111' saiiii' .\ el. I III' I liiiiiiiiinii I'ar- lialiicTit lias I ,,\v(.i' Ul 'tji-lat'' w iih rc-|.('it .\1V. MiMHil.VI. NcinllhKN Col.uM/.MION tu Midi MVUrillcS ihull-U uili, li,,' dirclMf llv. Arr. iiii'.lity iiii; llu' l\\\ of lln' |iro\ iin . ,11 icialioii \V. >:am(,.mi(,s. 1 1. ili.ivlo. (P, r.n,u„l vs. / ,„„„ /;„„/, „/ CdiKchi, I'l ivy Ciiiiiu'il, 1 :'.!, tj " 'I l,r i;c| ,.i'i ..'" \\\. ro»i:K-oK l,i.i;i-i.ATi itK. , ;j^j I |-l)|| Apii. Ca-. .;! . I\' I •iiijal illlindiiiii ' "J ll(^ll^6'l.^ II. niMMIS-liiM III' |Niirii;v. ' 508.^//' /7, 11 .( i-in.' Ilii' jiiL'iiii III oi Will VIII. IXTOXIUATIMi l.KilOUS. ('iiittiiln Tctiipcrmtcc Act. 1"). Jiriircr's License.t, etc, (i-8. MiniicijnU lic(/ul(ili(in o/. '.1 11. J'olivc licijulation <;/. 121"). Qiicliec LiceiiKC Act. llJl'J. J.\. iNSlli.VMK. .\. .Iriiv i.vw. lilloM. ' Aiic/ioiiccr's ljicci\^c. 1. Jliilclnr.s' Stall.''. 2 I. lll.yill'lllK C ('(illljXIIIIi .S. '). ,owili r. ('i-8. Triiili i!< ami ulhci\'<. 'J. .\II. l.i.iTi,]iii:.s. Mil. .\I ^^^ I lis OF I'uocciiLRE. 1 il. III.', ,1, (Ml. 1; :■ ('. 1-'.^] a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ry Tn (./'/'/ Ill II'. I CliHl infll W II I'l III II III u.rii. 1 I. Will, qi A.M i'kimi.sai..\Iai ri:i;s. 1-7. . ,, , II. Ill an nil' 'j< I ain nij'l In ihlliiMicc a in I r:il. .\|. L. I!. AMI -■Si'c aNo .siijira "' liircii-i' " U- lu.',. Acts." Si'C also 6V(y//'({ •• Inloxicii liiiLl' Lii|iiurs." Fj.iliildls ill t'liurl — Direct cr in- • lirui. 1. (.01111,11 icial Voipvialions. '1. /■'( I'/'/r.v. ;■). lull list IIH ancar.-i of Atn'cssinenl.i. I ,-1. 2. A rniiiiiii-sjiiii of in.iuiry i--ui'ii li\ ilif Lieutciiant-(io\ t rnor in roiinnl iiiiil> r tin- -aLI section liiis tlic saiii-' |io\vcr to enfoicc iln- attcmlancc uf wilnc-scs, iiini lo roiii|i('l iIhiii to i.'ivp cviilciicc ln'forc it. as is\,,.-|,,| in anv f'oiirt of law in ci\il ca-c-, ai;i| lias tlirri'lni'C tilt' jioucr lo |iuiiis|i liy line ,,r iin|ii i-cimii, nl, or liotli, any Ciiiil('iii|'l of ii- inillnn iiy I \ anv Liciim: — In.sarance Coiiipaiiic.s. li. |icr.-oii siiniiniuicl as 11 uilnt-^s rcfn-inLr to Malical I'rojcs.sion. 7. niipeaf, or to answci ,|uc-ii,,iis juit lo Lini c,,n- Muuicip'd (.\iipnriitioii.i — Wtiolc- ccriiin.u till- iiiatli'i's wliicli lo'c the Miliji'c; of .s'((/t' I.iipior Dcakr.s. 8. such iiii|uiry. 'Jiinolli \-. IVInliin, \-'.'\, M. 2Vini.v/(.'/-.s of Ileal Estate— hind J.. 11.. 7 fj. I!. 2'i:;. ^'"•'■- '•■ 3. I'liilcr lhi'|.rovi-ioii< of till' 1;. X. A..\i'l. XM 1 1 Till I li 11 1110 F I l'"!!". I he Provincial Li". islal II' iM\ns cm jiowcr- 1 I'll to I nact ihc |ir,,vi-i,in- CMiliiincil in Articles X.XIV. !-;i llooi.s. 1 -1. , -,„; ,^,„| ;,,|,- ,,nhei;i'vi-.e,| .-^laniU-of Qui Inc. X.XV. Vacant SfccKSSloNS. 1-2. \ Tarcoll< \<. |i7„./,ni, H',»l, .M.I,. !! , 7 <,'. 15. ! 2(;:!. Sir also ("kown. I " El.lXTIOXs, l':rc. 1 d) r'»W(i»;/ vs. /JLyno/, ,-, .Vpii. L;ih. I' .', I.illunnl. r^^.| 7 11 ■'1. i ■i X mi r 1 1 1 H -ill, I m I < *' If 3r.8 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. III. CONTRACT WITH GOVEUNMKNT. 1. Consent of Chief Executive— Order- in-Council — Functions of Cabinet — Powers of Ministers us headsof depart- mouts— Batitlcation. — Ji i^ csetntiiil to the valiiiiiy (if II cunlriict iiiinle by tliu I'mviiioiul Gdvcnmieiil, f II' tin' oiirryin;; (iiit (if wliicli ii niuiicy vdto iiiu-t lie oLtaiiicii fnjiii llic Jjcjiis- Iiilurc, tliiit ihi' consi-nt of ilic l.n 'itcnaiit- (iuvcnior to il ;i|iiii'ai' in an ( i r.liTiiiCoiiiicil. 2. Miiii^^tiTs c/f tlic t'rowti u'J licuJs ofilic ill pai'tiMfiil^ iiiive power lo (lispoM' of njal- ltT!J of ciriiinary mulirie, but ciiiiiHil cnlir, foi' i)ic iroviTuniC'Dt, iiilo contracts of the niitiirc I ive slated. A'' i'e;;aril> in' purtu'iilarly I wliich the ncparlnic f Ai;iii;nllnie an I ( ..u.ni/aljiin I- eoncerncil, Arl. ITi"-,') U.S. '^ i((|uirc.'-| llnil l|]iy lie .-i;.'iieil by llicCnni- iiii--ioni r, 111' bi-^ n.-M-lunt, ami not renilereil ellecliNeanil biniliij,;^ oi' Ibe g(jvernnient by a jiarl jiayinent made, ■ . Ilii' order of -neli inini.-'ler, out of a (le|iait- mental fund foi' otber |iurf)0-e.-i, nor by ibc delivery uiidei' it of j:ooiN lo -iibordm.iie olticials. nor liy tbe vole by 'be l.fLri.-^lature, in tbe bill of supply, of a -iiin of nniaey '■■ ioHanls providing for ibe seltlcmeni of (■bums under eonsideratinii.'" llnjiiia vs. ]\'uti:r<>Hs EiKjiiii W(irk!< Co., '^ Ii. I^IKi, .'1 Que. 22li. IV. CORPORATIONS. ! 1. Tbe Le;:islatnre of the Province of Qui- bic has no power to amend an ael of incorjio- ration of tlic late Proviuce of Canada creating \ a (orporation extending over two provinces, even althougb it be jiroved that the corporation bad its domicile, chief jiliice of business, and the whole of its i)roperly in the Province of Ouehec. Ddhbie vs. Board Ttw/iordlilies, , P. r. 1882,2(1 L. C.J. 17(1, o L.N. ,-.8 ; Q. 13. ' 1880, ;; L. N. 211. ! 2. The Dominion Parliaincnt alone has ! power to incorporate an as.sociation for the I purpose of buying, lea.sing and selling landed Ijroperty and buildings in tlie whole Dominion, although the ojieraiicjiis of a society for puch purpo!-e afTect exclusively ]iroperty and civil ritiht.s within tlie province where tliey are carried on; and therefore the Act 37 Vic. (Can.), cap. 103, incor)iorating the Colonial Building and Invegtinent Associa'ion for such ] olijects, was intrarire.i. Loinni/ir, Alli/.-Gtjii,, I vs. Coliiiiidl Bui'liliii;/ and liirestnniil .|..«o- I cintion, P. C. IHSli, !» App. Ca«. I,"i7, levii-. I ingQ. Ii. 18H2, 5 L.N. llti. I 3. Lcllcrs patent issued by the Lieui n;uil- (lOvernor-in-Couiicil, incorporating u Tile- phone Company with jiovver to carry oh 'iisi- ' ness in this Provinei under the provi-im,-' ..f I section H of 31st Vict., chap, 2."i, now KcmscI 1 Slatiiles of Quebec -1705, in which poui'r la ] granted to tlie Sherbrooke Telephone A-'j(j. ' ciali(jn " to consiruct, maintain and operate a line or lines of leb'phone lhr(.iugh, under or , along the streets, highways, brid'.'es or water courses of towns, cities, or other incorpor.'iU'd (.r rural miinicipalilie.s in said Province wlicre said Association shall at any lime carry in iis operations, provided the pa-sage or i lie in said streets or liigiiways shall not be iuip''l< I iir inlcrl'ered with," are n/lra fires of iii,- Lieutenant- (.!o\crnor-in-Couiicil, and the lei- ters prilenl >hoiild not hiuecMiMided or inlrr- preleil (he words of the !au , I7(i.') I!. S. i,^., wbiidi simply confer upon aii\ oiiijiany incor- [iirated liy letters jiatent all the pmvcrs, privileges and immunities I'eipiiied Inr ihc carrying on of its undertaking ; and ibc cunlrul and 11 •(• of the -I reel- of the cily of Siicibr.ioke and other municipalities of Ibe l'ii.\ incr ran only be taken away by direct leji-lative enari- ment. t'orjKir'iliuii of iShi'rbrd'i'.i: \-. Sin i-- hroiihr Tilrpliunc r:'o.,S. C. ls-;i, 12 I,, x. :)5t. (■ mlirmed in Appeal ISlUi, M. L K.. u IJ. B. Kill. 4. The act inc'rporating the .Jesuits xr^inlrn ririK of the t^uebei; Legislature. Vumii. ,1^ Jcsns vs. Mill 1'/,/. Co., S. C. lS;iO, 20 lb L. .■!0. 5. It. S. C, ch. 12'.', sec. 3, wbi(di provides thnt the Winding u]i Act applies lo incorpor- ated trading conipanie.s " doing business in (^'aiiada, wheresoever incor|)orated."" is )mi nllra c/'/v ,v of the Dominion Parliaineiit. Allen vs. Hanaon, Siipreine Ct. l8',)ll, IS ('an. S. C. R. I liT, conlirining Q. Ii., l.'i L. N. 12:'. ICi (I L. U. 7:t. V. DISSOLUTION OF LEGISLATUItL. See article in 1.5 Legal News 4, containing opinion of Dr. Bourinot /'f diss(dution of t^ie- bee Legislature, 22 Dec, 1801. VL ELECTION ACTS. (See also under title " Ei.ECTlON-.s.") 1. Tiie Dominion Controverted Elections Act of 1874 i: constitutional. Valin vs. Laii- C<>NSTITrTIONAL LAW. 3G9 «//"/>•. ^ii|irciiie L't. 187!*, :i Ciiii. S. ('■ R. 1; ! ad respondendum iliiri'lv )irovi(li'i|, urc all It'iivf 1" iippeiil to 1'. C rehi-rl, r> Ai)p. Ciis, i coiiii'i- -'•'! in Ihc -iil'.ie('l> iijion wliirli llic H. 117: Oiirif' v^ Cimliiiii/, C. H. Jn L. C. J. N. A. \i:l .■iiiiiDWcr-i 'lie K'^.'i-liitiin' tn cniu'l. Parent v. Trndel, V. K. |hs7, i:; (I L. |{. liiii ; ftiiil -t'c liriiddij VI. Shiarl,n\. i (Vnrknoa V-. Onliirii, lluil;, ' inluiio Ciisi^, \\) Lajll V,; ; l!;ii,n vs. ZJer////, C. It., 2'i J. C ■' . 77. a. Tlic ('"lite^lcil Klci;ll..ri~ Ar of nt.ti-^ con-litiiiHimiJ. Ihinil v-i. Cii.v im/o .1- Mh-haud, Elivti.iii Court 1>71, r.i I. 0. .1. !';, o u. I-. 1V1. VII. IN'SOI.VKN'CY ANI>nAXKIUII'TC\ . 1, TIlC 1 1' 111 I ICC l.fgisllllUll' llll< |i(l\V('I' III jiii-- iih .\ii j^iiiiiliiiL' rc'iii f III II I'liiuii .\.-"^i) ciiiliiiii nliicli lias lii'ciiiiii' iiiilnimis-ifil liiiaii- cKillv, iiM'l -iii'li an .\i:t is nut mii' rclatiiii; Id VIII. TNIOXICATIXG I.I'TOK.^ 1. CanuLia Temperance Act, 1878.— 1'^ ^' 15. N. \. .\i!t, l^ii7, |i!riiiirv pour' iif Hjislaliiiii arc ;_'i\i'ii In llic I'liriiariicM nl Canaila nvcr all inailcrs uithiii tin >C"| I \<.- jili i-i|..liiin, aiiil ill! V ina l"- CNci'ciM .i cither all-Ill iilciv (ir cnrcliiioimlU . I l!,.„k,.iplivaii.llnvnivc,„.v u. llic nica,,. ,|,(. hu,i.,. r„.c l|,c Ic^-i.-laliuii lii:i. I.c ira'ilc ,, infill llic 1!. N. X. .\ri. I HI' II St. .hii'ijiii"' ,/, Moiitrr.il V-. y.'i.'/^/i , P. (■ 1-71, Jii L. (.'. J.':-, I.. 11. .i; p. *'. App. :;i, .-> i;. i,. ti^:^. 2. Kill till- Pailiiiiiiciit III' <";iiiii.|ii li (.i II piiucr 111 piiiviilc I'l.r ihr liipii.iriliun u' iii._' -II. ' I; CI (« liclhcf iii-ulvclil iir ' "I I III llii l'ni\ h Ijlli lice. M'C/illnli/lnlil V-. .S7, ilcpcicl up 'U "liiiic '^uliscipiclil cvchi, iiii.l lie lirmi^lil lull I luivr m nni' p.iil ul' llie |). iiiiininii ami Mill ill llic iiilicr. r,/,, ./' /•Vc/m/c/o;/ v-. The (Jiiiun, Supreme Cl. l.s^d, ,'! ('mi. .^. ('. \{. Ill- .-lO.-i. 2. Ami miller I!. \. A. Ael. -cc HI, •. -, '■ rci.'iil,ii !iiu 111' li-a'lc auil eiiiiiMit'lcc,"" llie J/ic'.v .)/».'/' / liiiildiii.j S. i.f;/, (}. H. I--II. Parhaiiii 111 urCiuiaila almie lias the pnucr nf -I I,, r. .1. |. J. Ucvcr-^ih.' S. ('. l>7'.i, III l{. pri.liil.il mu the Irallic, in iiiti..\iealui,i: iMpMrs . '-'■!. Ill till- Diiiiiitii. Ill 111- 111 any piii't nl' it, an. I the 3. Tiic IJucliee I,ii'c|i~e .\cl nl' |s7o i- 'hrii ' cniii'l hii- n.i liehi whnievcr In cii.|nii'c what ( //•('.< ill -II ;,ir as it iillcct< the In^nlvci/ Ad .imtiM' iii.!ii.-..| I'arlianiciit In exercise im of l.-i'i'.l. The ll'-nlviiil .Vet 111' l.SO;) n lalii._' Imwcr-. (//..) c.mIii-ivcIv 111 enniiiierciiil tiiiillers, tlie|i..;il 3, .\nil A. A/, in the Privy Cniim il, le-i-laltiic eaiinnl n-lriel its nperatinn-. hy 1 hat -iieli an Act wa- iml a lineal .\cl, lliatit i in I m- ill- a .1 Illy uii the -ale nl an in-i il\cni '- ,|i,| |,„t pmp,., |y licUini; In thee la-- nf -ul.j.'Cts cMiite, nr hy rc-lrictiiii: the )iiiucrs , l' iho , " prnpcrty aicl civil riLrhts," imr t.i the da-s lii|iiiilaliir< iiinlcr the .\cl. r../'; vs. JI'k/.vo;/, of snlijects |';illin)j: uinlcr siili--ccti(iii lil nf S. C. 1.-77, :> (J. I,. It. I.'i7. sci'tion H'.'— •• (iiiiMMJIy all niaitersnfa merely 4. The pinvcr to le;_'i-lalc on liimkriiplcy local nr pcrsninil nature in the Prnvincc;" ail. I iii-iiUciicv cniiiprisc- IcLiislatinii not niily 1 anil that the Incal opiion conililioii atlachcl to fi.r a ilischarcc of llic ilchtnr I'l'niii hi- cm- tract<, I. Ill al-o for the ili-lrilnitinii of his e-latc aiiionj; his irclilors, cither with nr uiiliiiiii a ilisc;liarij:p from lii< llaliiliiics. Dii- ]i'iiil vs. La C'ic. dc Moulin olvciil tradiiif; cmii. panics, is constilulionul. (lb) 6. 1 ;." Act 4.S Vic. cli. n (Que.), relatinj: to abi'iiiloiiincnt of property i.s 1101 ultra rires of the <>!' 'iC'C Lei^islaturc. The aliaiidonnient of ) vm. ly and its diHtribiuiou siniong cre- ditors, and tlie issue of the writ of capias it, liy which the iiilialiilants of a niiinieipalily cniilil a.h pi il nr iinl a- they saw lit, di.l imt L'ive it this character, (lli.) P. ('. IS-'J, ."i L. X. 'i:)!. 4. The ri';:iilatioii ol' the trallic in intii.xicatiiiL.' liipinrs is within t :e jurisijictinn nf the Parliaiiicnl nf Canada. AV ]>iirti' ('iKifi/, C. Cf. 1S77, 21 L. C. ,F. 1-2. Itcucr.-cd in up- jieal, Imt on other Lrrniiu. Is. See 17 (.}. L. 11., pp. 2'2<, •J'i'.l. 5. 'i'he Canad-.i Temperance .\ct, 1878, i- ((institutional and wiiliin the pcuver and authority of the Doiiiitiion of Canada. Russell vs. Re.riinam, P. C. 18S'2, VI 11. L. Cdl, 7 Anp. Cas. 8'2y. 6. Brewer's License, etc. — Provincial fjpiii shit u res cannot legislate upon questions afleoting trade and conuiierce unless witli the view of increasing the provincial revenue. i^ ' r r' -I 24 X''r i IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 US m m us 1 4.0 JZ5 ■ Z2 il.8 L25 III 1.4 11.6 ^ 6" ► Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WBT MAIN STMET WnSTER.N.Y. MSSO (71«) 872-4503 'i^.V^ '^ ii. k 370 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Hart vs. Corporation of Missisquoi, C. Ct. 1876, 3 Q. L. K. 170. 7. S., after the pa«!'ing of tlie Act 0. .37 Vic, cap. 32, entitled " An Act to amend and consolidaie the law for the sale of fer- mented or ^spirituous liquors," then beinj; a breuv-T licensed b)' the Government of Canada, under 31 Vic, cap. 8 (D), fortiie manufacture of fermented, spirituous and other liquors, did nianufiict'.ire large quantities of beer, and did sell by wholesale for confiuiujition within the Province of Ontario a large erved by the 91st section of the British North America Act for the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, and that the license imposed was a restraint and regulation of trade and commerce and not the exercise of a (wlice power. Severn vs. liegina. Supreme Ct. 1S78, 2 Can. S. C. U. 70. But see Molson vs. Lamb, infra No. 10. 8. And the right conferred on the Provincial Legielatures by ss. 9, sec. 92, of the said Act to deal e.xclusively with sliop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and "other licenses" does not extend tri licenses on brewers, or '' other licenses " which are not ofaloculor municipal character. (lb.) 9. Municipal Regulation of. — On the 3ril of April, 1877, an amendment was passed to a by-law made in 1871, requiring that a license fee of $200 should be paid by any one authorized to retail liquors, belbre the certificate of tl.° ^ >rporation to enable the party to obtain a license wcs granted. This was done under authority of an Act of the Local Legislature, 38 Vic, cap. 76, giving to the council power to make by- laws — " For determining under what restric- *■■ tions and conditions, and in what manner " the Collector of Inland Revenue for the " District of Three Rivers shall grant liceiises " to merchants, traders, shopkeepers, tavern- " keepers and other persons to sell such " liquors" — Held, that under a proper inter- ])retation of sub-section 8, the riglit to |)ass a prohibitory law for the purposes of municipal institutions has been reserved to the Lncnl Lejrislatures by the B. N. A- Act. Corporatiim of Three Ilivers vs. Suite, 5 L. N. 330, Q. 1!. 1882. Confirmed in Supreme Ct., !1 ("an. S. ^ '2. R. 25. 10. Article 5GI of the Municipal Code as amended by 61-52 Vic, ch. 29, s. (j (R, S. Q. ()1I8), by which a municipality is authorized to prohibit ihesaleof intoxicating liii'iors in quan- tities less thai> two gallons, within the litniisuf the municipality, is within the powers of the Provincial Ix'gislature. Cur]), of Hnndiii/don vs. Moir, 1891, M. L. R., 7 Q. B. 281, 20 K. L. 081; appeal to Supreme Ct. (]uasho.l, 14 L. X. .'!78, the by-law having, in the mean- while, lieen repea'dl. 11. Section 39 of 53 Vic. (Que.), ch. LXXIX (an Act to incorporate the town of -Magog) which gives the Municipal Ciiincil (of MHgDg) power " to make by-laws tu lestrain, regulate or prohibit the sale of any spii'itunus, vinous, alcoholic or intoxicating liquors, by retail or wholesale, within the town," is intra iJi/fi.s' of the Legislature of the Province of (Jiiebec. Li'pine vs. Laurem, S. C. 1891, 17 Q. L. R. 22(i, 14 L. X. 369. But see Dessa-- veiiit\'!'. Lusalle, decided at Tliiee Rivers by Bourgeois, J. Noted 17 Q. L. R., at pp. 234, 23,-). 12. Police Regulation of. — 42 and 4:! Vic, cap. 4,sec. 1 (Que), ordering the closing of taverns, etc, on Sunday, is a police regula- tion, and is within the competence of the Quebec Legislature. (1) Potilhi vs. Corpont- Hon of Quebec, Supreme Ct. 1884, 28 L. C. J. 105, 18 R. L. 4S0, 9 Can. S. C. R. Isj, Court equally divided ; Q. B. 18S1, 7 Q. L. R. .337, S. C. l.'^81, 12 R. L. 486 ; Cii€ de Mont- real vs. Doyle, Recorder's Court 1880, 2 Themis 182. 13. The provision of tiie Provincial Statute, 38 Vic, ch. 74, sec. 4, ordering houses in which spirituous liquors are sold, to he closed on Sundays, and every day from 11 of the clock at night until 6 of the clock in the (1) .Sea article in4'nieniis,p,321,nonoluded at p. Ul ; by B. A. T. de Moutigny. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 371 morning, is a police regulation, within the power of the Provincial Legislature. Blouin y^. Corp. of Quebec, S. C. 1880, 7 Q. L. R. 18. 14. But the License Act of Quebec in so f"<" as it imposes a penaltj' of imprisonment with hard labour is uncoiiBtitutional ii.\v\\iUra fires of the Quebec Legislature. Collopy vs. CorjHiration of Quebec, S. C 187'J. Noted 7 Q. L. R. at p. lit. 15. In a license case — Held, that tlie fact that a proliibitory by-law existed in virtue of the Municipal Code does notaHeet the right of the Legislature of the Province of Quebec to impose a fine greater than that imposed by I the by-law. Coir' vs. Parudus^l- H. 1881, 1 I Dorioii'.-Q. I?. R. :iT4. ' 16- Queoec License Act, 1878.— The j Quclicc l,iccn.-e Act, 41 Vic, ch. :>, is iidni, , vires of the Lejjislatiire of tlie Province of ; (jiii'licc. (1) Suite vs. CorpiiratioH of Three yi'/Vcr.v, Supreme Ct. 18,^3, 11 Ciin. S. C, R. :Vi, contiriinn}.' Q. 15. 1882, 5 L. X. ;!:!(»; Midsmi vs. Lamhe Supreme Ct. 1SS7, 15 Can. S. C. R. 25:'., coiilinning Q. 15. 1886, 81 L. C. J. 511' M. 1.. R., 2 Q. H. ;i8l, an.l S. C, .M. L. R., 1 S. C. 'l>\\; Kxp. EiUoii, S. C. 1S88, 27 L. C. j J.:!12; CoU- \s. Puradis, Q. H. ISsl, H R. ' L. I ; Ruckwurt vs. liazin, S. C. Is70, li) R. L. (■)55; Ax;). MoUnari, S. C. 1883, G L. N. ;!!)5. 17. As also the amendments thereto. Million vs. Liimbc, Supreme Ct. 18S7, 15 Can. S. C. R. 253. 18. The Legislature of the Province of Quebec was duly vested, under the British North .\merica Act, 1877, with the power to tiiact the provisions contained in tiie 2iid and 71st sections of- The Quebec License Law of 1878." Dion vs. Cliuuveau, S. C. lS83, 1) Q. L. R. 220. 19. 34 Vic., ch. 2 — Dom. Tem- perance Act, 1864. — The Quebec License Act, 34 Vic, cap. 2, and the Municipal Co. t; 372 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 16 R. L. 348 ; Corheil v»- City of Montreal, 1890, M. L. R.,f. Q. J5. 271. 4. The bylaw passed by the City Co!..)cil under the autli llis. is ke|)t, is a powder ma^'azine within the incaninf!; of 41 Vic. (Q,), cap. .'i, pec. 170. IJnmiUnn Powiler d. vs. Lamhc, 1885, M. L. K., I Q. B. KiO, liO L. C. J. 1.'!. 7. (Hy the i \ajority of tlie Court) : — That the Act above cited, which imposes a penalty lor failing to take out a license, is not ultrti rire.f, beinir in the nature of a police rei^ulatioi), and as sncl. wiihin the powers of the local leirislature, even supposini; the provision of the Act re(iuirin;: a fee of $.')(1 to be ])aid for a liccn.-e Wv"e ullra vires as a revenue tax. (lb.) 8. (By Uainsay, J.) :— That the Act is valid, not as a ])olice rej^ulatioii, but as a license Act, the local legislatures liaving power, under the B. N. A, Act, sec. 02, ss. 9, to pass an act for raising revenue by a license fee. {lb ) 9. Traders and others. — Helil, aflirming the jndj.'inent of 1'ait, J. ("i Que. 47, Superior Court): 1st. The Act 5,')-.'5(; Vic. (Que.), ch. 10, which requires licenses to he taken out each year by traders and others, is not nltrn vires of the Provincial Legislature. It is neithei an interference with the exclusive anthoritv of the Parliament of Canada to regulate trade and con)nierce, nor —fMd, that the Parliament of Canada had the right to change t'.ie ordinaiy proceiiure in matters such as insolvency, falling within the |)owers exclusively assiijned to it under the B. N. A. Act. Bi'UHsolcit vs. Fri'jon, Q. B. IS80, I Dcrion's Q. B. R. 7li. 3. The Dominion Parliament had power to take away tlie right of appeal to the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, as they ('luined to do by the Act 40 Vic, ch. 41, see. 2><, amending " The lu'^olvenl Act of ls7."i." Cuslrhi;/ vs. DupHi/, P. C. 18.^0, 24 L. C. .1. 151. 4. Where an appeal in insolvency was brought after the eight days allowed bv the Insolvent Act, 1875, and the appellant eon tended that the Dominion Parliament had no power to slioi ten the delays ])rovided by the ordinary ))roci'dure — Ilchl, that the Dominion Legislature had a right to legislate on matters of procedure inciilental to the subjects a^sijrne.l to it. Giroiiard vs. Germain, Q. B. Issd, 3 [j. N. 109. 6. Matters of police regulaticm are under the control of the Provincial Legislature, whicdi can therefore designate certain ronrts for the trial of infraction of the police regulations, and to provide a mode of pi'ocedure to follow in conducting such trial. Citi! de Monlrt'iil vs. Doi/lc, Recorder's Court 1880, 2 Themis 182. 6. The Act 57-.58 Vic, ch. 55 (Canada) declares the first Monday in September to be a non-juriilicalday (Labor Day). On the 30th Aiig., 1894, the Lieutenant-Governorof Quebec issued a proclamation declaring the same day a non-juridical one, and, in consequence, the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 373 Protlionotary's offices at Montreal were cioseil on the Mrd Sept., 1S94, being tlie first Monday r as coining under " municipiil institutions" under B. N. A. Ac', S. 92, No. 8 ; and the fact that a term of the criminal law ("nuisance") is used in a local Act to characlerize an otlcnce within the jurisdiction of the local legislaiure does not make the enactment ultra vires when the ofTence is not /)c/' se an indict'>.ble oH'cnce under the criminal law. Pillow vs. Recorder's Court of Montreal, 1885, M. L. R., 1 Q. li. 401, 30 L. C. J. 1, confirming S. C. 18s:f, 27 L. C. J. 21(1, 6 L. X. 209. XIX, QUEEX'S COUNSEL. The Uritish North America Act h.n-' not invested the Legislatures of the Provinces with any control over the appoiiitnieiit of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 375 Quepn'." Counsel, and as Her Majosty forma liopartoftlie Provincial Legislatiircji, as t^lie does (if ihe Dominion Parliament, no act of any suuli local legislature can in any manner impuir or atlbctlier prerogative right to appoint Queen's Counsel in Ciinada directly ortlirougit IJcr Representative the Goveriio'-General, or vest sucii prerogative right in the Lieutoi'ant Governors of the Provinces. Lenoir vs. Jiit cliie, Supreme Ct. 187D, .'! Can. S. C. K. 575, 2 L. X. 373. XX. PREROGATIVE-EXK'.'.CISE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. (1) The government of each Province of Canada represents the Queen in the exercise of her prerogative as to all matters uHocting the rights of the Province. (1) (The Qfceii vf. 'Ihc Hank of Nova Scotia, 11 Can. S. C. R. 1 fcjjlowed.) Liquidatom of the Maritime Hank yfi. Receiver General of Xew JSrunsinirk, i>n- pronie Ct. 1889, 20 Can. S. C. R. (i'.IS. Con- (iriiied in Privy Council, 8 Times Law Reports, (377. XXL RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION. Action for the recovery of a mortgage delit of SI.OOO and S120 iiiteret^t. The respondents acted under the author'ty of a statute of the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, wiiich purported to authorize the formation of the Roard, respondent, in a different manner from that settled by the original Act of incorpora- tion. The object of this amendment was to enable a new body, to be called " The Pres- byterian Church in Canada," being a union of certain Presbyterian Churches, imdcr certain conditions, to take j)ossession of the ])i'operty tornierly belongitig to a body known as the I'resbvterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. The a|)pellan; jileaded that the plaiiititi', res])ondeiit, was not the party to whom he was indebted, tiiat the Act of the Province of Quebec in (iue>tiou, 38 Vic, c. t'>4, was beyond the powers of a local legislature, and that, therefore, the Board respondent was not organized iiy law and could not recover — Held, that the Dominion Parliament had power to enact a statute con- firming and ratifying all acts and doing-i of the Boar(ed to a municipal corporation [iroliihiting it from proceeding with the execution of a certain by-law, a person directed by the cor- poration to execute work required by the by- law was held not subject to inipiisuuincat for contenii)t of court. Exparte Archambault, S. C \f'-, 2 11. L. 105. 4. luaster of Vessel.— Where a vessel had been attached and the master carried it out of the jurisdiction of the court — Held, ihut he had rend''.'ed himself liable to attachment for contt.iipt. The Friends in re, S. V. A. C. 72, V. A. C. and The Delta in re, S. V. A. C. 207, V. A. C. 1838. 5. Secretary of Company.— The secre- tary of a railway company cannot be con- demned for contempt of court for having re- fused to conform to a writ of injunction addressed to the company in an action where the secretary is not a parly. Tiernan vs. Compagnie du Chemin de Fer, M. 0, it O., Q. B. 187G, 8 R. L. 374. 6. Woman— Arts. 2273 2276 C. C— The neglect or refusal of a woman to comply with a judgment of ttie court, which orders the making of an inventory, doe.« not render her liable to coercive imprLsoiiment for a con- tempt, and the right of coercive imprisonment does not exist against women uuiity of such refusal or neglect. Larochelle vs. Mailloux, Q. B. 18G6, 10 L. C. R. 407. 7. Witnesses.— -On a rule for contempt against witnesses it was saiil that the form a-king that they "be imprisoned until they have given evidence" was wrong, as they would, in that case, have to give evidence in gaol for which there was no provision, or slay there forever. Fair vs. Cassils, C. 11. ',i81, 4 L. N. 102. 8. A witness who has made default to appearand give eviilence, and against whom a rule has issued for contempt, must appear \n person to answer the rule. Fair vs. Cassels, S. C. 18^0, 3 L. N. 337. 9. A rule for a contempt against a witness who has not answered a suhpmna ad testificandum will not lie, unless pnjof be made by affidavit of personal service, tender of reasonable expenses, and of wilful disobe- dience. Sexton V.J. Boston, S. C. 18(J1, 5 L. C. J. 334. ■J ! i? I m 378 CONTEMl^T OF COURT. 10. — But hefd later ihut on an appli- cation for ienpri-^oiinient of a witncHH resident in Montreal, for oonti'inpt, in not obeying a sulipeena |x>rrionally served, it is not necessary to ;)rove the service of tiie «H6/)a3nrt by atlidavit, nor that the ori^jiiial writ was exhibited to the witness, nor that tender was made of fees or expenses. Joseph vs. Joseph, S. C. IHti.'t, 8 L. C.J. 11. 11. COMMITMENT. 1. Delay to commit. — Where, in i case of contempt of cor.rt in faciir curia:, thej .dj.'e presiding' adjourned the court from the morn- ing until the afternoon, in onlcr to consult w!:li another .judge — Held, that the adjourn- ment dill not vitiate the comniitment. Mc- Nameecrp., Q. IS.1S80, 3 L. N. 197, 10 R. L- .Sll. 2. Must be for stated time— A commit- ment for contempt must be for a given time, or until the person in contem]>t does or is willinj; to conform to tlie order ot the Cotirt. A commitment wliicli is general and during pleasure will he qnasjiel and set aside. Vine- ber to give evidence iK'fore it, as is vesteil in any Court of law in civil ca"es, ami has tlu'relbre ihe power to punish by fine or imprisiminent, or both, any contempt of its authority by any person summoned as u witne.Hs refusing to appear, or to answer questions put to him con- cerning the matters which are the subject of such inquiry. Tnrcntte vs. Whelau, (J. 15. 1S91, M. L. R., 7 Q. I!. 2i;n, reversing S. C, M. L. R., G S. C. 289. V. EVIDKNCE-ADMrSSION. An admission by the party charged, at the instance of the judge, for the ])Mrposc of set- tling the dispute between them, must be held to have been written without prejudice, aii(| cannot avail as evidence in support of the rule for contempt, in case the judge rclhse to accept it as a suflicient apology. Exparte liiuiinaij, P. C. 1871, 1". L. C. J. 17. VI. IMPRISONMENT FOR. (Seeiilso " CoKUCIVE I.MI'RISONMKNT.") A person over 70 yeanj of age is not cxenipl from imprisonment for contempt of emirt. Rois vs. O'Leanj, S. C. 1883, 27 L. C. J. 220. III. DEFENDANT TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN. J. In case of contempt of court in Jticicc curia', it would appear that it is not necessary thai the defendant should be allowed to explain his conduct. McKamce exp., Q,. B. If80, 3 L. N. 197, 10 R. L. 31!, 2. Before committing for contempt for non- production of books, a witness should be allowed to explain hi.s conduct, lure Arm- strong, S. C. 1892, 1 Que. 408. IV. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. A colllmi^sion of inquiry issued by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under Section VII. JURISDICTION IN. 1. A judge of the Court of Q. B., whilst sitting alone in the exercise of the criminal jurisdiction conferred upon that court, has no jurisdiction over an alleged contempt for pub- lishing a libel concerning one of the justices of the Court, in reference to the conduct of such justice while acting in his judicial capacity, on an application to him in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus, — the matter being only legally and projjerly cognizable by the full Court of Q. ". Exparte Ramswj, P. C. 1^71, 15 L. C.J. 17. 2. The issuing of a rule for contein])t by the judge himself against whom the cont<'Mipt is alleged to have been coinmitteil, without any evidence that the party charged had cum- niitted the conteniirf, is most irregular. [lb.) 3. A fine imposed, r.nder circumslaiieea such as above, will be remitted. {III.) 4. Where a contempt has been committed in the presence of the Court, and the oIliMiior immediately after leaves the Court room, going into another room in the same building, the Court still has jurisdiction, at least on the CONTEMPT OF COURT. 37* liny of the olTence, to onlcr liiw arrest ami im- pri-ioiiiiient, without (irnt ordering nn attach iiKMit to bring hitn before the Court. lure Terra, Uniti'd States Suprenie Ct. I8-i8, 12 L. N. 2^ VIII. MOTION FOR. A motion for a rule against a witness for contempt muft be notificii to the party inoveil ngainsl, and tlio rule must be ."crved ]X'rson- aiiy, unless the parly absiConiLi in order to nviiiii such pers mal service, in re Downey, Dolierltj etul.,S. C. 187 t, 18 L. C. J. 28.3. IX. SERVICE OF MOTION FOR. V/hcre a motion against witnesses for con- tempt was serveil on the 7th and returned on liic .'^tli — Hd'l, that '.here sliould have been a clear day's notice. Fair vs. Casselx, C. R. 1881» 4L. N.'l02. X. WII.VT CONoTITUTKS. 1. Acts not committed in face of Court. — Interference with Justice.— English Case. In re Johnson, Ct. o( Apjjeal London, Nov. 7, 1887, 10 L. N. ;W7. 2. Accounting.— A defendant, who has been ordered liy the Court to render au ac- count is not guilty of contempt of court for refusing to do so, su(di order being in tlie nature of an ordinary judgment. Crowley vs. Chretien, S. C. Iss'i.'s L. N. 08. 3. Adjudicataire.— Petitioner applied for a rule for contempt against an adjudicataire of a properly purchased at aslieritf's sale, the conditions of whicii were that the adjiidica- IC> C, C. P. tor cdtting wood on the land seized. Conticr VH. Cimi .Vnr.i, (j H., Que. , 5 June, 1877. 7. Qarnisheo. — A garnishee who refuses to deliver up articles sei/eil in his possession IS guilty of (;ontempt. Fcnjuunn vs. Millar .j" Iloolier, K. B. IHI.!, 3 Rev. de Leg. 305. 8. Guardian.— .V defendant will bo held guilty of contempt of court who fails to repre- sent goods seized and left in his possession by voluntary guardiiin name I by him, unless he pays their value or the plaiiitill's claim. Brady vs." Cuurrilb; C. R. IHS.'!, 28 L. C J. Ulo. 9. Judgment where person holding moveable property in contempt of or- der of Court is adjudged the lawful owner. — While an action of revendication of some maehinery was going on, the plaintiff obtained an order of a judge, giving him provi- sional juissessioii of the machinery. Never- theless, by collusion between the defenilants, the i)roperty was jiut into the po.ssession of White, iiitervenant. The plaiiitifl' having taken a rule for contempt, the defendants and inter- venani were ordered to give over the properly within three days, which order was disobeyed. Held (reforming tlie jiidgnu'iit of tlie Super- ior Court, M. L. R., 1 S. C. 28S), that White was guilty of conternpl, and should be fined •SlOO; but that it was no longer e.xpedient to order him lo give up the machinery, liecauso in another action, in which judgment was ren- dered at tlie same moment as that on the rule, Whit" was declared to be lawful propr.etorof the machin"ry. Kiiffer vs. Whitehead, Q. B. 188(), M. L. K., 4 Q. B. 230. 10. Pleadings. — In a petition for a writ of prohibition to defendants to ])revent them pro- ceeding with an execution for Costs, which had been taxed by order of the judge, was the fol- lowing plea: " 3. Because this judgment appears on its face to have been rendered at the immoral suggestion of the lion. .M. A. Plamondon." The word immoral had been eiTaced with a stroke of the pen, and in the luargin the word illegal substituted, without, however, any mention at the foot of the peti- .::■•,. . ,! I--^ 380 CONTEMPT OF COURT. tioii of tlie crusurt' or marginal note. Tlio jii(l;;(', ti) whom tlic petition was presented, l)oin{,' the Hsnie thus ri-ferrt'd to, hi-Ul tlie ex- preHKioii lliuM n.ied to he a contempt of court, ordered tlie petition to he locited up bj' tlie prothomitary, utid tlie attorney nijfuinj; it to appear to lUiHwer the contempt at tiie opening of the next term of the Court. On appeal, the Queen's Bench refused to interfere with the judgment. Champagne vk. Belaiiijer,Q- «. 1877, y U. L. ;i28. 11. Opposition.— An unfounded oppoi'ition is a conienipt of court, for which atiuchment may be grunted. Quirouet v^'. ]Vilnon, li. U. 181.S, 3 Rev. de Leg. 472 ; Hunt vs. I'errault, K. B. 1820, ;! Rev. de Li'g. 475. 12. Contra.— The mere filing of a fraudulent uppo.siiion is not a ground for im- prisonment for contempt of court. It is oidy in the case of a repetition that it gives rise to contempt. Girmxl vs. Audette, 8. C. 1885, 13 R. L. 418. 13. A jiarty filing an opiwsition re- jieatedli/ for the mere pur|)0se of retarding tlie saleif goods seized, is liable to imprisonment for contempt of court. ThovutH vs. Pepin, C. Ct. 18G1,,-)L. C. .1. 70. 14. Where ft defendant after judgment and execution tiled u.i opposition founded on the allegation of his pleas— //eW, that lie could not be condemned to imprisonment for con- tempt of court until the merits of the opposi- tion had been adjudicated upon. Ditwson vs. Ogden, Q. B. 1877, 8R. L. 710. 15. Besistance to Process.— Art. 569 C. C. P.-2273 C. C— Where a party against whom execution has gone out, barricades his door and removes his etlects before they can be actually seized and entered in the procig verbal of the liailifF, he is not guilty of rebellion de justice. Tcrroux vs. Dupont, C. Ct. 1800. lOL. C. .J. 113. le. Art. 2273 C. C— On motion of the plaintifl— //cZ(?, that a rule for coercive iinprisonmeiit Would issue against a defendant refusing to open his doors to a bailiff, charged with the execution of a writ to seize the effects therein, and that where the defendant has made use of neither force nor violence. Des- harnois vs. Amiot, C. Ct. 1853, 4 L. C. R. 43, 4 R. J. R. Q. 59. 17. A defendant who induces a bailifT, charged with a writ of execution against him, not to seize his goods and cHects, but to ac- company him to the plaintiti''8 for the purpose of ettecting a settlement, and in the interval between the bailitl's leaving the place and re- turning again to make the seizure, renmves part of he goods, will be declared to \m- in contempt of court under Arts. 782 C. C. 1\ and 2273 C.C-, and will bi' imprisoned in tin- common gaol until be satisfies the uiiuiiinl uf the debt, interest ii'id co-'ts. Ron vs. O'Leary, S. C. 18S3, L. N. 173. 18. It appeared that on the merits of a rule taken against the opp