ABSENTEE. An absentee, within the meaning of title fourth, bk. 1, C. C., is one who having had a domicile in Lower Canada has disappeared, without any one having received intelligence of his existence. C. C. 86.

But persons who never had a domicile are sometimes subjected to the same liability as absentees. So, if the defendant has left his domicile in Lower Canada, or has never had such domicile, but has property there, upon a re -turn stating that he cannot be found in the district, may be ordered to appear within two months. C. C. P. 68.

Without prejudice to the foregoing mode of summons, a defendant who has not and who never had any domicile in the Province of Quebec, but who resides in the Dominion of Canada, may be served with summons at his domicile, leave being granted by the judge or proper officer, on affidavit, (1) if he has property in the Province of Quebec, or (2) when the cause of action arose there.

But an action for the liquidation of a partnership begun in Jersey, whose chief place of business was there, cannot be instituted in this Province, by a person having no domicile and who never had any domicile here, but was domiciled and resident in Jersey against co-partners who likewise have not and never had any domicile here, the cause of action (the alleged dissolution of partnership)not having arisen here, and the parties not having been personally served here, although the said partnership had carried on business in this Province and was possessed of property here. Gosset & Robin Q. Judgment confirming 18 June, 1876. Sir A. A. Do ion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Sanborn and Tessier, JJ., Monk and Ramsay, JJ., dis. Rep. 2 Q. L. R. 91.

One, who never had any domicile in Lower Canada, cannot be called in by adverti-ement, under art. 68 C. C. P., because it is alleged that he is the owner of a bon, if the bon be not produced, and if it does not appear by the pleading and proof what the nature of

the bon was, nor to whom, nor where it is payable, nor without proof that the bon is in existence and that it was the property of the defendant at the time of the institution of the action. Poirier & Lareau, judgment reversing 21 Dec., 1876. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Sanborn and Tessier, JJ. v. BoN-PROM. NOTE-JURISDICTION-SEKVICE BY ADVERTISEMENT SUMMONS.

ACCEPTANCE. Is the signification in the form required by law of one's willingness to be bound contractually. v. COMMUNITY. BILL OF EXCHANGEGIFT-LEGACY-SALE-SUCCESSION (under Benefit of Inventory)—TRANSFER.

The acceptance of an indication of payment by a person, not authorized, does not make it a perfect delegation, so as to prevent the vendor from ac cepting payment from the purchaser. Gerin-Lajoie & Desaulniers. Q. Judg ment confirming, 7 Dec. 1881. Sir A. A. Dorion C. J., Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, Baby, JJ. 2 Dec. d'A. 241.

ACCESSION. The right of the owner to all his property produces, and to all that is joined to it as an accessory, is called the right of accession. C. C. Art. 408. v. ACCESSORY.

ACCESSORY.-The accessory in civil law is what accompanies the princip: thing, what joins itself to it or unites itself with it. Merlin vo. accessoire. And so as to property all that it produces, or is joined to it, to form part of it, C. C. art. 408. And so in sale all that is designed for the perpetual use of the principal must be delivered. C. C. art. 1499. Securities, privileges and hypothecs are accessories of a debt. C. C. art. 1574. In criminal law, an accessory is he who is not the chief actor in the offence, nor present at its perform ance, but is someway concerned therein, either before or after the fact com mitted." 4 Blackstone, 35.

The accessory passes with the thing sold; but what is an accessory, is a matter of fact. and it is not sufficient to show that a thing was used along with another thing to establish that the one

was the accessory of the other. Bell & Gardener et al. Judgment confirming, 14 June, 1878, Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ., Monk, J., dis.

Article 435 C. C., does not declare that the property of material belonging to another is transferred to the workman when the added workmanship is so important that it greatly exceeds the value of the material employed. The workman has only the faculty of retaining the thing on paying the owner the price of the material, and thus becoming the owner. Beard & Milliken. Judgment confirming, 31 Oct. 1883. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ram-ay, Cross, Baby, JJ., Rep. 6 Leg. News, 381. (1)

And so where settlers, in good faith, cut timber included in the timber reserve of another, made it into logs and drew it to the jetée for transportation, and the logs were seized by the owner of the reserve, and the value of the standing timber was about $310, and the value of the logs, including the cost of transport to the jetée, was four times as great, the seizure will be maintained and the party who made the logs will be ordered to deliver them up unless he pays $310, the value of the standing timber. (arts. 434-5 C. C.) Reynor et al. & Thompson, Q. Judgment confirming as regards the seizure, but reforming as regards the amount, the S. C. having made appellants liable for the va ue of the loss, instead of the value of the standing timber,7 Dec., 1882. Sir A. A. Dorion,C.J.. Ramsay, Tessier Cross, Baby, JJ. (2) Rep. 3 Dec. d'A. 75, 5 Legal News 421, 12 Rev. Leg. 150.

ACCOUNT. Is the statement furnished by one who has,or has had, the administration of the property of another, or in which another has an interest, or on whom such administration devolves by law, and who, in the language of the civil law, is called comptable." Every tutor is accountable for his administra tion when it has terminated." C. C. art. 308. And in certain cases before it has terminate 1, C. C. art. 309. "Upon the dissolution of the partnership,each part ner or his legal representative may demand of his co-partners an account and partition of the property of the partnership;" &c. C. C. art. 1898. v. Com MUNITY BENEFICIARY Heir.

Where an account has been rendered and accepted, the Tutor cannot be called upon to render another account without asking to have the first account set aside. Desgroseilliers & Riendeau et vir., M. Judginent reversing, 22 June 1873. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Sanborn, Tessier, JJ.

An action to account will be dismissed on demurrer if it appear by the allega tions of the declaration that the Defendant has accounted, and that there has been a settlement, if there be no conclusions to set the settlement aside. Chevalier & Cuvillier et al, M. Judg ment confirming, 21 June 1879. Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ., Rep. 2 Leg. News 239.

Where an administrator has rendered an account to his ward, and paid over the balance apparently due to her, which account and balance have been accepted by her, she cannot sue for a new account without conclusions to set aside the former account. Pierce & Butters. M. Judgment reversing, 17 Dec.

(1) NOTE. Article 434, C. C. says, "was the owner," and art. 435, C. C. says, the workmanship is then considered as "the principal part." The chief justice treated these as vices de rédaction which the doctrine must

correct.

(2) NOTE. This Court appears to have made no distinction between the cost of transport and workmanship. Possibly it did not signify

in the particular case; and at all events, the carriage of an article from a place where it has little or no commercial value to a place where it must almost necessarily be brought, and on whish its main value depends, seem to stand on the same footing as the workmanship. However, the articles do not say so, ani it would be easy to suggest extreme cases where it would be difficult to maintain the doctrine extended.