in a navigable river is always considered subordinate to the right of the crown to cause the navigation to be improved, which is the main object of the grant to the Defendant.

As to the justice of the case, I will merely say, that it does not by any means appear to me to be so clearly in favor of the Ursuline Nuns, as was contended on the part of the crown.

Viewing Mr. Laporte in the most unfavorable light possible, the worst that can be said of him is, that he acted the part of an informer; but on the other hand, the Ursuline Nuns had, without any authority, taken possession of a part of the public domain; and for a series of years had resolutely resisted the attempts of the crown to regain possession of its own property.

That under these circumstances the government should afterwards have made the grant to Laporte, who aided them in recovering the property in question, rather than to the persons from whom it was with difficulty wrested, was not extraordinary, nor perhaps unreasonable. To reward, to the prejudice of the informer, those against whom he had (at least in a merely legal point of view) properly informed against, is not in accordance with the usual policy of governments.

I need hardly observe that I am satisfied the Ursuline Nuns had no intention of doing wrong, either in taking possession of the tide soil in question, or in resisting, what we must now hold to have deen the just rights of the crown: but still it is not the less true, that in contemplation of law, they were guilty of acts of trespass, and that their conduct not only tended to impair their otherwise equitable claim, but enabled Laporte, by informing against them, to acquire to their prejudice, a claim upon the consideration of the Govern

ment.

Upon the whole, I am of opinion, that the crown had power to make the grant now impugned, and that grant does not tend to defeat, or impair, any of the legal rights of the Ursuline Nuns, and I therefore concur in the judgment, which declares the information against the Defendant to be unfounded.

JUDGMENT: The court considering that the attorney general, on behalf of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, hath wholly failed to establish the material allegations contained in the information in this cause filed, namely: that the Reverend Ladies, the Ursuline Nuns of Quebec, as riparian proprietors, are in any wise prejudiced by the letters patent of the twentythird day of February, one thousand eight hundred and fortyeight, of a grant; first, of a lot or parcel of beach situate at the place called l'Anse-des-Mères, near the city of Quebec; and secondly, of a certain water lot, in deep water of the river St. Lawrence, upon the front of the said first lot, or

parcel of land and beach in the said letters patent firstly described. It is, therefore, by the court now here, considered and adjudged, that the demurrer in this cause filed be overruled; and that the Defendant in this cause go hence without day. (4 D. T. B. C., p. 325.)

Attorney General and A. STUART, for the Crown.

G. O. STUART, for Defendant.

Authorities cited by Plaintiff : 3 Blk. Com., pp. 254,360; 2 Blk. Com., pp. 344, 346, 348; 3 Toullier, p. 24, n° 31; 14 Merlin, Ques, de dr., vbo Rirages de la mer, p. 116; 6 L. C. Dénizart, rbo Domaine de la couronne, pp. 609, 610; Ib., p. 606; 3 Daviel rbo Cours d'eau, p. 122, nos 132-3-45; Digest Louisiana Repts., rbo Battures, p. 98, no 4. The intervention of a road does not affect the case nor deprive the riparian proprietor of his right; Angell, on water courses, pp. 180, 186.

Authorities cited by Defendant: 2 Justinian's Institutes, lib. II, tit. I, pargh. 2, pp. 8, 13; 4 Loysel, Instituts, liv. II, part 5, pp. 274-5; Bacquet, Droits de Justice, p. 431, ch. xxx; Troplong, de la Prescription, no 150; 2 Henrys, ch. XIX; Rep., Merlin, vbo Rivière, p. 545; Lefebvre de la Planche, p. 24; Ib., p. 15; Chitty, on Prerogative, p. 207; Anc. Dénizart, rbo, Mer; i Daviel, Cours d'eau, p. 63; Prud'homme, Domaine public, nos 840, 848, 855; Chardon, Allurion, p. 240; 1 Troplong, p. 248, no 150; Ib., p. 239; Troplong, p. 253, no 150; 2 Edits et Ordonnances, p. 127; Fournier vs. Blais, 1 R. J. R. Q., p. 341.

46

Authorities cited by Plaintiff in reply, as to right of riparian proprietor: 3 Reports of the Ex. C. of 1843; Repts. of 21st Sep., 11th Nov. and 18th Decr.; Ulpien, Digest, 43, tit. VIII, law 2; Opinion of E. Livingston, Batture" at the end of Angell and Ames on Tide Waters"; Edit of 1693 not enregistered here, and of 22d Feby., 1769; L. C. Dénizart, rbo Alluvion.

PROCEDURE.-JUGE DE PAIX.-AVIS DE POURSUITE.

SUPERIOR COURT, Québec, 31 mai 1854.

Before DUVAL, MEREDITH and CARON, Justices.

DAVIES US. MAGUIRE.

Jugé Que dans une action contre un juge de paix, qui par la loi a droit à une notice préalable, il n'est point nécessaire de reproduire en entier telle notice dans la déclaration. (1)

This was an action in damages for false imprisonment, against a justice of the peace acting under color of his office. The declaration alleged, in general terms, that due notice had been given to Defendant, as required by the statute, of the bringing of the action.

Defendant filed a special demurrer to this declaration, upon the ground, amongst others, that the tenor and substance of the notice ought to have been the subject of special

(1) V. Art. 22 et 50 C. P. C.

averments in the declaration. But the court held this plea to be bad, and that a special averment of such notice was not required in a declaration. (1) Demurrer overruled. (4 D. T. B. C., p. 347.)

SMITH and SECRETAN, for Plaintiff.
Ross and MCCORD, for Defendant.

ASSIGNATION.

SUPERIOR COURT, Montréal, 31 mai 1854.

Before DAY, SMITH and MONDELET, Justices.

MCDONALD et al., vs. SEYMOUR.

Jugé Que l'assignation en laissant copie au teneur de livres, bookkeeper, de l'hôtel où le D. fendeur a coutume de loger, est insuffisante. (2)

Action on a promissory note. The bailiff returned that he had served the writ and declaration on Defendant, by leaving copies thereof on a grown person of his family, at his domicile, in the city of Montreal.

In fact, the service had been made at the Ottawa hotel, where Defendant, who was a forwarder and commission merchant, doing business in Canada and the United States, usually stopped, when in Montreal, by leaving copies with the book-keeper of the hotel.

Defendant filed an exception à la forme, denying that he had any domicile, house or family, in the city of Montreal.

At the enquete, four witnesses were examined, including the bailiff who made the service, whose evidence established that Defendant stopped, when in Montreal, at the Ottawa hotel, but was frequently absent, attending to his business in the United States; that, when, in Montréal, he generally occupied the same room, at the Ottawa, but that, during his absence, this room was let to other parties; that he had an office in the city where he kept his wearing apparel, and that during the last year he had been absent from one quarter to a third of his time, and frequently for two or three weeks

at a time.

DAY, Justice: The whole question is, whether the hotel is the Defendant's domicile or not, and the evidence establishes that it is not. The case might have been different, if he had hired a room at the hotel and furnished it. In the Nouveau Dénizart, it will be found stated, that a man's residence is not

(1) 2 T. Reports, p. 125; Vide ante, p. 150, Simard vs. Tuttle. (2) Art. 57 C. P. C.

necessarily his domicile, and a service at a hotel garni, which is a stronger case than the present would not be sufficient. (1) The Defendant should have been served personally. Action dismissed. (P. D. T. M., p. 79, et 4 D. T. B. C., p. 355.)

DAY, for Plaintiff.

FLEET and DORMAN, for Defendant.

ACTION HYPOTHECAIRE.-DELAISSEMENT.-IMPENSES.

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, Québec, 8 avril 1854.

Présents: BOWEN, Juge en Chef, DUVAL et MEREDITH, Juges. WITHALL US. ELLIS.

Jugé: Qu'un tiers détenteur, poursuivi hypothécairement, ne peut demander d'être payé par le Demandeur des améliorations qu'il a faites de bonne foi, avant d'être contraint de délaisser l'immeuble; et que tout ce qu'il peut demander c'est un cautionnement que l'immeuble rapportera assez pour qu'il soit payé. (2)

Action hypothécaire de la part du Demandeur.

Le Défendeur plaide qu'il a, de bonne foi, fait sur l'immeuble, pour lequel il est poursuivi, des améliorations au montant de £500, et il conclut à ce que le Demandeur le rembourse de cette somme avant de pouvoir le contraindre à délaisser. La Cour déboute cette défense.

PER CURIAM: Le Défendeur n'a pas droit de demander d'être payé préalablement de ses améliorations. Dans un pareil cas, l'usage est d'obliger la Demandeur de donner un cautionnement que l'immeuble se vendra assez pour payer le Défendeur de telles améliorations; alors, il doit délaisser l'immeuble en justice, et réclamer sur le produit d'icelui la valeur de ses impenses par privilège. Telle est la doctrine enseignée par Loyseau, Pothier, Grenier et Troplong. (3) C'est la décision que nous donnons dans une autre cause, Letourneau vs. Rouleau, dans laquelle nous obligeons le Demandeur à donner un cautionnement au Défendeur.

BOWEN, Juge en Chef: Je crois que l'immeuble aurait dû être visité, la valeur des impenses établic, et le Défendeur payé d'abord de ses améliorations. (4)

DUVAL, Juge: Il est vrai que Dénizart dit, que le Défendeur

(1) Nouveau Dénizart, rbo Assignation.

(2) V. art. 2072 C. C.

(3) Troplong, Priv. et Hyp., No 836.

(4) Nouv. Dénizart, rbo Améliorations.

devra être payé de ses améliorations, mais il ne faut pas conclure de là qu'il devra l'être avant d'être contraint de délaisser, cette prétention du Défendeur de retenir l'immeuble jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été payé de ses impenses, est fondée sur une règle du droit romain qui n'est pas applicable à notre droit. M. Troplong a bien expliqué cette différence. (4 D. T. B. C., p. 358.)

ALLEYN, pour le Demandeur.

SMITH et SECRETAN, pour le Défendeur.

LOUAGE. SAISIE-GAGERIE.

QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, Québec, 10 octobre 1854.
Before SIR L. H. LAFONTAINE, Baronet, Chief Justice,
VANFELSON, MONDELET and CARON, Justices.

AYLWIN AND ANOTHER (Plaintiffs in the court below), Appellants, and GILLORAN (Defendant in the court below), Respondent.

Jugé: Que par l'ancien droit français, qui est la loi du pays et par la jurisprudence des tribunaux, un bailleur a le droit de faire saisir-arrê ter, par voie de saisie-gagerie, ou de saisie-gagerie en mains tierces, par droit de suite, les meubles et effets sur lesquels il a acquis un gage ou privilège, et qui ont été enlevés des lieux loués ; et ce, aussi bien pour les loyers dus, quand il y en a d'échus, que pour loyers à écheoir, quand il n'y en a pas de dus. (1)

Plaintiffs in the court below declared against Defendant, and one Henry Howard Porter, and alleged that, by deed executed the 28th January, 1849, Plaintiffs had leased unto Defendant, for one or ten years, at the option of Defendant, and to commence on the first day of May, 1849, a three stories stone built dwelling house situate in Champlain street of the city of Quebec, described in said deed; that said lease was made subject to the enjoyment of the premises by Defendant en bon père de famille, to the maintenance by him of the same in repairs, the lessors, Plaintiffs, not being holden to keep and maintain said premises clos et couverts nor even in grosses réparations, and, for and in consideration of the rent of sixty pounds for every year of said term, payable quarterly; that, on the first day of May, 1849, Defendant had moved and taken possession of said house, and placed in the same his household furniture, goods and effects, and, under said lease, had had the use of said house, until on or about the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and forty-nine; that, on (1) V. arts. 1624 C. C.