The description

the creditors and debtors and other parties thereto:

4 The description 0!

the property subject te the right claimed, and that of the party requi ring registration ;

9. The nature of the right claimed: and, if it be a claim for money, the amount due, the rate of interest, and the costs if there be any.

If the rate of interest be not specified, the re gistration does not pre:

serve the right to interest beyond the legal rate.

12, cités sur art. 2126.

8 Décisions du B. C., p. 349 et s. Fraser } Jugé :—1. Qu'un en.

et Poulin, C. S. Québec, 1857. registrement par sommaire d’une réclamation hypothécaire fondée sur un acte de donation, qui u'énonce pas le montant réclamé, est nul, par rapport à un acqué-

reur subséquent de bonne foi qui a dûment enregistré son titre d'acquisition.

2. Que tel sommaire doit contenir les matières nécessaires pour faire apparaitre tout les droits que l'on veut conserver au moyen d'icelui.

Jugement rendu le 19 décembre, 1857.

L'action était en déclaration d’hypothèque pour la somme de £50, en vertu d’un acte de donation consenti par les demandeurs en faveur de Thomas Fraser, leur fils, en date du 26 avril 1854, et était dirigée contre le défendeur comme possesseur des immeubles ainsi bypothéqués. Le défendeur plaida, que par acte de vente, 5n date du 19 juin 1856, consenti à lui, le défendeur, par Corriveau et sa femme, il avait acquis les immeubles en question, et que son titre susdit avait été enregistré au long le 21 juin 1856, au bureau d’enregistrement pour le comté dans les limites duquel étaient situés les dits immeubles, Que l'acte de donation sus-mentionné n’avait été enregistré que par sommaire, le 2 août 1855, et que le sommaire ainsi enregistré ne contenait aucune mention de la somme de £50, pour laquelle l’action était instituée ; et qu'en conséquence les demandeurs n'avaient aucune hypothèque po1r la dite somme, et que leur action devait être renvoyée avec dépens. Par le certificat du régis trateur filé en la cause, il affirme que l'enregistrement de l'acte de donation avait été fait par sommaire, et que ce sommaire ne faisait aucune mention de la somme de £50, réclamée par les demandeurs.

Caanor, Juge.—La Cour est d'opinion que le plaidoyer du défendeur qui dit, que l'enregistrement par sommaire devrait contenir tontes les allégations essentielles et nécessaires pour conserver les droits réservés, est bon. La somme ou montant de l'hypothèque est certainement essentiel, et devrait être mentionné dans le sommaire, — Ordonnance d'enregistrement clause 10. Les anciennes autorités aussi disent la même

chose, Merci au mot Burdereau, où il est expressément dit, que le montant de l'hypothèque réservée, devrait être mentionné dans l’enregistremmint. La seule question qui se pré. sente ici est simplement, l'hypothèque réclamée en cette cause,a-t-elle été enregistrée ? Il n’y a pas eu d'enregistrement tel que requis par le statut, et conséquemment il n’y a pas eu d'enregistrement suivant la loi. L'action est en consé. quence renvoyée avec dépens.

24 L. C. J., p. 20, Charlebois et La Soc. de Heco : That a mort. Cons. Métropolitaine, C. d’Appel., M. 1878. Le on immoveable property, who has duly registered his mortgage and at the same time registered by memorial the title deed of the mortgagor (making no refe. rence therein to any charges in such title deed), has priority of hypothec over the claim of the bailleur de fonds contained in such title deed, and which claim was only registered afterwards (and mare than two months after the execution of the title deed), by registerimg the title deed at fall length.

Cross, J.—On the 6th July, 1874, Alphonse Charlebois, by notarial acte, sold an immoveable to Octave Brunet for 8788, who thereby undertook to pay in discharge of Charlebois $:28 in capital and interest due to La Corporation Episcopale Romaine de Montréal, Charlebois’ auteur,—the balance to Charlebois ; the property being by the deed declared hypothe cated for the amounts by privilege of bailleur de fonds.

This deed remained unregistered until the 21st August, 1874, at which time La Société de Construction Métropolitaine, the now respondent, caused a memorial thereof to be registered, indicating the conveyance of the property registered, without mention of any balance being due thereon from Brunet for the purchase money which he had so agreed to pay to La Corporation Episcopale and to Charlebois.

On the same day, the ?21st August, 1874, the defendant Brunet gave the respondent, La Société Métropolitaine, an obligation for $6,000 with hypothèque on the immoveable in question, which was duly registered. It was not until

the 7th September, 1874, that the vendor Charlebois, plaintiff in this cause, caused his deed of sale to be registered ; he then did so by transcription at full length.

The reason for the registration of the sale by La Société Métropolitaine in the manner they procured the same to be done is evident, They had made u p their mind to take security on tae property, and finding that their debtor had not registered his title, they were aware that they could not get a valid 1ypothec from him on the property until his title was registered ; having an interest in procuring it to be done, the accordingly applied for and procured that regiswred, but the felt no interest in, nor did they attempt to procure the registration of the bailleur de {uids held by Charlebois as the vendor to Brunet, nor are they supposed to have known that it had remained unpaid ; they had no interest in making the enquiry. For want of diligence on the part of Charlebois this bailleur de fonds claimed remained unregistered until the 7th September, 1874, as above stated,

Charlebois having obtained judgment against Brunet, used the property to be sold in this cause, and on the distribution of the proceeds Charlebois, the plaintiff, was collocated in preference to La Société Métropolitaine. They conksted his collocation, and on the 18th October, 1876, a judgment of the Superior Court dismissed the Contestation. The case being inscribed in Review, that Court, on the 26th March 1877, reversed the former judgment, and ordered that the Société Métropolitaine should be collocated i to Charlebois.

From the last mentioned judgment ar appeal has been ken to this Court, and we are now called upon to decide où that appeal whether the registration made by memorial at the instance of La Société Métropolitaine on the Qst August, 1874, of the deed whereby Charlebois conveyed to Brunet the property whose proceeds are in question, was effective to enable Brunet to give a valid hypothèque thereon

0 the prejudice of the bailleur de fonds claim due by Brunet, DE LorimiEn, Bip, vou. 18. 24

n preference

es y = à sais ———? - = “ = œE NE ra Gin æ RIRE PEER sprene —

Termes

which had not been mentioned in the memorial or registra. tion so effected on the 21st August, 1874.

Various objections were made to the sufficiency of this registration.

{st. That the law gave La Société no right to make this registration.

2nd. That it was obligatory under Art. 2139 C. C. to men. tion the charges on the property contained in the title sought to be registered.

3rd. The want of the designation of the domicile of the party requiring; registration.

Lastly, no mention being made of the delivery of the title, or an authentic copy thereof, to the registrar, as required by Art. 2140 C. C.

It was said, that the requirements of the Art, 2148 of the Code Napoléon were similar to those which our Civil Code exacted by Art. 2139, but that the Code Napoléon was less imperative in its language than our Code, and it expressly allowed a registration by a third party, not à party to the deed, which our Civil Code had not done. It was argued nevertheless that, according to authorities cited, 7 Toul No. 510, Troplong, T. 3, Privilèges et Hypothèques, p. 71, 7 and 82, the registration in question would not have been considered effective under the Code Napoléon. That the Art. 2098 C, C. protected the appellant by providing that, so long as the right of the purchaser had not been registered, all conveyanc?s, transfers, hypothecs or real rights granted by him in respect of such immoveable were without effect, and that if the registration had been effected in conformity to the requirements of the law, it would have shewn the bailleur de fonds claim of Charlebois.

The Court is of opinion that the memorial registered at the instance of the Société Métropolitaine, on the 21st August, 1874, contained all the essential formalities required by the Art. 2139 of the Civil Code. A distinction is made in the authorities cited by the appellant between formalities

which are essential and those which are not ; the latter, according to the best opinions, not entailing nullity of registration, There appear to have been slight omissions in the memorial in that instance by the failure to state that it was executed at Montreal, and perhaps in that it failed to state that the Société Métropolitaine had its domicile or chief place of business there, but the nature of the transaction, he parties interested, and the location of the property, indicate that it took place there, and the document was executed by the secretary of a body publicly incorporated about whose domicile and identity there could be no mistake, The Article in question does not say that the domicile is to be stated, it only requires the description of the parties. Here they are sufiiciently described to indicate their identity. These informalities were not essential, and could not be held to affect the registration.

Itis only in case of its being a claim for money that the memorial should contain mention of the amount due, but here the claim was merely for the registration of the purchaser’s title, and that was all the Société Métropolitaine had aninterest in procuring the registration of,as regards Brunet’s title; and there is no law requiring that everything contained in the title should be included in the memorial. On the contrary, the mere fact that registration is permitted by memorial shews that it may be partial. The Society were not bound to know or enquire as to whether Brunet had aid all unregistered claims on the property. On the contrary, the neglect by the seller to regisier within the time allowed by law would seem to imply, either that he was paid, or was satisfied with the credit and standing of his deblor without desiring to retain the additional security of the purchaser.

It only remains to discuss the question as to whether the Société Métropolitaine was a party eñtitled by law to demand the registration.

On the same day that they asked the registration, Brunet,

the purchaser of the property, executed in their favor an obligation, hypothecating in their favor the property in question for a loan of $86,000.00 ; they had therefore an interest in securing themselves, and, if allowable, by the first hypothec upon the property. They were therefore spe. cially interested in procuring the registration of Brunels title, but not the charges, if any, against it.

By Art. 2136, registration Dy memorial is effected by means of a summary setting forth the real rights which the party interested wishes to preserve, which is delivered to the registrar and transcribed upon tne register.

By Art. 2137, the memorial must be in writting, and may be made at the request of any party interested in or bound to effect the registration. Besides these the spirit of the registry law as expressed in other articles shews that parties having & substantial interest have a right to register.

Lastly, it is obvious that the question of the delivery to he registrar of the title or document requiring to be regisred, or an authentic Copy ofit, as specified in Art. 2140, cannot be brought in question ; thatisa proceeding without which the registrar could not act, but one which does not require to be certified. It must be presumed to have taken place, for without it no registration whatever could have been effected, nor could the registrar have given any certificate respecting it. ‘is a matter between the party presenäng the document and the registrar. The evidence that it was presented is the fact that the registrar certified its registration.

We think on the whole it is a case where the law favors he diligent. That La Société Métropolitaine secured priority by their diligence, and that the judgment of the Superior Courtin Review awarding them that priority must stand. Itis therefore confirmed with costs,

Judgment of Court of Review confirmed,

2140. Le bordereau est présenté au régistrateur avec le titre ou document, ou une copie authentique du titre, et il doit être reconnu par les parties qui l'ont fait ou l’une d’ elles, ou prouvé par le serment d'un des témoins qui l'ont signé.

Voy. C. N. 2148 et Sts. Ref. B.

art. 2136.

2141. Lorsque le borde-

reau est fait en tout endroit dans le Canada, la preuve en est faite dans le Bas-Canada par la déposition sous serment d’un des témoins, attestée par un juge de la Cour du Banc de la Reine ou de la Cour Supérieure, ou un des commissaires de cette dernière cour autorisés à recevoir les affidavits, ou devant un juge de paix, un notaire, le régistrateur ou son député,

2140. The memorial is delivered to the registrar together with the title or document, or an anthentic copy of the title, and must be acknowledge by all or one of the parties to it, or be proved by the

oath of one of the subscribing witnesses.