LEE

LE

APPLIED IMAGE Ine

1653 East Main Street Rochester, New York 14609 USA (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone

(716) 288 - 5989 - Fax

368 LE TESTAMENT DANS Conseil Privé ne sera

Pas venue la trancher dans un sens ou dans l’autre.

L’honorable juge Langelier est d'avis que l'article 7 Contient simplement une Permission et non un ordre. (1) M. Lafleur s'exprime ainsi: “Whatever May be the ultimate interpretation of article 7 of our Code and of the old law from which it there can be no two opinions as to the de:

grounds of justice and expediency of considering the rule locus regit actum as permissive or facultative."(2) Et le juge en chef Strong disait: “To hold it to be imperative would be harsh and unreasonable, entirely at variance with the policy of the law of Lower Canada since the Quebec Act 1774, which favours the exercise of testamentary power instead of discouraging it, as was the policy of the old law of France, and most arbitrary in making the sufficient execution of a will depend upon the locality of a testator who, whilst in transitu makes his will according +o the laws and forms of his own domicile. Viewed as permissive only the rule Jocus regit actum is, on the other hand, most beneficent and reasonable since it enables à testator who wishes to make an authentic will to avail himself of the notaries and public officers of a foreign country through which he may be passing at a time when he would not be able to avail himself of the instrumentality of the notaries and pubiic officers of his domicile, I therefore conclude that the will was good because made in strict accordance with the law relating to holograph wills prevailing in the province of Quebec, in which Province the testator was domiciled both at the time of the will and at the time of his death.”

is derived sirability on

G) Vol. 1, p. 84.

(2) Conflict of laws, P. 136: articles dans la Revue Légale, NS, Vol. 4 PP. 393 et 423.

Ces raisons sont excellentes, mais démontrent-elles que, contrairement à l’ancienne jurisprudence citée plus haut, dans l’ancien droit, et par conséquent, dans le nôtre, la règle locus regit actum était permissive et non impérative? Nous ne le croyons pas.

Nous devons faire remarquer cependant qu'il est bien plus équitable de considérer la règle comme permissive plutôt qu'impérative.

Dans tous les cas il faut reconaître que la décision de la Cour Suprême doit faire autorité jusqu’à ce qu’une autre décision vienne modifier cette interprétation de l'article 7-