FAILLITE.—DECHARGE

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, 29 décembre 1S71.

Corum MaCKkAY, J.

VILLENEUVE vs THOMAS et al.

Jugé : Que, sous les dispositions de la loi de faillite de 1869, le négociant, qui se présente en cour pour obtenir sa décharge, doit avoir commercé lors de la passation de cette loi, ou depuis.

Le 22 oct. 1869, le failli étant l'un des employés aux douanes de Sa Majesté, à Montréal, et ayant cessé de fuire commerce depuis 1858, fit une cession au syndic officiel T. Saurageau, en vertu de la loi de faillite du ler septembre 169, Un an après cette cession, le failli fit une demande à la Cour Supérieure, à Montréal, le 1S septembre 1871, pour obtenir sa décharge conformément à la loi. Trois de ses créanciers s’y objectèrent, sur le principe que le failli n'était pas comnerçant lors de la passation de la loi de faillite de 1869, ni depuis: qu'il n'avait pas commercé depuis 1858, ayant été employé au département des douanes, à Montréal depuis 1860. Vide 32 et 33 Vic. c. 16, art. 1, des Statuts Fédéraux.

La Cour à refusé la décharge au failli.

PER CuRIAM : In october 1869, Villeneuve made an assignnent: he was theu à Custom House clerk, but some yeurs before he had been à trader. The contestants oppose his discharge on the ground that, not being a trader, he could not avail himself of the act. In my opinion, since he did not see fit to avail himself of former insolvent acts, he cannot now come under that of 1869. It he had given up trade a very short time before the act came into force, it might be different, but I do not think the act was meant for such case as the present. Application rejected.

Le jugement est motivé comme suit: “The court considering the contestation and soyens of Thomas and others, well founded in law and in fact, and well proved, doth maintuin it, and sceing that the petitioner Villeneuve, at the date ot the cession alleged by him, made by him, in october 1860, was not «x trader ; that, in 1858, and ever since, he has not been à trader; that, consequently, the cession by him was idle and of no use to get for him (as if entitled to it) the benetit of à discharge, under the insolvent act of 1869, to avail against Thomas et al. : the court rejects said petition for discharge, and orders that no discharge, to avail against Thomas et el, Le granted to petitioner who is condemned to

pay The court, CO tions of cannot hl at date « he was t ot 1869, made by charge, u dos he s sidering elauned, t 519: 9 CGIROU:

IDIMTAN testants,