DOMMAGES.—SAISIE-ARRET AVANT JUGEMENT.—PROTONOTAIRE
Cour DU BANC DE LA REINE, EN APPEL, MONTRÉAL, 22 juin 1874.
Présents : TASCHEREAU, J., RAMSAY, J. NSANBORN, J. et LORANGER, J. ad hor.
HuGn MCLENNAN et «l., demandeurs en cour de première instance, appelants, ét RENÉ-AUGUSTE-RICHARD HUBERT et al., défendeurs en cour de première instance, intimés.
Jugé: Que le protonotaire n’est pas responsable des dommages causés par l'émission illégale d’un bref de saisie-arrêt avant jugement, à moins qu’il ne soit prouvé qu’il ait agi de mauvaise foi, ou sans cause raisonnable ou probable.
Le 30 et le 31 octobre 1871, les demandeurs donnèrent aux défendeurs l'avis requis par l’article 22 du Code de Procedure Civile, quant à l’action en dommages qu'ils avaient l'intention d’intenter contre eux, à raison de certains actes par eux faits dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, comme gretfiers de la Cour de Circuit pour le district de Montréal. Par leur action, les demandeurs réclament des défendeurs, en leur qualité de greffiers conjoints de la Cour de Circuit, des dommages au inontant de $300, parce que les défendeurs ont émis illégalement un bref de saisie-arrêt avant juy;ement de la Cour de Circuit pour le district de Montréal contre une barge appartenant aux demandeurs. Par leur déclaration, les demandeurs alléguaient que, sur un affidavit insuffisant de A. Marcile, un bref de suisie-arrêt avant jugement avait été émis, à la réquisition de ce dernier, sans allégation suffisante, et contrairement à ln loi qui attribue bien un privilège au maitre et à l'équipage pour gages durant le dernier voyage, mais ne leur accorde aucune saisie conservatoire ni aucune saisie-urret
ava aval à ce etai du 1
non
insu that Revi ment privi alleg to th suffic
La rieur demie
T 0tar) ident follo of M
(1) (2) puges requis privil (Day F., dis Monti
ant, dont \pprouve tous les ans l’andu Bas- 1S avons nité. (4
it.
DTAIRE.
première Hu8ERrr intimés.
ages Caugement, À ns cause
ent aux
Proceent l'inctes par tiers de ar leur ur quaminaues nis illéla Cour e barve deman- A. Maémis, à et conbaître et nais ne ie-nrret
avant jugement. Les demandeurs, de plus, alléguaient qu'ils avaient fait déclarer cette saisie-arrêt illégale, sur leur motion à cet etlet, et que les défendeurs, comme greffiers conjoints, étaient tenus de savoir que, sur cette question, quant au droit du maître ou de l'équipage de saisir-arrêter le bâtiment pour
sages, la loi ne leur donne pas le pouvoir de suaisir-arrêter
avant jugement une burge pour le paiement de tels gages ; suivant les décisions qui ont été rendus précédemment par la Cour Supérieure, en revision, à Montréal, dans les causes de Delisle v. l'Ecuyer (1), et Dugenais v. Douglas (2). Les défendeurs contestèrent cette action, par diverses défenses, et entre autres, par une défense au fond en droit. Par cette dernière défense, les défendeurs prétendent que les demandeurs n'ont aucun droit d'action contre eux ; qu'ils sont, par la loi, tenus, sur la demande qui leur en est faite par l'avocat, accompagnée d’un atfidavit, d'accorder, suivant Particle 2383 du Code Civil, la saisie-arrêt en question. Que les défendeurs ne sont pas juges de la valeur légale de la suffisance de l’affidavit.
Le 22 mars 1872, la Cour Supérieure, MACKAY, Ja renvoyé la défense en droit.
MacKaY, J.: This is an action of damages against the prothonotary, for issuing à seizure, against plaintiffs barges, without sufficient cause. It is alleged that the affidavit was insuflicient to justify an attachment before judgment, and that the prothonotary should have known that the Court of Review had decided that à seaman had no right to an attachment on a vessel for his wages. And, besidés, that he has a privilege only for his wages for the last voyage, and it is not alleged that this was for “the last voyage. A demurrer is filed to the action, but I consider the declur: ation, if proved, to be sufticient to justify à judgment. Demurrer dismissed.
La cause fut ensuite plaidée au fond devant la Cour Supérieure, TORRANCE, J., qui le 30 novembre 1872, débouta le demandeur de son action.
TORRANCE, J.: “The declaration sets out that the prothonotary, in à certain case for $7, in the Circuit Court, improvidently issued a writ of suisie-arreét on an affidavit in the following words : “That a barge was about to leave the port Of Montreal to go to the United States, and that, without the
(2) Le capitaine d’une barge n'a pas le droit de la faire saisir pour ses gages du dernier voyage, par saisie conservatoire, sans donner l'affidavit requis par l'art, 844 C. P, C. (art. 931 C. P. C. de 1897), même s'il a un privilège sur cette barge. Il n’est pas dans le cas du dernier équipeur. \ Paye nais V. Douglas et al., C. S. R,., Montréal, 41 octobre 1871, MONDELET, J., dissident, MacKaYy, J., et C ARON, J., confirmant le jugement de C. C., Montréal, 30 décembre 1870, BERTHELOT, )., 22 R, J. KR. Q., 311.)
benefit of a saisie-arrét, to stop the barge, plaintiff might lose his debt and sustain damage” Upon this affidavit, the clerk of the court issued a suisie-arrét before judgment, and, under this writ, the barge was stopped in the act of passing through the canal. She was one of à convoy of barges on the way to the United-States, and the whole convoy was stopped for ten hours. Plaintitfs, who are proprietors of the barve, say they disbursed a sum of between $6v and $70, and, besides that, suffered daniages, in all, about $300. They now charge the prothonotary with having issued the sœisie-arrét without reasonable or probable cause ; that they did it in ignorance of the law, which they ought to have known, as settled in the case of Delisle and Lécuyer, and in Dagenuis and Douglas ; and that, under the cireumstances of the case, there was such great laches on their part, that they ought to pay these daumages. The function which the prothonotary performed here may be regarded as à quasi judicial one, and, in a case OË Carter and Burland, the court has already, to day. decided that à magistrate is not liable, where there is no malice or misconduct on his part. Broom’s Maxims show that, even inferior magistrates cannot be called into question for à simple error. It is better that an individual should occasionally sutfer wrong than that the course of justice should be impeded by constant apprehension on the part of those who have to administer it. The question raised here as to the
issue of the suisie-arrét is one upon which different judges have have held different views, and is it to be said that à prothon- On t otary is liable, because he does not refuse to give out à war- the: rant of suisie-arrét on what, at least, appeared to lie à sufli- the
cient affidavit ? In this case, after the return of the process ot t into court, the attachment was at once quashed without any of a
resistance in the case. Upon the whole, the court considers lowi that plaintiff has failed to prove that the suisie-arrét issued costs
without reasonable and probable cause, and the action is dis- DER
missed, with costs.” the
C'est de ee dernier jugement dont est appel. mg
GirRouARD & Ducas, for appellants : This is an action in gave
damages, brought against Hubert, Papineau & Honey, joint des à
| prothonoturies of the Superior Court, and also joint clerks of witl the Circuit Court for Lower-Canada, sitting in and for the dem ! district of Montreal, for having issued a saisie-arret before dére judgment, “illegally and without any probable or reasonable AE cause” On the 4th of september 1871, the barge “Guard” : de
was in the port of Montreal, in tow of steamer “ Relief”, to- A
gether with nine other barges, on their Way to the United- Po
States. One Alphonse Mureile, alleging that some wages were ; br
Nr
due him by one Albert Couvrette, barge captain, made the
tiff might iduvit, the ment, and, f passing es on the as stopped the barge, D, and, be- They now uisie-arret it in ignor- as settled enais and case, there ht to pay otary perne, and, in ly, to day.
1ere 1S no ims show 0 question should ocice should t of those e as to the nt judges à prothonut à Warbe a sufhhe process hout any considers rét issued ion is dis-
action in ney, Joint clerks of d for the et before easonable “Guard” elief ”, to- United- 1g es were nade the
following affidavit before Papineau, one of the defendants, as joint clerk of the Circuit Court: “ Que le défendeur lui est “endetté en la somme de sept dollurs et vingt-cinq cents, “ étant pour gages comme matelot, à bord de lu barge portant “le nom de. ...,et que cette barge est «ur le point de quitter le “port de Montréal, pour aller aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique, et que, sans le bénéfice d'un bref de suisie-arrét avant juge- ‘ ment, pour saisir et arréter cette burge, son grément, ainsi “que sa charge, le demandeur perdra sa créance et souffrira du dommage.” Upon this affidavit, Papineau ordered the issuing of a writ of suisie-crrét avant Jugement commanding any bailiff of the Superior Court ‘“ de suistr et arréter tous les biens, créances et effets d'Albert Couvrette, capitaine de barge, de lu paroisse de Siinte-Cécile, district de Beauharnoïs, et particulièrement, une barye et son grément et sa charge : ladite barge connue sous le nom de “Guard”, maintenant et momentanément dans le port de Montréal” The attachment of the barge was made on the same day, 4th september 1871, when the last barge of the tow of the steamer “Relief” was locking in the canal basin, in the port of Montreal. The consequence was a detention of the whole tow during ten hours, cansing to the owners, the appellants, à dumage of three hundred dollars, $100 for the steumer, and $20 for each barge, without reference to consequential damages. This special “damage i is proved beyond any doubt, and would have been still greater had the barge seized been left behind. On the 13th september, the day following the return day of the writ, Couvrette moved that the same be quashed, upon the ground that the affidavit of plaintitf did not contain any of the substantial averments required by law for the issuing of a writ of attachement before judgment : and, on the fol. lowing day, 14th september, this motion was granted, with costs. Appellants (owners of the said steamer and barces, who were running the same for their own account and benefit at the time of the seizure, Couvrette and the other captains being only their agents and employés for that purpose), at once gave them notice of an action to recover those dumages, as required by law, alleging that they had acted “illegally and without any reasonable or probable cause.” The Rs demtud is such action. The defendants pleaded : Firstly, : défense en droit, in which they set forth that 10, “ Les déène “deurs, comme protonotaires el greffiers, sont tenus, sur la “de mande qui leur en est fuite par l'avocat de la partie, teconpagnée d'un affidumit sérieur et de bonne foi, d'ac- “corder des brefs de suisic-arret avant jugement, et autres “brefs du méme genre, et qu'ils ne sont pus, ct ne sturaient se constituer juges de la valeur légale et de Lu suffisance ou
‘insuffisance de tel affidavit ; 20, que les défendeurs, comme “ protonotaires, &c., sont tenus l’'accorder des writs de saisie conservatoire, pour le paiement des quges des matelots, en vertu de l'article 2253 du Code Civil, et qu'ils ne sont pas, et ne sauraient étre juges de la valeur légale, et de la surff-
sance où insuffisance de tel afidavit” Secondly, a plea to the merits, in which they say that, at the time cf Marciles seizure, the question as 10 whether à seaman had a right to obtain : saisie conservatoire for his wages, due on the last voyage, was controverted and is still unsettled ; that, in fact, the wages due to Marcile were for the last voyage, and, finally, that defendants had acted in good faith, de bonne foi et sans négligence ow inipéritie. Thirdly, a general denega-
tion. The denmurrer was dismissed by MAcKaY, J. At enquéte,
the appellants fully made out their case. They proved even gross negligence and incapacity on the part of Papineau, “ Vous considérons,” he said, “l'affidavit comme l'œuvre ‘ du déposant et de l'avocat, et ne Le Lisons pas : nous “ ronsi- “ dérant comme responsables seulement du jurat et de la mur- “ nière d'administrer le serment.” For the reputation sake of on nrothonotary's office, it must be stated that Papineaus nouon of the prothonotary's duties does not agree with that of his colieague, Hubert. “ Depuis,” he said, que je suis l'un ‘ des greffiers, je n'ai jamais généralement assermenté d'uf-
‘ duvits pour obtention de writs spéciaux, tels que de suisie- “arrét avant jugement ou de revendication sans les avoir “examinés et lus” The defendants proved nothing, not even that any wages were due to the seizing plaintiff. Mareile. The case was heard upon its merits before Justice TORRANCE, who dismissed plaintitfs action. What is the nature of a prothonotary of the Superior Court or clerk of the Circuit Court ? Is he à ministerial or judicial officer, or both ? What is the responsibility of a ministerial officer of à court of jusice? Even,if he is to be considered as performing quasi judicial functions, is he, in the present case, exempt from any pra responsibility ? In other words, even supposing that the protection granted to the judges of the Superior Court extends to the prothonotary of said court, will à judge be civüly liable in a case like the present one ? Finally, what is the civil responsibility of judges ? A striking feature of this case is that the plea i is contradictory, and the judgment of Justice TORRANCE is at variance with the plen. Defendants pleaded that they are not judges, that they had no discre tion inthe matter, and Justice TORRANCE holds they were per-
forming quasi judicial functions. In the first part of their nlen, defendants contend that they are bound to issue writs
saisie-arrét before judgment, capias «d respondendinnr,
man som.
rs, COMM de saisie ulelots, en } SONÉ pas, e la suffa plea to Marcile’s 2) right to nthe Jast it, in fact.
age, and, bonne foi 1 denegat enquéte, Y proved , Of Papine l'œuvre LS “ de La muon sake of P’apineau’s with that > suis l'un nté d'afide SC iste- Les avoir , not even Mareile.
'ORRANCE, of a pro-
à Circuit 13? What rt of jusng quasi from any that the jourt exjudge be 7, what is ‘e of this gment of éfendi ants liscretion vere pertof their sue Writs
CONnsSTr-
idendiui,
ete, whenever demanded by an advocate, supported by an afidavit sérieux et de bonne foi, and, in the latter part, they set forth that they are bound to do so without ‘se constituer “ juges de la valeur léqule ét de Lu suffisance où insuffisance “de tel afidavit” But who is to decide that the affidavit is de bonne foi et sérieux, if the prothonotary is not bound ta take cognizance of the same ? Hubert's notion of the duties of the prothonotary is the only correct one, and there is no doubt that Papineau, in issuing suisies-arréls and writs of a like nature, without even taking the trouble of reading the affidavits, is guilty of à gross neglect, for which all defendants are responsible, It is, indeed, à matter not of discretion with, but of imperative duty for the prothonotary of the court to issne writs of suistie-arrét before judgment in all cases provided by law, and the want of power to exercise such x discretion is the very reason why he is a ministerial officer only, has none of the characteristics of judicial officers, and is always responsible not for mere clerical mistakes or irrecularities, but for omissions, neglect and total or partial want of performing the duties of bis office. Under the French régime, the greffiers were mere ministerial officers, and, as such, were civilly liable for their acts and those of their clerks who were appointed by them. “ Un offic ner ministérl" says Boncenne, Proc, Civ., vol. 1, p. 583, “est celui qui “est nonvmé pur Le roi, pour préter son Ministère aux Maqs- “trats où aux parties. Tels sont les avoués, les greffiers, les ‘notaires, les commissuires-priseurs et les huissiers... En “générul, les officiers ministériels répondent des dommages
résultant des fautes qu'ils convmettent dans l'exercice de ® leur profession." Ferrière, vo. Greffers: ‘Ils sont respon- “sables de leurs clercs on commis, muis ils ne peuvent, pour ‘raison de ce, étre poursuivis que civilement.” See also Jouraul du Palais, vo. Commis-Greffiers, no 158: Rolland, vo. (rréffier, no 28 ; Dict. du Noturiut, vo. Greffier, no 45 ; Merlin, vo, Nullité. “ Les officiers ministériels,” says Toullier, vol. 7, p. 265, *“ sont les greffiers, les avoués et les huissiers.” Toullier, vol. 11, p. 254, note (L), further remarks : “ Lu réparatron des
“torts causés par impéritie s'applique aux avoués, huissiers, “aua notaires, greffiers,” etc. In France, under the old as well as under the new régime, greffiers were called upon to perform most of the duties imposed upon them in Lower- Canada; they were bound to keep proper registers of the Judgments and proceedings of the court, cbey the orders of the judges, issue suminons, in conformity with such orders or the requirements of law, receive and adjudicate upon all demands for the appointment of tutors and curators, and, in some of the provinces, execute testaments and last wills, and
proceed with inventories of deceased. The prothonotary or clerk of our courts has no greater powers, except perhaps that of rendering judgments in certain cases by default. Still this judgment does not become the judgment of the court, till the expiration of a certuin lupse of time. C. P. C. 465 (1). Article 92 declares that, in actions by default, founded upon bills, notes, etc., the prothonotary may, in vacation, draw up a judgment in the name of the court, but this judgment does not become the judgment of the court till after the expiration of the tine tixed for filing opposition (2). So, even in this particular instance, it cannot correctly be said that the prothonotary is perfomning judicial or quasi judicial funetions ; again, to use the words of our code, he drarvs up à judgment in the name of the court, not in the exercise of x discretionary power, but in the performance of an imperative duty imposed upon him by the express provisions of the law. Like all other ministerial officers, he is, therefore, responsible for any manifest violation of his duties, whether defined by law or by the courts, whether the injury is occasionell by an unjustifiable misunderstanding of the judginent of the court or by a clear misapprehension of the law: because again in so doing, he is guilty of a great want of private judgment, and public oflicers are required to bestow upon the performance of their duties, at least, that care, diligence, attention and knowledge, which all citizens are bound to apply in the ordinary acts of life. Article 1053 of our Civil Code says: “ Every person capable of discerning right from wrong is responsible for the dumage caused by his fault to another, whether by positive act, imprudence, neglect or want of “ skill” Appellants are not aware that the law has made an “exception to this principle of eternal justice in favor of prothonotaries and clerks of courts of justice. Defendants understand so well that they are governed by it, that their sole pleu is that they have acted in good faith, without neglect or want of skill, de bonne foi, suns négligence ou impéritie. In England and the United-States, the same rule is laid down. “ It is well settled, under the English system,” says Sedgwick, on Damages, ed. 1858, p. 532, “that sheriffs and other “ ministerial officers, in case of neglect or violation of duty, “are responsible to the party aggrieved in a civil action” Shearman and Redlield, on MNegligence, sec. 156 : “ Where the “ duty of x public officer is absolute, certain and imperative, “involving merely the execution of a set task, in other “words, is simply ministerial, he is liable in damages to any
(1) Art. 33 C. P. C. de 1897.
(2) Arte 532 C: P. C. de 1897.
in al that ceed
prop cile, omit to t] clerk in € affd an à requ prot has He exer men the subs alre mer refu
by 2
notary or
‘“haps that Still this rt, till the L). Article pon bills, (ATP up a nent does le expiru- 0, even in | that the cial func- (us Up à rcise of x mperative f the law.
esponsible letined by ed by an the court again in judæment, : performattention y in the ude says:
wrong is another, want of made an rof prots underheir sole eglect or éritie. In id down.
s Sedgnd other of duty, action.” here the perative, in other s to any
“ one specially injure:l, either by his omitting to perform the “task, or by performing it negligently or unskillfully.” “ Clerks of courts,” they say, on p. 343, “of counties and “towns, prothonoturies, registrars of deeds, and other like “officers, belong to that class of ministerial officers to which “we have referred on a previous page.” ($ 156.) The ordinary cases, in which questions of responsibility of public officers have urisen, in England, the United-States and Canada, are suits against notaries, architects, collectors of customs, for over-charges, and illegal forfeitures, against sheriffs, either for negligence, us the escape of parties arrested on legal process, for taking insufficient security, under a capias ad respondendum, for neglect to seize or preserve property on execution, for an excess of their powers, excessive distress, etc. Gwynne, on Sheriffs, ed. 1849, p. 416; MeClure vs Shepherd, 3 R. JR. Q., 118; Leverson vs Cunningham and Boston, 12 R. J. R. Q,., 57; Zrawin vs Boston, 23 R. J. R. Q., 157. Applying these principles to the present case, defendants will be found guilty of neglect and gross violation of their duties. Our Code nf Civil procedure, art. 834-838 (1), declares that the prothonotury shall issue a writ of suisiearrét before judgment : Lo in the case of dernier équipeur ; 20 in all cases where pluintitf produces an affidavit establishing that defendant is personally indebted to him in à sum exceeding $5 ; that defendant ubsconds, ete., or is secreting his property, with intent to defraud, etc. In the affidavit of Marcile, the word personully and the particulars of the debt are omitted, which omissions have often been held to be fatal to the writ, but are not perhaps sufficient to make the clerk of the court civilly responsible. The clerk of the court in effect does: not guarantee as to the sufficiency of the affidavit, but he guarantees that there is an affidavit, that is, an affidavit containing the very substance and essence of the requirements of the law. In the case under consideration, the prothonotary has clearly acted without any jurisdiction, and has been guilty of a gross violation of his ministerial duties. He was bound to take communication of the affidavit, and exercising (not his discretion, as he has none) his own judgment, he wus bound to see that the affidavit was establishing the requirements of the code, before issuing the writ. If it substantially warranted it, he was bound to give it, for, as already observed, he has no discretion to exercise ; he is a mere ministerial officer. If without any sufficient reason he refuses the writ; he may be compelled to issue the same, even by mandamus ; and whether he gives or refuses it, he acts
(1) Art. 931, 932, 933, 934 et 939 C. P. C. de 1897.
at his own peril: in both cases he is bound to act in x prudent aud skillful manner. If, in a case like the present, the clerk of the court is not personally liable for the wrong inflicted, then the opinion of Papineau, that the prothonotury is not bound to take communication of the affidavit, is correct, and a defendant arrested upon à mere blank piece of paper, or a sham affidavit, will be without remedy. If such à pretension be law, what becomes of the liberty and property of the subject! To bring a citizen to disgrace and misery, an unscrupulous and irresponsible individual will only be required to append his signature to a sheet of written paper, purporting to be an affidavit, wherein anything except what the law requires may be said, and to swear to it before the clerk of the court! But, say defendants, we did not intend to issue a writ of suisie-arret under article 834 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but a saisie conservatoire under article 2383 of the Civil Code, declaring that “there is à privilege upon “ vessels for the payment of the wages of the master and “ crew for the last voyage,” that, for yeurs, it hand been customary to issue attachments of this nature in favor of seamen, and that, in fact, at the time of the issuing of the seizure of Murcile, it was and still is questionable whether a seaman is not entitled to à saisie conservatoire for his wages during the last voyage. Do the facts support this plea ? Has the affidavit at least the appearance of an affidavit for a saisie conservatoire ? Justice TORRANCE held that it ‘“appeaured to be a sufficient affidavit.” But the affidavit shows, Istly, that à writ of saisie-arrét avant jugement was demauded. 2ndly. It is not alleged that defendant Couvrette was the captain of the barge, nor that plaintitf Marcile was a seaman on board of the same. 3dly. The name of the barge is left in blank. 4thly. It is not established that the wages due had been incurred on toard the barge. 5thly. That they were for the last voyage. The affidavit discloses the fact that the debt was an ordinary personal debt. 6thly. The writ is not x writ of suisie conservatoire, that is, in the nature of à saisie revendication, but a suisie-arrét avunt jugement in the usual form, commanding the bailiff to seize the goods, chattels, etfects and debts of defendant Couvrette, and, more particularly, the barge “ Guard,” then in the port of Montreal. Nothing in the proceedings warrants, however, the supposition that she was not in the possession of a third party. And now as to the alleged controversy of the question as to whether a seaman can obtain a saisie conservatoire for the payment of his wages for the last voyage, appellants have alleged, in their declaration, that the point had been then recently decided at Montreal, by Justice BERTHELOT, on the
sn, cop!
day
esta,
case the :
saisi
seam it m:
disre, by tt the e gatio issue
a)l et exce par la l'hiver.
les de:
saisir € pratiq par l'a saisie manuf:
si tout.
dure, \ en app J,, et 1 Moxpe seulem mais er qu'il pr Le juge réal, 11
prudent he clerk inflicted, ry is not rect, and per, or à retension the subunscrupquired to irporting the law clerk of Oo issue à of Civil 2383 of 2e upon ster and Jeen Cusjr Of seug of the vhether a his wages ea ? Has vit for à
it ‘“ap- & shows, was deou vrette ile was :
he barge le wages 'hat they fact that e writis ure of, à bment in e goods, nd, more bf Montthe supd party.
ion as to for the
ts have en then r, on the
30th day.of deceber 1870, in a case of Dugénuis vs Douglas et «!,, since contirmed in review, and by the Court of Review on the 30th day of march 1871, about six months previously, contrary to the pretensions of the navigateurs, as per copies of judgments filed and certified by defendants themselves. These decisions are in conformity with the settled jurisprudence of the province: Reid vs Porteous, 22 R. J. R. Q, 91: Jasmin vs Lafuntaisie, 22 KR. J. R. Q.,92: Dubeau vs Robertson, 22 R. J,, K. 9, 311 and 447. Defendants have tiled a copy of judgment rendered by Justice BERTHELOT, on the 1st day of february 1872, in a case of ZLaplante vs Mulligan, to establish a contrary view. But on referring to a copy of the affidavit, also produced, it will appear that the affidavit contained all the necessary averments for a saisie-arrét, to wit, absconding from the province with intent to defraud, ete. If, however, reference can be made to decisions rendered since the issuing of the seizure of Marcile, it suffices to refer to th case Of Grahain vs Coté, decided by this honorable court on the 22nd day of january 1871, to be convinced that no such saisie conservatoire exists under our present Code of Practice (1). No contrary decision can defendants quote, but the opinion of Justice Monk, who, in 1864, when sitting as à judge holding the Circuit Court in Montreal, rejected motion to quash à saisie conservatoire issued in favor of x seaman, This isolated precedent, however worthy of respect it may be, cannot be sufficient justification for defendants to disregari à jurisprudence of upwards of 30 years, establishe(l by the majority of the judges of the country, and to violate the express enactiments of the code. Even, up to the promulgation of the code, if the practice of our courts had been to issue and maintain saisies conservatoires of the nature under
(1) La saisie conservatoire, saisie avant jugement, est de droit positif étroit et exceptionnel ; elle ne peut s'exercer que dans les cas spécialement prévus par la loi. Ainsi, l’homme de cage, qui, avec d'autres, a travaillé, pendant l'hiver, à manufacturer des billots qu'ils mettent en cage, au printemps, pour les descendre au marché par eau, ne peut, par voie de saisie conservatoire, saisir cette cage pour assurer le paiement de ses gages. Ilne pourrait faire pratiquer une saisie-arrêt avant jugement qu'en donnant l’affidavit requis par l'art. 834 C. P. C. (art. 931 et 933 C. P. C. de 1897). Il n’a pas droit à la saisie conservatoire, quoiqu'il puisse avoir un privilège sur les billot:5 ainsi manufacturés et descendus par lui ; et il ne pourrait conserver ce privilege, si toutefois il l’a, qu’au moyen de la saisie-arrêt indiquée au Code de Proctdure, vu que c'est la seule qui existe maintenant. ((/raham et Coté, C. B. R., en appel, Montréal, 22 janvier 1872, CARON, J., DRUMMOND, J., BADSLEY, J,, et Monk, J., infirmant le jugement de C. $S. R., Montréal, 30 mars 1871, MoxpELer, J., BERTHELOT, J., et TORRANCE, J., laquelle avait jugé que non seulement l'homme de cage avait, comme ouvrier, un privilège sur les billots, mais encore qu'il avait, pour le paiement de ses gages, un droit de rétention qu'il pouvait exercer, par saisie conservatoire, sur le bois ainsi manufacturé. Le jugement de la Cour de Revision confirmait le jugement de C, C., Montréal, 11 novembre 1870, MacKay, J., 22 KR. J. R. Q., 445.)
