TOME XXIV

of the commission appointing them judges, ad hoc, in the other districts in which they could claim no jurisdiction by virtue of their original appointment. That on the 26th of april 1848, at the city of Montreal, letters patent and à commission under the great seal of the province were issued, appointing petitioner one of the justices of the Court of Queen’ S Bench for the district of Montreal; the letters patent contained, among others, the following clause : “ And whereas, on “ the 22nd of february 1836, our royal uncle and predecessor, “the late King William the fourth, did, by certain letters “patent and commission under the great seal of our late

“ province of Lower-Canada aforesuid, appoint you Elzéar “ BÉDARD, one of the justices of the Court of King's Bench “ for our district of Quebec, in our said province, which office

“ you held and enjoyed up to this day, with all its rights and “ privileges, it is our royal will and pleasure, and we do here- “by grant and declare that you, Elzéar BÉDARD, shall have ‘and take rank and precedence in our said Court of Queen's “ Bench for our district of Montreal, next after our chief ‘ justide thereof, and before the honorable Charles Dewey “ Day, one of the justices of the same, and in all and every “our other courts within the said part of our province of “ Canada, which formerly constituted our province of Lower- Canada aforesaid, where by law, you may be entitled to sit “as à member thereof, next after the honorable Philippe “ PANET, one of the justices of our Court of Queen's Bench “ for our district of Quebec aforesaid, and before the honor- “able Dominique MoNDELET, resident judge of our district of “Three-Rivers, in our province of Canada aforesaid.” That, on the 1st of july, the first day fixed by law, for the sitting in banco of the Court of Queen's Bench for the district of Montreal, petitioner laid before the judges thereof his last mentioned commission, which had been previously enregistered in the register of the court, and claime 1 to take rank and precedente in the Court of Queen's Bench for the district of Montreal, next after the chief justice thereof, and before the honorable Charles Dewey DAY, one of the puisines justices of the court; — whereupon the honoruble the chief justice ROLLAND, and the honorable justices Charles Deway Day, and James SMITH adopted, signed and ordered to be entered of record in the register, to remain upon the tiles of court, the following “determination, rule or order,” namelv :

: Present : the chief justice and the threc puisnés judges. The “ judges assembled for the purpose of inquiring into the ques- “tion of precedence elnimed by justice BéDaRD, in virtue of “his cominission, and it was first proposed that they now

“ decide thereon: whereupon the three puisnés judges be-

€, in the iction by 26th of 1d à comssued, apf Queen's tent conhereas, on edecessor, in letters our late u Elzéar rs Bench aich office ights and » do herehall have f Queen's our chief s Dewey nd everv ovince of of Lowerled to sit Philippe as Bench ie honorlistrict of 1. That, de sitting listrict of

his last

enreuisake rank * the disreof, and e puisies the chief es Deway red to be Le tiles of namelv :

dges. The the quesvirtue of hey now

udges be-

corinne

‘ing of opinion, against the chief justice, that such is the s « right course — it was determined by the majority of the “jJudges that they now pronounce on the validity of the “ grant of precedence given by the Crown to justice BÉDARD “over and above justice DAY and justice SMITH, his seniors “on this bench. And the majority of the judges are of “opinion, that the rank of a judge, being an incident of his ‘office, it is not in the power of the Crown to deprive him ‘of that rank, and that justice DAY and justice SMITH, being “the senior judges on the bench, must rank and take pres , accordingly, notwithstanding the clause contained

justice BÉDARD'S commission giving him precedence, °w oh grant, in the letters patent, the judges are of opinion

‘is void and of no effect, as being contrary to law. Dissen- “ tiente, justice BÉDARD.” And petitioner submitted that the determination, rule, or order, was unjust and contrary to law and Her Majesty's Royal prerogative was denied, the public administration of justice impeded, petitioner aggrieved and deprived of his just and legal rights, of his rank and precedence in the court to which he has been removed ; and, in conclusion, prayed that the determination, rule, or order. of the 1st of july 1848, might be rescinded and declared null and void,as being unjust ard illegal, and that the entry thereof made by the prothonotary be declared of no etfect whatever. The petition was referred by Her Majesty, through the colonial office, to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, to inquire into, and advise upon the validity of the crant of precedence given by the Crown to justice BÉDARD, over justice DAY and justice SurrH. The judges severaliy sent over statements, setting forth their reasons for passine the determination, rule, or order, but they did not appear by counsel at the bar to support the sine.

The Attorney-general (Sir John JERVIS), and the Solicitorgeneral (Sir John ROMILLY), for the Crown: This is a question of precedence, and involves the prerogative of the Crown. We submit, that {Le rule or determination made by the judges was illegal and void, as justice BÉDARD had precedence in virtue of the letters patent, appointing him one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench for the district of Montreal, and giving him precedence over the judges therein named. The Crown can, by letters patent, give precedence at pleasure, except so fur as this prerogative is controlled by the statutes, 31 Hen. VIII, ec. 10 ; and 1 Will. & Mary, sec. 1st, c. 21, which settles the place and precedence of all the nobility and great officers of state. 1 Blackstone’s commentaries, p. 396 : “ AI! degres of nobility and honour are derived from ‘the king, as their fountain, and he may institute what new

RER dns be 2 ER

“ title he pleases.” Chitty on prerogatives, p. 107. It is part of the prerogative at common law. Zbidem, p. 113. No one can doubt, that the Queen has the right to give precedence among Queen's Counsel. Independent, however, of the precedence granted by the letters patent, justice BÉDARD, as senior judge, was entitled to precedence over those puisnés

judges whose commissions were of later date than his own. It

is laid down in Comyn's Dig. vol. 4, p. 579, tit. “ Justices” (D), that, “if a judge be removed from one bench to the “other, he shall have precedence according to his seniority,” and Comyn refers to the note in Sidertin’s reports, p. 408, as an authority in support of this proposition. Instances have occurred in England, of the removal of judges from one court to another. Justice BAYLEY was appointed a jndge of the Court of King's Bench in 1808, and on being removed to the Court of exchequer, in 1830, he took precedence as chief puisné baron over the puisnés barons whose commissions were later than his. So where justice VAUGHAN was removed, in 1834, from the Court of Exchequer to the common pleas, he ranked after justice PARKE and justice GAZELEE, whose commissions were anterior to his own, but took precedence over justice BOSANQUET, whose commission was later. Again, baron ALDERSON was originally appointed, in 1830, a judge in the common pleas, and in 1834 he was appointed x baron of the Exchequer, and he found there, barons VAUGHAN, PARKE and BOLLAND ; he took his place, therefore, as junior puisné judge, — (Lord BROUGHAM: T'always considered it as a settled rule, that the chief justice has precedence over all the puisnés judges, who have precedence among themselves, according to the priority of their appointment.)

No judgment was delivered, but their Lordships made the following report : “The lords of the committee (having had “the matter of the petition referred to them), have there- ‘ fore taken the said petition into consideration, and likewise “ certain statements made by each of the judges of the Court “of Queen's Bench, at Montreal, in support of the determin- ‘ation, rule, or order, and their Lordships have likewise “heard Her Majesty’s attorney-general and solicitor-general “in the cause, as involving the prerogative of Her Mujesty"s “ Crown, (the judges of the said court not having appeared “ by counsel at Her Majesty’s bar,) and their Lordships have “agreed humbly to report to your Majesty, as their opinion, “that in the circumstances of the case, the grant of precedence given by the Crown to justice BÉDARD, over and above justice DAY and justice SMiTH, judges of Her Majesty’s Court of Queen's Bench at Montreal, is valid, and that the said determination, rule, or order, of the 1st of july, , must be rescinded.”

Bé

del

mis cod

née hui plui pro ( ave s'éc la (

ett du ni

da cul un tio po

ett M.

tio

DE LA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC. 437 is part By an order in council, beariny date the 18th july 1849, it No one Ê was ordered, that the grant of precedence given t6 justice cedence 4 Bébarp, by the letters patent of the 26th of april 1848, be, he pre- und the same was thereby declared to be valid, and that the ARD, as 5 determination, rule, or order, of the 1st of july, be rescinded. purisnés s (7 Moore’s Privy C. Rep, 23.) own. Ît ï istices ” to the ï iority,” 4 PROCEDURE.—BREF D'ASSIGNATION A LA COUR DE CIRCUIT. 408, as à es have À Cour DE CircuiT, Montréal, 12 février 1873. 1e court à : of the 4 Présent : BEAUDRY, J.

d to the s

as chief 3 ALEXIS LAWRENCE, demandeur, rs EDOUARD CHAUDIÈRE, missions 3 défendeur.

emoved, 3

n plens, 4 Jugé : Que, d’après les dispositions des art. 1063 et 1359 du C. P.C. e whose n mises en rapport avec la formule donnée au n° 35 de l’appendice de ce odéniée de code, il n’est pas nécessaire 11 2quis que les brefs de sommation éma-

nant de la Cour de Circuit soient adressés au shérif ou à un huissier.

Again, Que, dans le cas ou les brefs de sommation doivent être signifiés a judge # dans un autre district que celui d’où ils émanent, il n’est pas non plus " baron É nécessaire ni requis par la loi qu’ils soient adressés au shérif ou à nn € :14

à huissier de ce dernier district d’où ils émanent, lequel n’a pas droit à

AUGHAN, plus de frais que si la signification était faite par l'huissier le plus

\s junior 1 proche de la résidence du défendeur, Art. 1068 C. P. C.

dered it 4 Que la formule n° 32 de l’appendice, donnée comme étant en rapport 3 avec l’art. 1065 C. P. C., ne s’applique qu'à la Cour de Circuit et qu’elle

É s'écarte, par exception de celle indiquée par l’art. 48, qui n'a trait qu'à

È la Cour Supérieure (1).

ice over ue them- .)

ade the Le défendeur en cette cause réside dans le district de Joli-

ing had ‘a ette et est assigné à comparaître devant la Cour de Circuit e there- À du district de Montréal. Le bref de sommation lui a été siglikewise ; nifié dans le district de Joliette, par un huissier immatriculée ie Court ; dans celui de Montréal, n'étant adressé ni au shérif ni à auetermin- : cun huissier. Le défendeur se croyant mal assigné à produit hikewise une exception à la forme dont voici les principales alléga- -wenerul . tions : Que l'huissier qui a signitié l’action, ayant été nommé Majesty"s pour le district de Montréal, et y pratiquant comme tel, n'aippeured i vait aucun droit de signifier l'action dans le district de Joliips have ette; que le bref n'est pas adressé à un huissier du district de opinion, Montréal ou à un huissier de Joliette; que le bref de somma- >f prece- tion ne pouvait être signifié que par un huissier de Joliette, ver and Le demandeur prétend que la loi permet aux huissiers du Majes- district d'où émane un bref de sommation à signitier dans un and that

of july, : (1) V. art. 6, 121, 1129, 1135 et 1137 C, P. C. de 1897.

autre district, de le signifier valablement dans ce dernier district; que la forme du bref était parfaitement légale, et à l'appui de ses prétentions il cite le n° 35 de l’appendice du Code P. C., et l’urt. 1359, qui pourvoit à ce que les formules contenues dans l’appendice puissent être employées dans les cas pour lesquelles elles sont proposées.

BEAUDRY, J.: Suivant les dispositions des arts. 106% et 1359 C. P. C., mises en rapport avec la formule donnée au n° 35 de l’appendice, il n’est pas nécessaire, ni requis, que les brefs de sommation émanant de la Cour de Circuit soient adressés au shérif ou à un huissier. IL n’est pas non plus nécessaire, ni requis par la loi, qu'ils soient adressés au shérif ou à un huissier, lorsqu'il doivent être signifiés dans un district autre que celui d'où ils émanent, mais ils peuvent en ce cas être valablement signitiés par un huissier de ce dernier district, lequel n’a pas droit à plus de frais que l'huissier le plus proche de la résidence du défendeur. Il est bien vrai que l’art. 48 C. P. C. porte que, sauf les cas particuliers d’exception, le bref d’assignation est adressé à tout huissier, ete. mais la formule 36 donnée en rapport avec l'art. 1064 s'écarte de celle indiquée par l'art. 48. Il y a done aïnsi, lorsqu'il s'agit de la Cour de Circuit, cas particulier d'exception à l'art. 48, et pour toutes ces raisons, l4 cour est d'opinion que l'exception à la forme est mal fondée et l1 renvoie (1). (4 R. L, 523; 17 R. L,, 648 : 17 J., 83.)

D'AMOUR et BERTRAND, pour le demandeur.

PAUZÉ, pour le défendeur.

(1) Un jugement analogue à été rendu le 15 nov. 1871, BeauDRY J., dans une cuiuse Dufresne et al. vs MeAllister, OC. C., Montréal. Un autre jugement, qui n'est pas contraire, puisque la question s'est soulevée en Cour Supérieure et que le jugement ci-haut ne fait exception que pour la Cour de Circuit, à été rendu dans la cause Reeres vs Archambault.

L'article 48 C. P. C. (art. 121 C. P. C. de 1897) qui se trouve au titre de l’assignation dans les causes de la Cour Supérieure, dit que le bref d’assi gnation est adressé à tout huissier de la Cour Supérieure, lui enjoignant d’ajourner la partie défenderesse à comparaître devant le tribunal, L'article 1065 (art. 1135 C. P. C. de 1897) déclare que les dispositions relatives aux assignations pour la Cour Supérieure s'appliquent également à la Cour de Circuit, et l’article 1067 porte que, lorsque le bref d’assignation doit être signifié dans un autre district, il pent être adressé au shérif ou à un huissier de ce district. L'art. 1 du chapitre 17 des Statuts de Québec de 1870, 33 Victoria, dit que tout bref de sommation, soit de la Cour Supérieure, soit de la Cour de Circuit, pourra également être adressé au shérif où à tout huissier du district d'où tel bref émane, et par eux signifié ou exécuté dans tel district, où tout autre district, ou bien au shérif ou à tout huissier de tel autre district, où tel bref doit être signifié ou exécuté. La formule numéro 35 du Code de Procédure, donnée en rapport avec l'article 1065, adresse le bref de sommation au défendeur, et non au shérif, ou à un huissier, tel que requis par ces articles, et par le Statut de 1870. Jugé : que cette formule n'est pas régulière, et que le bref de sommation émané de la Cour de Cireuit d'un district, pour être signifié dans un autre district, doit être adressé au shérif ou à un huissier ; que les mots ‘adressé au shérif où à un

ans Îles

‘au n° que les soient n plus shérif in disten ce dernier ssier le rai que

excepr, etc.

s'écarte orsqu'il à l'art.

ue l’ex-

J., dans ugement, upérieure Cireuit, à

au titre ef «d’assi u joignant L'article ives aux Cour de doit être | huissier 1870, 33 ‘ure, soit u à tout uté dans , huissier , formule le 1065, huissier, cette for , Cour de doit être fou à un