MANDAT.—PROCUREUR

SUPERIOR COURT, IN REVIEW, Montreal, 28th february 1873.

Present: MACKAY, J. TORRANCE, J., and BEAUDRY, J.

Harr vs MCDouGALL.

Held : That the mandat could be revokcd at any time, without right to mandatary to complain (1).

BEAUDRY, J., dissenting, said the action was by a lawyer, who acted as agent and attorney for defendant, the proprietor of certain lands in the Eastern Townships. His honor regarded the present claim for x balance of account as well founded, and thonght the judgment should be reversed.

MackaY, J.: Defendant is a proprietor of lands in the Eastern Townships and an absentee, On the 1st august 1865, he appointed plaintiff his attorney, to collect his revenues and attend as an agent to his business. The agency lasted till february 1st 1869, when it was revoked. The pluintitf, afterwards, instituted this suit for the recovery of 309, balance alleged due him npon his account. Defendant pleads that he owes nothing; that plaintiff accepted the management of defendant’s estate on a commission of 7 per cent on collections, for his services; that receipts by plaintiff of monies of defendant more than cover all just claims of plaintitf, nevertheless, to prevent trouble and by way of precaution, defendant offers S50 more to plaintitf, with costs of Circuit Court, Plaintiff replies by an general denial (answer) to the plens, and files also a special answer, to the effect that the agrecment for à commission of 7 per cent on collections. pleaded by defendant, cannot be maintained, heeause, on the 1st of august 1868, defendant gave plaintiff a power of attornev to make these collections and, only a few months later, to wit: on the 1st of februury 1869, defendant, without assigning any cause or reason, revoked said power of attorney, by appointing à new attorney and totally deprived plaintiff of reulizing anything under the agreement, The judgment

(1) Art. 1756 C, C,

SU