PENSION.—GAGE

SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 28 june 1872.

Present : TORRANCE, J.

AHERN vs MCDoNaALD.

Held: That a boarding house-keeper has no lien on the etYects of his boarders, for the payment of the board. (2 R. C., 479.)

VENTE DE LIQUEURS EN CONTRAVENTION DE LA LOI. SUPERIOR Court, Montreal, 28th june 1872.

Present : TORRANCE, J.

Ex parte FLOOD.

Held: That a conviction charging defendant with having sold a

couple of glasses of beer, without stating the precise measure and specific quantity, is bad. (2 R. C., 479.)

FAILLITE.—CREANCIER HYPOTHECAIRE.

Superior Court, Montreal, 1Sth september 1872.

HURTEAU, insolvent, «nd STEWART, assignee, und Boyer, contesting dividend sheet,

An assignee to an insolvent estate having sold certain lots of land belonging to it, which were mortgaged to B for about $9,000, and to S for 8756, paid s3, 000 to B and, afterwards, left the country, taking with him some $1300 of the proceeds of the lots, The question which arose was who should suffer the deficiency :

Helt : That, the first mortgaged creditor, was entitled to be paid in full, as far as the proceeds would go.

MackaAY,J.: Hurteau having become bankrupt, Sauvaveau was appointed assignee, and sold five lots of land belonying to the insolvent, These lots were bought by Benard und another person. Boyer was a mortgage “ereditor, holding a mortgage on these lots, and Montmarquet, now represente by Schneider, held another mortgage on part of the property. After Sauvageuu sold the lots and received a portion of the price, before a dividend sheet was prepared, he paid Boyer 3000. Soon afterwards, Sauvageau fled the country, taking with him about $1300 of the proceeds of the lots. So there is a deticiency of 1300 to be suffered by somebody. Boyer says that he ought not to be made to bear the whole of it. Boyer’s claim altogether was about $#9000. He had been collocated for 7300, in part of his claim ; Schneider et «l., being collocated in full for their claim $756. The question w as who should bear the loss of the money stolen. Boyer contended that it was only fair that it should be borne pro ratu by himself and Schneider, who was the first mortgage creditor. The court could not accept this doctrine. The first mortgage creditor is entitled to be paid from the proceeds of the thing mortgaged to him. The loss of a portion of the thing does not affect him ; so long as any portion remains, he is entitled to be paid from that. If an assignee or publie officer, after selling lands mortgaged, steal part of the proceeds, but leave some of the remainder, this remainder must go, tirst, to pay the earliest mortgage creditor, who may say that loss whatever—whether from fire or larceny—can’t hurt him; so long ns it is only partial, and that enough remains to pay him There is enough, in the present case, to pay Schneider, out of the proceeds of the lands mortgaged to Montmarquet. Schneider’s pretension as first mortgagee was perfectly sound. ‘The award of the assignee which sustained it must, therefore, be confirmed, and the contestation of Bover dismissed. (2 R. C, 479.)

MrrcH

An 0 made 1!

change membe the arb writing alter th The aw upon it, confirim and de the arbi to nothi

IHld :

could nc as defet

Mac asked Excha to OpPp membe others, a subm ings, VW connect The a tion ma ing a € Was su sworn tors, on the 3rc appeal

July, th

defecti:

an aw moved

that th they We Board c reopen Batters