RIVIERE NAVIGABLE.—-OBSTRUCTION

CourT Or KINGS BENCH, Montreal 1898.

Coram PYKE, J.

STEIN vs SEATH,

Held : That no person can obstruct a navigable river, with impunity. (2)

PER CuriaAM: Action for obstructing à navigable river. No person can obstruct à navigable river with impunity, and award plaintitf £50, for injury done his raft. The removal not ordered, as the obstruction became more properly the object of publie prosecution, and that part of the demand dismissed. (3 R. L. 457: 1R. C., 482.)

(1) V. art. 1571 C. C,

(2) Voyez art. 400 C. C.

MCKI

Hel unpaic

Frost

lugé :

et qu’el la saisi sera dé tiers sa

défende

Atta hands « l'he co:

of the they OY been gi creditoi all the what n Liers &c of whic pay mer ä SiX m pellants that no principl

that must d no pro-

writ a" e BCESno

“Os

npu-

No and val the dis-

COURT OE APPEALS, april IS30, MCKENZIE and QUEBEC BANK.

Held : That, when «a trader in business ceases and his debts remain npaid, this is a faillite which would exelude all preference (D), 8 R,. ,457;1R C',, 482.)

SAISIE CONSERV/TOIRE.

COUR D'APPEL, avril 1830, Frost et al, et CAMERON, el GRAY et «l. tiers saisis,

lugé: Que, lorsqu'une dette est due par le tiers saisi au défendeur, et qu'elle ne peut être exigée qu'après qu'un av is en aura été donné, la saisie-arrêt pratiqi iée parle demandeur, créancier du défendeur, sera déclarée bien fondée, mais à la condition qu'avis soit donné au tiers saisi, en conformité de la convention intervenue entre lui et le défendeur,

Attachment by suistie-arrét, of monies of detendant, in the bands of tiers saisis. Judgment of the court below reversed. l'he court were of opinion that the delay stipulated in favour of the fiers saisis, that they should not be held to pay what they owed to respondent, until after six months’ notice had been given to them, could not affect the rights of respondent’s creditors, who were entitled, under their judgment, to attach all the debts and property of their debtor, however held, or in what manner due. That, here, the money in the hands of Liers saisis was à debt they owed to respondent, the nature of which could not be varied by the delay allowed for the payment of it; and, as all that tiers saisis could demand was a six months’ notice before they were bound to pay, the appellants here were entitled to obtain the money on giving that notice. In this there could be no injustice ; à contrar Y prinçciple might lead to it. (3 R. L., 457 : 1 R.C., 482.)

(1) V. art. 17 & 23 C. C.