Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

deponent hath reason to believe, and doth verily believe, that defendant is about, immediately, to leave the Province of Canada, with intent to defraud his creditors and plaintiff, and that departure will deprive plaintiff (deponent) of his recourse against defendant; that the grounds of the belief of deponent that defendant is about immediately to leave this province, are as follows: that his, defendant's vessel, is already loaded, and cleared at the Custom House, that is, her papers have been passed there. And deponent has been credibly informed, to wit, by several parties, and by Custom House officers, in this city, that defendant is about immediately to leave the port of Montreal and this province; that defendant has no domicile in this province; that said debt was created within this district, and in this province; that without the benefit, &c." Upon this affidavit, capias was issued, and, under it, defendant was arrested on 11th Oct., 1872. Defendant petitioned Mr Justice BERTHELOT, in chambers, to quash this writ, on the following grounds: 1. Because said affidavit doth not disclose any cause of action, which entitles plaintiff to the proceeding by capias; 2. Because it doth not establish that defendant was about to leave the limits, intention to go beyond which might give this remedy; 3. Because it doth not disclose the reasons of belief,or the sources of information with exactness, but the same are vague, and do not establish such intention in defendant to depart, as to justify this proceeding and suit. On 31st Oct., 1872, His Honor rejected this petition. and defendant inscribed the case for revision of this judgment, The transaction out of which the matter arose was as follows: Ships sailing, from this port to Britain, are bound to carry a portion of their grain cargoes stowed in sacks, which prevents the shifting of the loose grain. For this purpose, the masters hire, from parties in Montreal, sacks to stow such grain, for a certain hire for the voyage. Defendant had hired his sacks from one party, and plaintiff was supplying the " Grafwedel" lying near defendant's vessel. By plaintiff's own mistake (defendant says in his plea), by defendant's misrepresentation (plaintiff's affidavit says), a load of bags intended for the "Grafwedel" was delivered to defendant's ship "Eliza Alice," and stowed in her hold, with grain. Plaintiff, under the statements of his affidavit, contends that he has remedy by capias. RAMSAY (R. A.), for defendant: Defendant submits that plaintiff's affidavit does not disclose any cause of action, which entitles him to capias, and contends that the proper and only remedy was revendication, and that capias would only be warranted by the allegation that defendant had secreted or converted the bags, and, thereby, rendered revendication impossible. Vide Dumaine vs Guillemot, 6 L. C. R.,

p. 477; 14 R. J. R. Q., p. 313. It was held that the action should have been revendication of the horse, and damages for detention, and that no capias lay. That no personal debt was created by the refusal. Also Allen vs Allen, 6 L. C. R., p. 478 ; 14 R. J. R. Q., p. 313. Plaintiff's action should have been for a deed. In Royal Insurance Co. vs Knapp, 11 L. C. J., p. 1; 16 R. J. R. Q., p. 400, cited below by plaintiff, the affidavit stated the secretion of conds &c., whereby plaintiff was prevented from revendication (1). No intention to leave the required limits is disclosed. Affidavit states, 1st," Province of Canada," and 2nd, in two places further on "this Province," viz., Quebec. Where is the "Province of Canada" now? and where are its limits? The sources of information and reasons are vague, no informant's name given; this is necessary. Perrault vs Deseve, 2 R. J. R. Q., p. 344. Cornell vs Merrill, 1 L. C. R., p. 357; 3 R. J. R. Q., p. 38, vide Judge DAY'S remarks. Cameron vs Brega, 10 L. C. J., p. 88; 16 R. J. R. Q., p. 403 (2). Unless defendant himself be stated to have given

་་

(1) Le ch. 87 des S. R. B. C. de 1861, intitulé: "Acte concernant l'arrestation et l'emprisonnement pour dettes ainsi que le soulagement des débiteurs insolvables," décrétait sec. 8 que: "La cour ou tout juge de la cour d'où a émané l'ordre d'arrêter une personne, pourra soit en terme ou en vacance, ordonner que cette personne soit remise en liberté, s'il est démontré par une requête sommaire et des preuves satisfaisantes, que le défendeur est un prêtre ou ministre d'une dénomination religieuse quelconque, ou qu'il est âgé de soixante-dix ans ou plus, ou est une personne du sexe, ou que la cause d'action a originé dans un pays étranger, ou ne se monte pas à quarante piastres, monnaie légale de cette province, ou qu'il n'y avait pas de raison suffisante pour croire que le défendeur était immédiatement sur le point de laisser la province avec intention frauduleuse, lorsque ce motif aura été assigné à l'arrestation, ou que le défendeur n'a pas caché et n'était pas sur le point de cacher ses biens et effets avec cette intention, lorsque ce motif aura été assigné à l'arrestation." Aux termes de cette section, le capias ad respondendum, décerné contre des individus pour le recouvrement de bons du gouvernement des Etats-Unis, qu'ils avaient volés à New-York et qu'ils détenaient en leur possession à Montréal où ils s'étaient réfugiés après leur vol, sera cassé par le inotif que la cause d'action a pris naissance dans un pays étranger, le vol ayant eu lieu et la détention frauduleuse des objets volés, affirmée par l'affidavit au soutien du capias, ayant eu son origine à New-York, en pays étranger. (Royal Insurance Co. vs Knapp et al., C. S., en Chambre, Montréal, 26 février 1867, MONK, J., 11 J., p. 1; 2 L. C. L. J., pp. 189, 201, 219, et 16 R. J. R. Q., p. 409.)

(2) On doit, dans un affidavit pour capias ad respondendum, donner le nom des personnes dont on a obtenu l'information que le défendeur était sur le point de quitter la province, à moins que les autres circonstances mentionnées ne justifient cette croyance. (Perrault vs Désève, C. S., Montréal, 20 février 1854, DAY, J., SMITH, J., et C. MONDELET, J., P. D. T. M., p. 19, et 2 R. J. R. Q., p. 344.1 "le déposant

66

66

L'allégué, dans un affidavit pour capias ad respondendum, que

a été informé d'une manière croyable que le défendeur a secrètement enlevé ses effets de sa demeure pendant la nuit, avec l'intention de quitter la pro"vince et dans le but de frauder le déposant et ses créanciers en général,” n'est pas suffisant pour permettre l'émission d'un bref de capias ad respondendum, si le déposant n'a pas donné le nom de la personne qui l'a informé de ce fait. (Cornell vs Merrill, C. S., Montréal, 10 juin 1851, DAY, J., SMITH, J., 1 D. T. B. C., p. 357, et R. J. R. Q., p. 38.)

the information. Affidavit does not state to what place the ship is cleared: Does not state that defendant is going with her, this is usual and necessary. Vide Wilson vs Reid, 4 L. C. R., p. 157; 12 R. J. R. Q., p. 16, and other cases cited. RAMSAY, p. 51, all the affidavits state this fact In these affidavits for capias nothing must be left to inference. Nye vs MacAlister, 2 R. J. R. Q., p. 347 (3). Defendant therefore prays for the judgment referred to, and that the capias be quashed. BUTLER, for plaintiff'; the affidavit is in perfect accordance with Art. 798 of the Code of Procedure. 1. With regard to the first moyen of the petition, plaintiff begs to refer to the following cases, from which it is to be gathered that, under the circumstances disclosed, capias is competent, Redpath vs Giddings, 9 L. C. J., p. 225; 16 R. J. R. Q., p. 403; Hassett vs Mulcahey, 6 L. C. Reports, p. 15; 21 R. J. R. Q., pp. 500 and 524; Royal Insurance Co. vs Knapp & Griffin, 2 L. C. Law Journal, p. 189; 11 L. C. J., p. 1; 16 R. J. R. Q., p. 400. 2. The question raised by the 2nd moyen was decided in re no 2190, Superior Court, Montreal, L'Ainé vs Clarke in Review, 3 R. L., p. 450, (not reported yet) where it was held that the words Province of Canada" were a sufficient description of limits, the intention to go beyond which gave rise to this proceeding. 3. As to the 3rd moyen the affidavit is sufficient. As reasons of belief the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a ship captain, has taken his clearance papers at the Custom House, that his ship has cleared the customs (a proceeding not necessary for an inland vessel), and that the officers of customs themselves have furnished him with this information, and informed him that defendant is immediately about to sail and to leave Canada; surely sufficient reasons for his belief and a sufficient averment of his source of information.

66

"le dépo

L'allégué, dans un affidavit pour capias ad respondendum, que sant a été informé par deux personnes dignes de foi que le défendeur était sur le point de quitter la province, etc.", n'est pas suffisant pour permettre l'émission d'un bref de capias ad respondendum, si le déposant n'a divulgué le nom des deux personnes qui lui ont fourni cette information. (Cameron vs Brega, C. S., Montréal, 25 septembre 1865, BERTHELOT, J., 10 J., p. 88; 1 L. C. L. J., p. 65, et 15 R. J. R. Q., p. 351.)

(3) L'affidavit dans lequel le déposant allègue que le défendeur lui doit la somme de £10, montant de deux obligations consenties par le défendeur et transportées plus tard au déposant, sans alléguer en même temps la signification du transport, est insuffisant pour permettre l'émission d'un capias ad respondendum, par le motif que, dans un affidavit pour un tel bref, il faut alléguer tout ce qui est nécessaire pour donner droit à cette procédure, et que, dans toute procédure fondée sur un transport, on doit alléguer la signification de ce transport. (Nye vs Macalister, C. S., Montréal, 23 février 1854, DAY, J., SMITH, J., et C. MONDELET, J., P. D. T. M., p. 27, et 2 R. J. R. Q., p. 347. 9

TOME XXIII.

On 31st Dec., 1872, the Court of Review rendered judgment, confirming that of Mr Justice BERTHELOT, and rejected the petition.

JOHNSON, J.: By some error, as it is alleged, a number of sacks were given to defendant, a ship captain, by error, and he was capiased as he was about to sail. The only question at present is as to the sufficiency of the affidavit. It is impugned because the names of the persons giving the information to the deponent are not disclosed. This would be a fatal omission, if such information were the only ground for deponent's belief. But there are other grounds stated in the affidavit. One is that the defendant had done everything that was necessary to clear his ship and was ready to sail. As a matter of common sense, therefore the creditor was not bound to wait until his debtor had actually sailed in order to be sure he was going away. We find that the deponent had sufficient grounds for his belief, apart from the information received from the persons whose names are not disclosed. As to the objection relative to words" Province of Canada," it has already been held sufficient, and we have a right to give the words their reasonable meaning of the heretofore vince of Canada." Further, we hold that, if the circumstances under which the bags are in defendant's possession, be as stated in the affidavit, plaintiff is entitled to his capias, and not limited to revendication only. We, therefore, confirm the judgment a quo, rejecting the petition to quash. (17 J., p. 159) MONK & BUTLER, for plaintiff.

R. A. RAMSAY, for defendant.

"Pro

OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Montreal, 20th June, 1874.

Coram TASCHEREAU, J., RAMSAY, J., SANBORN, J.,
LORANGER, A. J.

JUBINVILLE et al., Defendants in Court below, Appellants, and THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff in Court below, Respondent.

Held:-That an opposition à jugement filed by defendants, under Art. 484 of the Code of C. P., on the sole ground that one of them has been summoned by a wrong name, is in the nature of a preliminary excep tion to the action, and must, consequently, be accompanied by the deposit required by Art. 112 of the Code of C. P., in addition to that required by Art. 486 of the same Code.

This was an appeal from a judgment rendered by the S. C., at Montreal, MACKAY, J., on the 22nd April, 1873, granting a motion of plaintiff that the paper writing fyled by opposants, on the third of that month, and intituled " Opposition à jugement et affidavit," be rejected from the record, with costs, for the reasons therein stated. The facts may be stated as follows: In the month of Febuary, 1873, plaintiff took out an action against the commercial firm of JUBINVILLE & LECLERC, of Pointe Claire, for the sum of $776.74, the amount of their promissory note in favour of James Austin & Co., which had been endorsed over by the latter firm to plaintiff. The writ was served on P. Jubinville, (one of the members of the firm, and one of the opposants) in person, at the place of business of the firm. The defendants failed to appear, and, on the 10th of March, judgment was rendered against them, according to the conclusions of plaintiff's declaration. On the 1st of April, plaintiff sued out a writ of execution against the goods and chattels of defendants, and, on the 3rd of April, the opposants fyled in the office of the Prothonotary of the Superior Court a paper writing intituled "Opposition à jugement et affidavit," alleging therein that opposants are copartners, carrying on trade under the name or firm of Jubinbinville & Leclerc, at Pointe Claire; that the writ of summons was served at their place of business, in Pointe Claire; that Leclerc is erroneously called "Pierre Leclerc" in the writ and declaration, whereas his true name, and the name he has always been known by is "Moïse Leclerc;" that defendants did not appear, and that judgment was rendered against them by default, and that the writ and action are illegal, and void, with conclusions that the judgment and seizure be annulled, and that plaintiff's action be dismissed, with costs. The prothonotary, thereupon, caused notice to be served on the bailiff charged with the writ of execution, who, thereupon, madehis return that he was unable to proceed with the publications and sale of the goods and chattels seized, in consequence of the service upon him of the notice. On the first day of the following term of the Superior Court, plaintiff moved that the said opposition be rejected from the Record, with costs, for the following reasons: "Because the said paper writing, which is in the nature of a preliminary exception, to the declaration and action of plaintiff, was not accompanied with a deposit of the sum of £2 1s. 8d. required by the 112th article of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the 32nd Rule of Practice of the Superior Court, and because opposants did not, with said opposition, deposit, in the hands of the prothonotary of the said Court, a sufficient sum to meet the costs incurred, after the return of the writ, up to the judgment, as

« ZurückWeiter »