PROCEDURE. —CONGE-DEFAUT.—AVIS

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, EN REVISION, Montréal, 31 mai 1873

Présents : JOHNSON, TORRANCE, BEAUDRY, JJ, GAGNON vs SENÉCAL, et GOUIN, TN.

Jugé: Qu'il n’est pas nécessaire de donner avis d’une motion pour congé-défant.

JouNsOX, J.: There is a motion to discharge the deélibére which we must, first of all, dispose of before £oming to the merits: and we will do so at once by observing that the ground upon wWwbich the application is made entirely fails The object was to obtain a paper said to be essential to the proper consideration of the case: but, on referring ‘6 the record, it appears that the papsr sought to be obtained was never before the court below, prior to the rendering of the judgment on the 22nd of november 1472, The cuse itself is inscribed by plaintiff for the revision of à judgment rendered in the district of Richelieu, granting congé-défuut to defendant of à process of suisie-arrét issued by plaintitf, and not returned into court by reason of the debt having been paid. Suisie- ar rét issued 25th october 1872. It was returnable 9th november 1872. On the 28th october, the garnishee appeared and declared he owed the defendant nothing. On the sume day, defendant had paid the debt, interest and costs, under an execution that had issued on the 23rd, On the 1ith november, defendant asked congé-défaut, the process of «risie-arrét not having been returned: and on the 22nd the

sadgment was rendered in his favor which is now under review. The reasons assigned for questioning this judgment are 1st, that plaintiff had no notice of the motion for conyredéfaut. We do not see that it was required. Indeed it would

TR MEL qe

nee

NDS M