SAISIE-ARRET.—INTERVENTION

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, December Term 1872.

Present : DuvaL,C. J., CARON, J., DRUMMOND, J., BADGLEY, J., and MOXK, J.

MiIcHON, appellant, «nd GAUVREAU, respondent.

Respondent, by writ of attachment before jndgment, seized a vessel, in the possession of his debtors, on the stocks, in his ship-yard. Appellant claimeld the vessel seized as his property, and respondent joined issue, Subsequently, respondent recovered judgment against his debtor for the amount he claimed and, as the legality of the writ of attachment was contested, as soon as the delay had expired, seized the ves-el under a writ of execution. To this seizure, appellant first filed an opposition which was dismissed :

Held : That until the intervention was disposed of, respondent could not cause the vessel to be sold by the sheritff, and that the opposition, therefore, should have been maintained.

Respondent, on the 6th june 1868, issued out of the Superior Court, Quebec, a writ of attachment before judgment, against one François Julien, under which à vessel, then in the possession of the latter, on the stocks, in his ship-yard, was seized, Appellant intervened in that suit, and claims the vessel seized, as his property, under two deeds mentioned in the pleadings, and, upon this intervention, respondent joined issue with appellant. Subsequently, respondent recovered judg-

ment against Julien, for the amount claimed, and, as the latter had contested the legality of the issuing of the writ of attachment, respondent, as soon as the delay to issue execution expired, caused the same vessel to be seized, under a writ of Jieri facias. To the last mentioned seizure, appellant fyled an opposition, whereby he claimed the vessel as his property. This opposition was, on the 11th day of december last, dismissed by judgment of the Superior Court, and it is from this judgment that the present appeal is taken. The opposition alleges that appellant is proprietor of the vessel seized, under a certain deed, bearing date the 20th march 156$, under which appellant claims as vendee, and, further, that the vessel had been already seized under à writ of attachment beforc judgment, that an intervention had been filed by appellant, claiming said vessel and ausking mainlevée of the seizure, Which intervention was still undecided.

The judges of the Court of Appeals were unanimously of opinion that, until the intervention was disposed of, respondent could not cause the vessel to be sold by sheriffs sale, and that appellant's opposition should have been maintained. The judgment of the court below was, therefore, reversed. (3