SEPARATION DE CORPS ET DE BIENS

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, Québec, 7 avril 1873.

Présent : MEREDITH, J. en C.

LECLERC #s LoRb.

Jugé: Que, dans une action en séparation de corps, portée par le mari contre la femme, il n'est pas nécessaire de donner avis dans la Gazette Officielle ni dans deux journaux, bien que telle demande entraine la séparation de biens.

Le demandeur avait intenté contre sa femme une action en séparation de corps et concluait aussi à la séparation de biens. La défenderesse comparut, mais ne pluida pas. Le demandeur prit une forelusion et inscrivit la cause aux enquêtes ex parte. Sur ce, ln défenderesse tit motion pour rejeter l'inscription, entre autres raisons, parce que l'action est en séparation de corps et de biens et que le demandeur nn pas observé les formalités voulues par la loi avant d'obliger la défenderesse à plaider à cette action ; parce que le demandeur n'a pas donné avis durant un mois dans la Gazette Officielle de la province de Québec, ni dans deux autres journuux, au désir de la loi, ni avant le rapport de la cause ni après, et que le demandeur ne peut faire aucune procédure, ni contraindre la défenderesse à plaider à l'action avant la publication de cet avis; parce que l'obligation de donner un

tel avis est de rigueur pour le demandeur, tant pour les besoins de la demande que pour ceux de lu défense, et qu'il n'est pas au pouvoir du demandeur de se soustraire à cette obligation sous aucun prétexte. A l'argument les procureurs de la défenderesse alléguèrent, de plus, que les prétentions de ln défense par aissaient être le sentiment universel du barreau, puisqu'au moment actuel il n'y avait pas moins de IS à 20 avis, publiés dans la Gazette Officielle, en semblables inatières,

MEREDITH, J, en C,: The question in this cause is us to whether the notice in the Canada Guzette and in two other newspapers, required by article 974 (1), with respect to actions en séparation de biens, is also required with respect to actions en séparation de corps. On the part of defendant, itis contented that, as an action en séparation de corps includes a sépuration de biens, the notice mentioned in the article 974 ought to be required equally in tue two descriptions of action, The view, at first sight, appears to be founded in reason ; but I do not think it so in reality, or that it is justitied by the provisions of our Codes on this subject. In the first place it is to be observed that our two Codes lay down one set of rules for actions en séparation de biens, and another set of rules for actions en séparation de corps. Article 193 of the Code Civil (2) says that the action 64 séparation de corps “is brought, tried and decided, in the same way as “all other civil actions,” except that the parties cannot make admissions. The words of the french version are * celle “ demande est intentée, instruite et jugée de La inéme mu- ‘nière que toute autre action civile” Here we have, in positive terms, the general rule by which we are governed, 1st as to the bringing, 24 as to the trial, and 3rd, as to the decisions of actions en séparation de corps. Turning now to the Code de Procédure we find that section L of chap. S (3), gives us the rules to be observed with respect to actions en séparation de biens. One of those rules being that which requires the publication of certain notices, and declares that no proceedings can be had in such suit until after the publication of such notice. Art, 974 C, de P. The following, that is to say, second

section, of the same chapter lays down certain rules with respect to actions en séparation de corps (4. The last of

(1) Art. 1092 C. P. C. de 1897.

(2) Cet article « été retranché du Code Civil par S. Q. de 1897, 60 Vict.,

ch. 50, art, 11, et remplacé par l'art. 1100 C. P. C. de 1897. (3) Sect. 1 du ch. 49 C. P. C. de 1897.

(4) Sect. 2 du ch. 49 C. P. C. de 1897.

them a ‘ment, “ provis that, th tion de de cor) the cas a notic:

had in É trial ?

tion” na Code “broug unchan, civil ac sépu r'ut 290 of conside:

accorda It was tained, neCCSSA tion en that it propert withou rend tl treats « propert ‘annot

tions.

“para

the est an acti the hu

our Îles et qu'il ‘a cette ocureurs itions de barreau, IS à 20 bles inu-

is us to vo other :spect to respect fendant, Corps inn the arcriptions unded in is justi- In the ay down and an:

Article éparution e Way us not make re ‘ cette née n positive 1st as to acisions of e Code de es us the ration de the pubroceedings on of such ay, Second ules with ‘he last of

(TAURS

07, 60 Vict.,

them art, 989 (1) being that “the trial of the case, the judg- ‘ment, its execution and its publication are subject to the * provisions contained in the preceding section ” ; we thus see that, the rules laid down by sect. 1 as to actions en séparation de biens, are by sect, 2 applied to actions en séparation de corps in so far, and in so far only, as regard the trial of the case, the judgment, its execution and its publication : ; but a notice which must be given before any proceeding can be had in a case, cannot be considered as forming part of the

trial ” of the case and still less of the “ judgment, its execution” and “publication.” We thus see that the art, 193 of the Code Civil, in so far us it declares that this action is to be “brought” in the same way as any other civil action remains unchanged, and as the notice in question is not required, in civil actions generally, it cannot be required in an action en séparation de corps. This view derives support from the art. 220 of the Code de Procédure (2) rointing out what is to be considered the trial, Znstruetion of « case ; and seems to Le in accordance with the practice at Montreal, 2 Doutre, n° 1575. It was also stated at the argument, and T have since ascertained, that Justice TASCHEREAU held such notice not to be necessary in the case of Ryan vs Tiveedel, that being an action en séparation de corps. T do not fail to bear in mind that it was said that, when the parties are seperate as to property by contract, there may be à séparation de corps without à séparation de biens: but it is only necessary to read that section and more particularly art, 987 (3) which treats of a séparation de corps, where there is communily of property, to see that the interpretation now being considered, cannot be supported. TL shall add merely, that although it is doubtless true that x séparation de corps generally involves a séparation de biens ; still, as to the matter under consideration, there is à very material difference between the two actions. The reason for requiring public notice, in actions en ‘paration de biens, was that such actions were frequently kept secret, and were resorted to by married couples for the purpose of defrauding their creditors. But these reasons do not apply to actions en séparation de corps, on the contrary, such actions are generally attended with much publicity ; and the estrangement which leads to, and in turn, is increased by an action en séparation de corps, makes any combination of the husband and wife to the prejudice of their creditors very improbable. But, be this as it may, I think it will be found

(1) Art. 1104 C.

2) Art, 3) Art. 1093 et 1102 C. P. C

P, C. de 1897.

293 C. P. C. de 1897, C. de 1897.

upon «a careful examination of the law, on this subject, that the notice of action required by art. 974 with respect to actions en séparation de on is not required by any provision of our law with respect to actions en séparation de corps.

L'honorable juge SruaRT est de l'opinion du juge en cief. (4 R. L., 531.)

MoRissET et MCMAHON, pour le demandeur

TALBOT et TOUSIGNAN'T, pour la défenderesse,