1879. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ. Rep. 3 Leg. News, 28 & 24 J. 167.

Le tuteur dont la tutelle a été annulée, et qui a rendu un compte de son administration aux nouveaux tuteurs, qui lui ont succédé, et qui ont reçu les pièces justificatives, et le reliquat de compte reconnu par le rendant compte, n'est pas tenu de rendre un autre compte en justice, et que les nouveaux tuteurs qui n'ont pas accepté le compte qui leur a été rendu avec les formalités requises par la loi, n'ont d'action que pour débattre et faire reformer le compte présenté, et non une action en reddition de compte. Methot & Dufort et vir. Q. Judgment reversing, 8 Oct. 1883. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby, JJ. Rep. 3 Dec. d'A. 262.

Where an administrator has accounted he will not be ordered to account again because certain vouchers are wanting. The obligation to produce vouchers is to produce those the administrator has, but he may justify his payments by other legal evidence. Hart & Hart. Judgment confirming 17 Dec. 1879. Sir A. A. Dorion C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross JJ. Rep. 3 Leg. News, 24, and 24 J. 161.

The Secretary Treasurer of a building Society who has left the service of the Society and handed over all his books and vouchers to the Society is entitled to a judgment discharging his security and to radiate the hypothec on his property given as security for his faithful administration, within a delay fixed by the Court, and in default of giving such deed the judgment to stand therefor. La Société Permanente de Construction & Longtin. Judgment confirming, 22 June 1878. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ.

Where the account rendered by a tutor, or one acting as tutor, was irregular and rendered without vouchers, he may be compelled to account anew, by an action seeking to set aside the former account as irregular and fraudulent, although there may be a

notarial discharge. Miller & Coleman et vir.-Judgment confirming, June 1875, Dorion, C. J., Monk, Taschereau, Ramsay, Sanborn, JJ.

An action to account will lie against the administrator of a joint-adventure.

But the administrator will only be obliged to pay the reliquat de compte in the form in which he obtained it. Thus he will not be condemned to pay the face value of stock, unless he fails to tender such stock within a period to be fixed by the Court.

Semble, it will be presumed stock is of the value it bears on its face, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Foley & Stuart. M. Judgment modifying. 21 Dec. 1875. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Taschereau, Ramsay, Sanborn, JJ. Rep. 20 J., 183.

There was a joint-adventure for the purchase of certain real estate in the name of appellant. The partners were, on certain conditions, each to have a share. It appears they left appellant to bear the amount of the acquisition, and he afterwards sold the property for his own profit. Respondent sued for his share of the price of sale. The appellant tendered an account of his transaction. The action should have been to account, but the appellant having tendered an account covered the irregularity. Brewster & Lamb. Judgment confirming 22 Dec. 1879, Sir A. A. Dorion C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ.

The appellant brought suit against the Respondent, alleging a purchase by them jointly of certain promissory notes and securities which the Respondent collected for their common profit, the appellant's share, acknowledged by the Respondent, being $713.75; the appellant added the common assumpsit counts, and prayed for an account in the usual form with vouchers, and that, in default, the Respondent should be condemned to pay the aid sum of $713.75. Held, on demurrer that the demand for an account was not warranted by the allegations of the decla

ration, and was not the proper remedy for the cause of complain therein stated.

Semble, a party suing another to account in a partnership matter, is not obliged to tender an account or to declare that he has none to give. Michaud & Vezina. Judgment confirming, 7 Decr. 1880. Sir A.A. Dorion, C. J.. Monk, Ramsay, Cross, JJ. Rep. 6 Q. L. R., 353.

Lorsqu'un associé poursuit un autre associé en reddition de compte, il n'est pas obligé d'alléguer qu'il a lui-même rendu compte, ou qu'il n'en a pas à rendre, il lui suffit d'alléguer que le défendeur a en sa possession des biens ou somines de deniers appartenant à la société qui a existé entre eux, dont il n'a pas rendu compte.

A défaut par le défendeur de rendre compte dans le délai fixé par le juge ment qui lui a ordonné de rendre compte, le demandeur peut procéder à éta blir lui-même un compte d'après l'article 533 du Code de Procédure Civile, ou il peut, suivant la pratique suivie avant le Code, faire condamner le dé fendeur à lui payer soit une on plusieurs provisions jusqu'à ce qu'il lui ait rendu compte, soit une somme défini tive pour tenir lieu du reliquat de compte, à la discretion de la Cour. Gauthier & Roy, Q. Judginent refusing motion for leave to appeal. 7 Dec. 1880, Sir A. A. Dorion, C.J., Monk, Ram say, Cross, Baby, J. J. Rep. 1 Dec. d'A., 149. 10 Rev. Tég. 443. Bourgoin & Plante, M., Judgment reveising, 22 March 1876. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Sanborn, Tessier, JJ. Rep. 9 Leg. News, 461.

In this case there was an incidental demand, the Court below dismissed the principal demand with costs, and maintained the incidental demand for $37.50 with costs in an action for that amount. This Court thought both actions should have been dismissed, as nothing was due to one or other party, each party paying his own costs in both cases in the Court below, and costs of this appel, and each half of the costs of the expertise.

A party cannot, by motion, obtain delay to answer an action en reformation de compte until a book is produced by Plaintiff, the existence of which Plaintiff deny. Les Commissaires d écoles de Notre Dame de Portneuf & Fournier, Q. Judgment reversing, 7 Dec. 1882. Sir A. A. Dorion, C.J., Monk, Ramsay, Cross, Baby, JJ.

A woman commune en biens with her late husband, and légataire universelle en usufruit may bring an action against the partner of her late husband for an account of the partnership, without calling in the nu-propriétaires. Gingras & Dignan, Q. Judgment confirming, 5 Dec. 1878, Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ.

Appellant sued Respondent for an account of a raft sold for him by Respondent, who answered, that he had no account to render, as the raft belonged to one Bannerman to whom he had accounted, and that he owed nothing. Appellant's pretention is that the receipt he gave Respondent for an advance, was in these words: "Please hold, subject to the order of Messrs. Ross & Co., my raft now lying at your cove and oblige." Signed: "John Doran." If this stood alone, it would be conclusive, but the whole transtion is proved. It is established that whatever was the nature of the transactions between Bannerman and Doran, Ross knew no one but Bannerman, and that the money was given to Ross on Bannerman's credit, and there can be no doubt Ross understood the raft was Bannerman'-, and that Doran left him for two years under that impression, during which time Ross settled with Bannerman, without any knowledge of Doran's claim to the raft. The word my raft, in the ordinary language of the people, does not necessarily imply property, but possession. (1) Doran & Ross, Q. Judgment contiming, 5 Oct. 1883, Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby, JJ.

(1) NOTE.-The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the two courts.

The Appellants by deed of donation gave to the Respondent, their mother, five pieces of property, subject to the charge of paying hypothecs to the amount of $5000, and to the Appellants a rente viagère of $288. This continued till the 2nd February, 1881, when, by another deed the donation was nulled,Respondent rendered an account of the administration of their property, which they accepted "se réservant le droit de vérifier le compte des recettes, alors à celles produit par l'Intimé et de

an

réclamer de ce dernier à demande le montant de toute erreur ou omission en leur faveur." The Appellant brought an action for debt and en réformation de compte. Held by the Superior Court, that Respondent was not the mandatory of Appellants when he rendered the account, and owed them no account, and that therefore an action en réfor mation de compte did not lie against him. On the facts that the Defendant had given Appellants an hypothec exceeding what was due them. Darveau et al, & Darveau, Q. Judgment confirming, 8 May, 1884. Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby. JJ., Ramsay, Cross, JJ., were of opinion that Appellants were entitled to have the account between them and the Respondent reformed, as it was the basis of their rights.

Lorsqu'un défendeur poursuivi pour un état de compte de la gestion d'un immeuble et pour une somme réclamee sur la vente de cet immeuble, en vertu d'une convention spéciale, plaide au premier chef de l'action qu'il n'a jamais été mis en demeure de rendre compte, mais qu'il a toujours été prêt à le faire, et produit son compte avec le plaidoyer; et plaide au second chef de l'action, qu'il ne doit rien au demandeur en vertu de la convention allé

guée; le compte accompagnant le plaidoyer ne sera pas rejeté sur motion comme ayant été produit irrégulièrement et prématurément.

Un tel compte ne peut pas être rejeté sur motion avant l'enquête parce que le chapitre des dépenses contient des items qui ne paraissent avoir aucune connexité avec la gestion de la proprieté dont on demande compte : Cette question ne pouvant être discutée et décidée que sur un débat de compte. Dorion & Dorion, M. Judgment reversing, 26 November, 1884, Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J. Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby. JJ. Reported M. L. R. I. Q. B. 65, 7 Leg. News, 397.

Les parties ayant lié contestation sur lieu à se plaindre des défauts de forme le mérite du compte rendu, il n'y a plus du dit compte. Lamarche & L'Heureux, Q. Judgment reversing, 8 October, 1885. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby, JJ., Rep. 11 Q. L. R., 342.

ACCOUNTANT.-Is a person skilled "In matters in keeping accounts. where accounts have to be rendered or adjusted, or which require calculations to be made, and in matters of separation of property, or partition of community or succession, the Court may refer the case to one or more persons skilled in such matters; " C. C. P. 340. v. EXPERTS.

ACQUIESCENCE.-In its widest sense acquiescence is any adhesion of a person to a thing done. It seems, however,it is only usual to apply it to certain contracts which expressly recognize a state of things as binding. Technically, therefore, it is for the most part applied to an implied assent. The liability to be incuried by acquiescence can only be established by such proof as would establish an obligation for a like matter. An acquiescence which would have the effect of resiliating another contract or creating a new obligation, can only be proved as a contract can be proved. But a right may sometimes be lost by acquiescence in a state of things

incompatible with the continued existence of such right. Pleading over to the merits of an action, is such an acquiescement in a judgment dismissing an exception à la forme that leave to appeal will be refused. Coté vs. McGreevy, Q. Judgment 7 Sept., 1875. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Taschereau, Ramsay, Sanborn, JJ.

Acquiescence covers regularities of procedure. Beauchamp & Letourneau, M. Judgment confirming, 27 Nov. 1884, Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby, JJ.

A party who pays the amount of judgment, without special protest, after his arrest and while in prison, will not be held by such payment to have ac quiesced in the judgment, so as to take away his right of appeal, particularly where he had given instructions to institute appeal. Ouimet & Lafond, M. Judgment, March, 1874. Taschereau, Ramsay, Sanborn, Loranger, JJ.

And where an action was brought to have an assessment roll to defray the cost of an improvement declared null and void, and, after the institution of the action, Plaintiff had paid the amount for which he was assessed, in order to be relieved from an execution which had issued against his effects, such payment was not an abandonment of his right to have the roll declared null and void as far as he was concerned, for he paid under compulsion, and did not acquiesce. Bisson & The City of Montreal. M. Judgment reversing, 22 Sept., 1879. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, JJ. Tessier, J., dis. Rep. 25 J. 306, 10 Rev. Lég. 100, 2 Leg. News 341.

Proof of acquiescence in judgment appealed from will be ordered in appeal Jordan & Jetté, M., judgment ordering proof. M. September, 1875, Dorion, C. J., Monk, Taschereau, Ram say, Sanborn, JJ.

Where a petition has been filed praying the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of acquiescence, and affidavits are filed in support and against the application of a contradictory character,

Where a person by error takes more stock in a joint stock company than he intended, and had sought to be relieved of the subscription immediately after, but on persuasion took no further steps, and afterwards received a dividend on the whole stock, he will be held to have acquiesced in the subscription. Coté & Standard Insurance Company, Q. Judgment confirming, 8 March, 1880. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ. Tessier, J., dis. Rep. 6 Q. L. R. 147, 10 Rev. Leg. 289. Reversed in Supreme Court. 6 S. C. R.

193.

Where a building society has contracted under legi-lation by the Parliament of Canada, it will not be allowed to repudiate its obligations under pretext that the act of Parliament was beyond the legislative powers of Parliament. La Cie. de Villas du Cap Gibraltar & Hughes, M. Judgment confirming, 2 March, 1883. Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cro-s, Baby, JJ., Cross, Ja dis. Rep. 3 Dec. d'A. 175. Confirmed in the Supreme Court.