BORNAGE
SuUPERIOR Court, Montreal, 30th november 1872. Present : TORRANCE, J.
LÉVESQUE vs MCCREADY.
Held: That, in an action between two neighbours, with regard to the boundary line between their properties. the court can give an order for an «rpenteur to prepare a plan figuratif of the property in question, in order that the tribunal may be better prepared to render his jüdgment,
This is a dispute between two neighbours, with regard to the boundary line between their properties. These actions L'regard as of à very delicate character, and I desire to render such a judgment as will stan:l some chance of not being disturbed, when it goes through the ordeal of another court. In the meantime, I do not feel in à position to decide upon the rights of the parties, and T give an order for an
aa
arpenteur to prepare « plan fiqurutif of the property in question, in order that Ï muy be better prepared to render my judgment, (3 R. C, 76).
LOUAGE. —SAISIE-REVENDICATION. SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 30th november 1872. Present : TORRANCE, J.
AVERY vs LAWLOR.
Defendant lodged a horse with plaintiff, a livery stable-keeper, to take care of, for which he agreed to pay #17 per mouth, but, at the end of à Week, he took the horse uway,anlthen tendered si 23, which was atthe rate agree upon, Plaintitf refused this offer, alleging that he should be paid at a greater rate for so short a period.
Held : That plaintiff could not racover more than was offered.
TORRANCE, J.: This is a suisie-rerendication of na horse, In the month of july last, a horse was in the enstody of defendant, and, according to the affidavit, was valued af K300, The facts are that, in july last, the horse was given in charge to a livery stuble-keeper to be kept. The horse was sick at the time, and was left to be nursed by a veterinary attendant. It was understood that the charge should be at the rate of S17 per month. Plaintitf, just one week after leaving the animal, asked to have him back again. Defendant retused to give up the animal, unless he was paid much more than the proportion for the time he had him in charge. Plaintitf then tendered the sum of 84.25 for the one week, and caused the present proceeding to be taken. Defendant, in answer to the action, contends that he is entitled to more than the amount tendered, and that it is not usual to bound a horse at the same rate by the day as by the month. Most of the witnesses say that they would charge a larger proportion. Detendant has cited the 1642 article of the ( Code, as to lease of houses. But upon the whole, the Court considers that defendant has failed to prove his right to a larger sum than the amount tendered. His pleu is therefore overrule l, and the judgment declare the suisie-arr2t good and valid, and orders the horse to be délivered up to plaintitf within eight days, or in default, defendant to pay S250.
