SUPERIOR COURT, QUEBEC
Before Bowen, C. J. Duvaz and Caron, Justices.
ue Lu SE Pi à Je ..Plaintiffs.
No. 703.
vs.
CasEr.... re DéféNdANt
and
BolssEAU..........................0)DOSAnt.
Landlord and Tenant—Privilege.
—Casey’s nersonal estale was seized and sold ;
He had had the use and occupa.
tion of Boisseau’s premises since May, without any lease ;
Boisseau claimed a privilege for the then current quarter, expiring on the 1st August, ar.d for the three
arters to become due on the first
ay following ;
Beld :—That he had a privilege for the whole year, the quarter due the 1st August, and the three quarters to become due the 1st May following ; in cther words, that in Quebec, the privilege of the landlord extends to the expiration ofthe current year.
Locateur et Locataire. — Privi.
lége.— Les meubles de Casey avaient été saisis et vendus ;
Il avait eu l'usage et l'occupation d’une propriété de Boisseau epuis le mois de Mai, sans bail :
Boisseau réclamait un privilége Pour le quartier alors courant, expirant le 1er Août, et pour trois quartiers à courir jusqu'au 1er M i suivant ;
Jugé :— Qu'il avait un privilége pour toute l’année, pour le quartier dû le ler Août, et pour les trois quartiers qui deviendraient dus le Îer Mai suivant ; en d’autres termes, mu le privilége du propriétaire,
ans la ville de Québec, s'étend à toute l’année courante,
Judgment rendered the 15th December, 1853,
In this case the proceeds of Casey’s personal estate were brought into Court for distribution among his creditors.
Boisseau, by an opposition afin de conserver, claimed, by privilege de seigneur d'hotel, —1st £37 10 0, as for rent, for the use and occupation of certain premises by Casey, for three months expiring on the 1st August 1853 ; 24 £112 10 0, for ninc nonths to expire on the 1st May, 1854. The material allegatiors of this opposition of Boisseau, were as follows :
That Casey was indebted to Boisseau in the sum of £37 10 0,
oe Longs, Bis, VOL. 17. 23
for one quarter’s rent, expiring on the 1st August, 1853, and in a further sum of £112 10 0 for three quarters to become due on the 1st May next, 1854, for the use and occupation of certain premises belonging to Boisseau, and that the said Boisseau had a privilege for beth sums.
The Prothonotary, by his draft or projet of distribution, had collocated Boisseau, by privilege, as follows : “ 1st For “ the sum of £37 10 0 for one quarter’s rent due on the Îst “ day of August, 1853, for the use and occupation of the “ premises described in his opposition ; 24 For the sum of “ £112 10 0 for three quarters of rest to become due and “ owing the 1st day of May, 1854, for the use and occupa “ tion of the same premises.”
Tyre et al, creditors of Casey, admitted the privilege of Boisseau, to the amount of £37 10 0 for the rent due onthe 1st August, 1853, but contested his right to be paid for the rent that might become due for the period to elapse, to wit : from the 1st August 1853 to the 1st May, 1854.
The grounds of this contestation were stated as follows:
{st “ Because the said Pierre Boisseau is not entitled tohe “ paid the sum of £112 10 0, or any part of it, out of the “ proceeds of the sale in this cause.”
24 ‘ Because the said Pierre Boisseau is not entitled to be “ paid the said sum or any part of it by privilege.”
3d ‘ Because the said Pierre Boisseau has no right to be “ collocated for any sum beyond the £37 10 0 allowed him “ in the said report.”
Upon this law issue, the parties were heerd.
The questions which were submitted to the Court, to be determined, were :
1st Had Boisseau a privilege, and, if so, what privilege, there being no lease, either verbal o: written, but a mere implied lease founded upon the usage of the place ;
24 Were the allegations of the opposition of Boisseau sufficient to entitle him to such a privilege, as the one ailowed him by the report of distribution ;
34 Does the privilege of a landlord extend to the rent of the whole year, in this particular case, to wit: to the first quarter due, and to the three other quarters to become due thereafter ;
4th Is the privilege of the landlord limited only to three quarters due and expired, and to the current quarter, or terme courant ;
ôth What must be urderstood in Quebec by the words Kterme courant ;
Such were the points argued in this case, and which were determined by the Court, in favor of the Opposant claiming a privilege for the whole year, Caron, J ustice, dissentiente.
Caron, Justice :—I regret to have to differ from the decision of the majority of the Court. The point to decide is : what is the privilege of a landlord for rent to accrue, when there is no written lease, nor even a verbal lease, but a mere implied lease resulting from the use and occupation of the premises ? In this case, the personal estate of Casey was seized in July, before the first quarter had become due, and while this first quarter was st'll current : however, Boisseau claims a privilege for the entire year, to wit forthe current quarter, and the three quarters to become due. The creditors of Casey have contested his claim and collocation for the rent to accrue. The m"jority of the Court are of opinion that this contestation is ill fonnded, and are in favor of Boisseau’s privilege : 1 am of a contrary opinion. Ihold that the landlord has only a privilege for three quarters rent due, and the current quarter ; in other words, for nine months due, and for the three months running, Or current quarter.
It is a mistaken idea to understand by the words terme courant, the duration of the lease, which, according to the particular usage of the City of Quebec, is always for a year, when there is no contrary stipulation. In Paris, every lease expires every three months, when not otherwise stipulated ; 0 that when the authors speak of terme courant, they speak
of a period of three months ; the wnrds terme courant and Quarter must here be understood as synonymous, when ‘applied to the privilege of the landlord. Hence, trois termes échus et le terme courant, which are the words of the law, are there quarters due and the current quarter. If the words j{erme courant meant the duration of the lease, in Quebec, hey would mean the year, and in that sense, to be logical and consistent, the privilege should be allowed for three years and the current year : this cannot be. ffthere were three quarters in arrears, I would grant a privilege for them ‘and for the current quarter ; but in this case there are no ‘arrears due, and I am of opinion that the privilege of Bois. seau for the current quarter only, should be maintained, and no more. ; The Majority of the Court are of opinion that the privilege covers the rent for the whole year. In support of my opinion, as te the extent of this privilege, and as to the meaning of the words terme courant, 1 refer to Pothier and to Ferrière. (1)
Duvaz, Justice :—The Judgment which the Court is about to pronounce is founded on well established principles of law, of easy application to the facts of the case,
in France, when there was no written lease, the privilege of the landlord was restricted to the amount due for the last three quarters. It is quite and error to believe that the privilege as 10 the rent to accrue was also restricted to any period. The landlord, over and above the three quarters due, was allowed by privilege all the rent i::1t was to accrue, True, that was three months; but this is explained by ‘French Writers in the most satisfactory manner : “ À l'égard
4es baux des maisons de ville, il faut suivre l'usage des dieux, à Paris il y a quatre termes chaque année d’où les baux commencent, et auxquels ils finissent, savoir ; Janvier, Avril, Juillet et Octobre.” (2) When, therefore, the landlord
(1) Tr. du Louage, No. 29 and 135 :—Ferrière Dict, de Droit, vbo. Privilège.
(2) Pothier Tr, du Louage, n. 29,
in France was allowed a privilege for three months rent, far from his privilege being restricted, it was expressly allowed for the whole unexnired term of the location.
If he got no more than three months, it was because he was landlord for three months only, and after the expiration of the three months the rent ceased to accrue How could the French Courts have granted a privilege to secure the payment of a debt which the Defendant did not owe. See on this Subject the very satisfactory reasoning of Troplong (1). Pothier, remarks that the decisions of the Courts of Orléans differed from these of Paris, and he assigns the reason in support of the decisions at Orléans, as follows : “ Car ce n’est pas à l’authenticité, mais à la nature de l'acte qu’est attaché le droit d’hypothèque, et le droit de préférence qui en est une suite.” (2)
The case of Noad vs. Meriam is not analoguous to the jresent one; in that case the Court granted a privilege for three
quarters due and the current quarter, and rejected it for another quarter due in the previous year. (3)
(1) 1 Privilèges et Hyp, ch. 154 & seq.:…Tr, du Louage, No. 253,
(2) 8 Pothier, p. 712.
(3) Inthe case of Noad vs. Meriam, n. 146 ofthe year 1847, Jones et al. Opposants, fyled two oppositions afin de conserver, one for a quarter’s rent due the st May, 1846, and the other for one year’s rent from 1st May, 1846, to 1st May, 1847 : the former dated 3d March, 1847, the other the 12h April, 1847 : in neither of these oppositions was any rent, to accrue afterwards, demanded.
The Court, composed of Sir Jaugs SruarT, Q, J., and Bowen, Justice, maintained the second opposition, and gave judgment by privilege, for the entire year’s rent, to !st May, 1847 ; but for the quarter’srent, which fell due on the 1st May, 1846, Jones was only collocated in common with the other creditors, au marc la livre. So that the facts of this case are essenlially different from those of the one above reported ; in the one, the rent was due, in the other the rent was partly to accrue ; in both, the whole year’s rent was allowed by privilege, but in Noad vs. Meriam, it was for three quarters due, and the current Quarter, when the lease by Jones expired ; in Earl vs. Casey, for or 3 quarter due and three quarters Lo accrue also when the lease expired.
Te
# cannot bo said, however, that they are conflicting cases,
Bowen, Chief Jus ÿ à usage, prevailing here, “leases are supposed to be made for a year, and I am of opi. nion that the privilege of the landlord is for the whole year, “whether it be expired or not, The opinions of the Writers ‘On the Law of France, which limited ‘he privilege to the current quarter, were founded on a lucal usage, which does not exist here. In support of the views I entertain upon this subject, I hold the following authorities to be conclusive : “A l'égard des baux des maisons de ville, il faut suivre “ l'usage des lieux ; à Parisil y a quatre termes pour chaque ‘année d’où les baux commencent, et auxquels ils finissent ; “ le 1 Janvier, Avril, Juillet, et Octobre.”
“ Lorsqu'il n'y a pas de bail par écrit (the present case) qui “exprime le temps que le bail doit durer, il dure toujours “ jusqu’à l’un de ces termes, pour lequel, l’une ou l'autre “ des parties doit donner ou prendre congé.”
“ À Orléans nous n'avons qu’un terme d’où les baux des “ maisons commencent et auxquels ils finissent, savoir, celui “ de la Saint-Jean pour les maisons de ville, et celui de la “ Toussaint pour ia campagne. Lorsque les parties ne se sont “ pas expliquées sur la durée du bail, il est censé fait pour ‘un an, à commencer du prochain terme ; et si le locataire ‘< est entré en jouissance avant le terme, il est censé fait tant “pour le temps qui doit courir depuis qu'il est entré en “ jouissance, jusqu’au terme, que pour un an depuis le dit “ terme : il expire de plein droit au bout de l’année, sans “ qu’il soit nécessaire de signifier de congé auparavant.” (1)
Now the Lessor and Lessee Act (2), and the Bankrupt law (though the latter is no longer in force) show distinctly the sense of the Legislature, touching the matter in question. The proviso to the first clause of the former of the Statutes runs thus :—“ Provided always that in all cases in which
(1) Pothier, Tr. du Louage, n. 29 : — See also, 1 Troplong, des Privilèges et Hyp., n. 156, 157,
(2) 164h Vic. Cap. 200.
# an action shall be brought for use and occupation, a lease “ shall be considered as existing between the Proprietor and “Occupant, but it shall not be necessary to produce or prove Wthe same, and such lease shall be considered as expiring on “the first day of May following, unless it be proved that an “agreement to the contrary has been made between the “parties.” Now, whether the Lessor claim by action or by opposition, the effects and furniture which were in the house to answer his rent, being seized by the Plaintiff, a Judgment creditor, nakes no earthly difference, except in the form of preferring his demand.
Again, the same Bankrupt Act contained a strong legislative declaration as to the privilege in question ; it declared, that the distress for rent (whether before or after the issuing of the Commission) should not be available for more than 12 months rent, accrued prior to the date ofthe Commission, but the landlord or party to whom the rent should be due, would be allowed to come in as a Creditor under the Com:mission for any overplus of the rent due, and for wäich the distress should not be available.
“ Le propriétaire a privilége, soit qu’il y ait bail par écrit, “sous signature privée, ou devant notaire, et lorsque le “bail est purement verbal.” (1)
“ Régulièrement, le créancier ne peut demander l’exécu- “tion d’une obligation qu’à l'échéance du terme. C’est donc “une dérogation à ce principe que de permettre quelquefois “au propriétaire d'exiger d'avance les loyers qui ne devien- “draient esigibles, d’après la convention, qu'après un certain “ délai.”
“ Toutefois cette dérogation était dans les mr incipes. Le dé- “ biteur qui fait faillite, ou simplement celui qui par son “ fait diminue les sûretés qu’il avait données par le contrat “à ses créanciers, ne mérite plus la protection de la loi ; il
(1) 1 Troplong, n. 154 bis :—Charondas art. 161, Cout, de Paris :— - Ferrière, art. 161, Glose 1, n. 14, art. 171.
“ s’est rendu indigne des facilités qu’on lui avait accordées ; “ il doit naturellement en être privé.”
“ Mais aussi celte privation ne peut être prononcée que ‘“ dans ce cas. Il ne suffirait pas, en effet, que le débiteur “re: à de payer pour que le créancier pût demander je “ suite le payement de la dette exigible et celle qu'il ne l'est “point il suffit qu’il ait encore les mêmes sûretés, pour “ qu'il ne puisse se plaindre.”
Ces nrincipes s’appliquent au propriétaire qui réclame les loyers de sa maison ou de sa ferme.”
“ Concourant avec d'autres créanciers du preneur, il verrait “ diminuer son gage, il perdrait l'espoir de trouver de quoi “ se payer, puisque les meubles qui étaient destinés à lui “ servir de garantie servent à payer d’autres créanciers du “preneur, Ainsi, il doit exercer ses droits pour tout ce “ qui est échu et pour tout ce qui est à échoir.”
‘ Mais lorsqu’aucun créancier du preneur ne se présente, “ que le bailleur exerce seul des poursuites contre lui, il ne “ peut faire vendre des meubles que jusqu’à concurrence ‘des fermages ou loyers échus ; car les meubles qui gar- “ nissent la maison ou la ferme lui restent exclusivement “ affectés, il n’a pas le droit de priver le preneur du bénéfice ‘du terme, c’est-à-dire, de la faculté de e payer qu'aux “ échéances fixées par le bail.” (1)
The judgment is in favor of Boisseau’s claim. Justice, dissentiente, DELAGRAvE, for Boisseau, uART nd Vannovous, for Tyre et al,
1 Persil, Priviléges et Hypothèses, p. 20, IL: — 1 Troplong, Priviléges et Hypothèques, n. 162.
QUEzN'S BENCH.
