VENTE.—ERREUR.—DOMMAGES

COUR D'APPEL, 13 juin 1830.

PATTERSON et USBORXE.

Jugé: Qu'il v à heu à l’action en dommages, pour défant de contenance, bien que le titre indique les tenants et aboutissants, et que la description de l'inimeuble soit la même que celle donnée dans tous les titres depuis plus de vingt ans. (1)

AS far back as 1809, the premises in question, situate in Hope street, Quebec, were sold by Usborne to Patterson, and were described as 131 feet, towards Hope street. It turned out, however, that there was only 100 feet front, but the back of the premises extended to 175 feet, and the lot contuned even more than was intended to be conveyed, Finallv, the deed of sale contained a full description of the boundares on cach side, beginning at one deseribed spot, and goins round to that spot again. Hence, the present action in damages for the deticiency.

BOWEN, J., considered that the question was whether the decd of sale was a sale by measurement, or not : if by measurement, natural guarantee of the original seller remained. Here, the bounds were not onlv described, but the measure- Went, to a single foot, was stated in the deed. This question has already been twice adjudwed, und must be determined the same w ay now as then.

SEWELL, C. J., said the departure from à former judgment,

1) Voyez art. 1500 et 1501 C. €

if an crroneous one, was no impeachment of justice: in this instance, he thought, it could not be said that the Court had formerly done wrong. The sale could not be denied to be one by admeusurement, and no one who sells 100 feet as 131 feet can be allowed to take money for that which he docs not deliver, Judgment for plaintift. (3 R. L., 458: 1R. C, 483.)

DOMMACES.—SEDUCTION.

Cour pu Baxc pu Roi, 7 juin 1830.

Présent : SEWELL, J, en C,

FRAISE et HARVICKER.

Jugé: Qu'une fille, qui vit habituellement avec un homme, comme sa maitresse, ne peut intenter l’action pour séduction; qu’elle ne pent que réclamer ce qui est nécessaire pour la subsistance et l'entretien des enfants nés d’une telle union.

SEWELL, J. en C.: Action in damages for seduction. It was with great reluctance the Court was called on to decide similar cases, and could not, in any Way, encourage or protect such connections as had been proved to exist in this instance. It was, therefore, impossible that anything could be given in the way of damages for seduction. À woman who submits to evil, in the way of à kept mistress, can claim none : damages for seduction in the first instance ure always claimable, but a woman who consents to live in unmarried state with à man is entitled to none. It was quite ditferent, however, with regard to the issue of such connection ; the Court was bound, when called on, to interfere and protect them : to see that they were duly supported and taken care of, according to the circumstances of the parties. (3 R. L., 459: 1 R. C., 483.)