Se (32 a7 oad (BARSWE LL Co. , Limitea Bookbinders, eran 4 ToRonTo PusiisHens,ete.' ONT. Twi DIGEST CANADIAN CASE LAW JANUARY, 1911—SEPTEMBER, 1914. EDITOR WALTER E. LEAR, Esquire, scape Osgoode Hall, Barrister-at-Law; Editor ‘‘ Ontario Weekly Reporter,” ‘*Canadian Reports, Appeal Cases,” etc. TORONTO: Tue CarsweE.ut Co., Limitep, 19 Dunoan StREET. 1914. LONDON : SWEET & MAXWELL, LIMITED 1914 [28 FS, CopyRigHT: CANADA, 1914, By THE CARSWELL Co., LIMITED. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED A. Aaron v. Trudel, 87, 608. A. B., a Solicitor, 1958. Abbott v. Abbott, 1002. Abell Engine & Machine Works Co. v. Scott, 918, Abinovitch v. Ehrenback, 1909. Abramovich v. Sair, 1760. Abramovitch v. Vrondessi, 1322. Abrahamavitch v. Wiselberg, 150. Abrey v. Victoria Printing Co., 386. Acheson, Re, 2267. Achterberg, Re, 2274. Acme Co, v. Huxley, 1357. Acton v. Larson, 987. Adams v. Craig & Ontario Bank, 239. Adams v. Doyle, 25, 1037. Adams v. Gourlay, 2259. Adams Powell River Co. v. Canadian Pu- get Sound Co., 2010. Adamson v. Vachon, 2098. Addison v. Ottawa Auto & Taxi Co., 197. Adolph v. Good, 2073, Adolph v. Hilton & Stephens, 977. Agnew v. ‘Davis, 1761. Agnew v. McKenzie Ellis Wood Co., 486, 518. Aikins v. McGuire, 809, 2173. Aikins v. Simpson, 648. Ainoka, Re, 1949. Aird v. Birss, 1061, Airey v. Empire Stevedoring Co., Ltd., 1461. Alabastine Co., Paris, Ltd. v. Canada Pro- ducer & Gas Engine Co., Ltd., 1924. Alaire & Frechette, Re, 1374. “Albano” y. “ Parisian,” 1951, Albert v. Marshall, 279. Albert Improvement Co. v. Peverett, 378. Alberta Bldg. Co. v. Calgary, 503. Alberta Central Land Corp. v. Ford, 2109. Alberta Election, Re, 838. Alberta Engineering Co. v. Blow, 512. Alberta Kootenay Investment Co., Ltd. v. International Security Co., Ltd., 2090. Alberta Loan & Investment Co. v. Bever- idge & Johnson, 831. Alberta Railway Legislation, Re, 465. Alberta & Great Waterways Rw. Co., Re, 461. Albertson v. Secord, 1054. Albo v. Great North. Rw. Co., 1802. Alcock v. Smith, 71. Aldous v. Grundy, 1745. Alfred v. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., 524. Alexander v. Enderton, 2082. Alexander v. Gesman, 2080. Alexander v. Herman, 1214. Alexander v. ‘Simpson, 1697. Alexander Oil & Devel Co. & Canada Co. vy. Farquharson, 1336. Alexe v. Canadian Western Lumber Co., Ltd., 1604. Allard, Ex p., 1001. Allard v. Fisher, 51, 890. Allcock v. Manitoba Windmill & Pump Co., 1905. Allen, Re, 2304. Allen v. Crepeau, 1687. Allan v. Dangerfield, 578. Allan v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1551. Allen v. Grand Valley Rw. Co., 16, 477, 518, 804, 985. Allen v. Johnston, 30, 1252. Allan v. Riopel, 2087. Allen v. Turk, 972. Allan v. Vair, 1872. ‘Alliance Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Picard, 1230. Allin v. Ferguson, 1375. Allis-Chalmers-Bullock, Ltd. v. Hutchings, 277, 1896, 1928, 2132. Allison v. Allison, 999. Alloway v. Hutchinson, 274. Alsip v. Monkman, 1313. Alslip v. Robinson, 493. Alsop Process Co. v. Cullen, 1706, 2209. American-Abell Engine & Threshing Co. v. Prytryszyn, 1875. American-Abell Engine & Threshing Co. v. Weidenwilt, 1876. American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. & Pere Marquette Rw. Co., 1808. American Hotel and Supply Co. v. Fair- banks, 396, 409. iv NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. American Standard Jewellery Co. v. Gorth, Re, 613. Am. St. Lamp Co. v. Ont. Pipe Line Co., 484, 536, Ames, Re, 2272. Amundsen v. Ward, 1578. A. O. U. W. & Riddell, Re, 1101. Anctil v. Bruneau, 1635. Anderson v. Hood, 215, 227. Anderson v. Imperial Development Co., 817. Anderson v. McLeod, 1014. Anderson v. Maude, 764. Anderson v. Scott, 1244. Anderson v. Smith, 116. Anderson v. South Vancouver, 184. Anderson & Bissonnette, Re, 1310. Anderton v. Malden & Colchester South, 830. Andreas v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1527. Andrews v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1543. Andrews v. Montreal Street Rw. Co., 1695. Angel v. Bresnik, 1310. Angers v. Langelier, 2049. Angevine v. Goold, 25, Anglo-American Fire Assce. Co. v. Le- Baron, 1086. Anglo-American Fire Ins. Co. v. Morton, 1077. Angus v. Widdifield, 1397. Anable v. Coventry, 319. Annett, Re (a lunatic), 1278. Antaya v. Montreal, 1139. Anticknap v. Scott, 292. Antiseptic Bedding Co. v. Gurofsky, 818, 900. Applebe v. Douglas, 1245. Appleyard v. Mulligan, 1780. Arbec v. Pepin, 881. Arbuthnot v. Victoria, 1399. Arcand v. Paquet, 1411. Archambault v. Chausse, 1651. Archambault v. Day, 486. Archambault v. Jacob, 32. Archambault v. Laurence, 9, 24. Archambault v. Lovell, 545. Archdekin v. McDonald, 2100. Archibald v. Hygenic Fresh Milk Co., 1302. Arenowsky v. Veitch, 1707. Aricinski v. Arnold, 75, 341. Arkles v. Grand Trunk Co., 1449. Armes v. Mancil, 146. Armour v. Oakville, 1407. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 22, 2039. Armstrong v. Barrie, 1517. Armstrong v. Bastedo, 2049. Armstrong v. Proctor, 2075. Armstrong v. R., 1460. Armstrong Cartage Co. v. Peel, 2231. Arnold v, Canadian Motors Co., 427, 978, Arnold v. Drew, 1734. .Arnold v. Fortescue, 598. Arnold v. National Trust Co., 1199, 2086, Arnot & Smith v. Peterson, 1201. Arnprior v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 288. Aronovitch v. Loper, 1768. Arthurs v. Thom, 998. , Ascher v, Ascher, 597. Ashbee v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1534. Ashick v. Hale, 1614. : Ashmore v. Bank of British North Am- erica, 55. Asselin v. Davidson, 33, 35, 152, 1430. Asselin v. Levesque, 1861, 1863. Assessment Act, Re, 180. Assiniboia & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 18438. , Athens High School Board & Rear of Yonge & Escott, Re, 1938. Atkins, Re, 2279. Atkinson v. Casserley, 212. Atkinson v. Farrell, 1219. Atlantic Realty Co. v. Jackson, 2066. Att.-Gen. for Que. v. Atty.-Gen. for Ont., 450. Atty.-Gen. for B. C. v. Atty.-Gen. for Ont., 460, 964, 1108, 2221. Atty.-Gen. v. Canada Settlers Loan & Trust Co., 168. Atty.-Gen. for Ont. v. Can. Niagara Power Co., 529. Atty.-Gen. for B,. C. v. Esquimalt & Nana- imo Rw. Co., 735, 1976. Atty.-Gen. for Can. v. Fedorenko, 698, 958, 1976. : Atty.-Gen. for Quebec v. MacLaren, 2222. Atty.-Gen. for Can. v. Ritchie Contracting & Supply Co., 464. Atty.-Gen. for Can. v. Sam Chak, 59, 645. Atty.-Gen for Can. v. Stan. Trust Co., 1839. : Atty.-Gen. v. Sydney, 1442. Atty.-Gen. for Man. v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 884. Atty.Gen. Ex rel. Truro v, Chambers Electric Light & Power Co., 370, 1394. Attrux Tax Sale, Re, 192. Aubin, Ex p., 641. Aubin v. Desmarteau, 10, 338. Aubin v. Yeates, 920. Auburn Nurseries Ltd. v. McRedy, 1783, 1784. Aucoin v. Chaisson, 1166. Audet v. Guerard, 507. Audet v. Jolicoeur, 1218. Audette v. Daniel, 465. Auger, Re, 879. Auger v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1482. Augustine v. De Sherbinin, 1173. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. v Aumont v. Cousineau, 795. Auriol v, Alberta Land & Investment Co., 2124, Aurora, The, 1947. Aurora Scrutiny, Re, 1145. Austin v. Real Estate Listing Exchange, 1756. Austin v. Riley, 726. Authier v. Beaulieu, 1628, 1771. Authier v. Driscoll, 1236. Automobile Sales v. Moore, 279. Automobile & Supply Co. v. Hands, Ltd., 342. Avenue Realty Co. v. Morgan, 1674. Avery v. Cayuga, 974, 1297. Avon v. Hamelin, 858. Ayer v. Kelly, 950. Aylesworth v. Lee, 1349. Aylwin v. Robertson, 1246. Ayotte v. Hus, 680. B. B. & R. Co., Ltd. v. McLeod, 1622. Babitt v. Boileau, 1194. Banchard v. St. Johns, 117. Badenach v. Inglis, 2295, 2296. Badie v. Astor, 589. Baechler v. Baechler, 944. Baigne v. Gabias, 1665, Bail v. Lemieux, 1049. Bailey v. Dawson, 2153. Bailey v. Granite Quarries, Ltd.,- 611. Bailey v. Wintle, 2250. Bailey & Hehl v. Neil, 2105. Baillargeon v. Saint-Georges, 1618. Bain v. Henderson, 565. Bain v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1713. Bain v. University Estates & Farrow, 1782. Baird, Re, 9388. Baker v. Baker, 778. Baker v. MacGregor, 301. Baker v. Merchants Bank, 256. Bakewell v. Mackenzie, 545. Balagro v. Leroy, 1242. Balcom v. Balcom, 780. Balcom v. Hiseler, 7. Balcovski v. Olson, 582. Baldwin v. Bowden, 196, 402. Baldwin v. Chaplin, 1060. Baldwin & Co. v. Smith, 1157. Baldwin v. Widdifield, 822. Balfour & Breadfoot v. Calderwood, 1751. Blake v. Edmonton, 1485. Balmain v. Neil, 1172. Balthazer v. Quilliam, 546. Bancroft v. Milligan, 315, 1854. Bancroft v. Richards, 1238. Bank of British North America v. Elliott, 255, 259, s Bank of British North America v. Hart, 280. Bank of British North America v..Has- lip, 255, 259. Bank of British North America v. Mc- Comb, 269. Bank of Hamilton v. Baldwin, 1779, 1785. Bank of Hamilton v. Davidson, 1170. Bank of Hamilton v. Kramer-Irwin Co., 22, 415, 1697. Bank of Hamilton v. Leslie, 87, 575. Bank of Hamilton v. Winters, 314. Bank of Hamilton & McAllister, Re, 1209. Bank of Montreal~v. Low Lumber Co., Litd., 252. Bank of Montreal v. Partridge, 103. Bank of Montreal v: Stuart, 1034, 1776, 1973. Bank of Montreal v. Tudhope, 350. Bank of Montreal v. Westholme Lumber Co., 1856. Bank of Nova Scotia v. McDougall & Se- cord, Ltd., 1215. Bank of Ottawa v. Bradfield, 260, 987. Bank of Ottawa v. East Templeton, etc., Co., 1997. Bank of Toronto v. Graham, 266. Bank of Upper Canada v. Bradshaw, 245. Banque Nationale v. Boyer, 253. Banque Nationale v. Eastern Townships Bank, 1690. ~ Banque Nationale v. Godbout, 765. Banque Nationale v. Joncas, 278. Banque Nationale v. Lemaire, 264. Banque Nationale v. Salois, 264. Banque de St. Hyacinthe v. Philie, 240. Banque de St. Jean, Re, 236, 426. Banque de St. Jean v. Bienvenu, 119. Banque de St. Jean v. Catudal, 601. Banque de St. Jean v. Desmarais, 286. Bannister v. Thompson, 1025. Barber v. Royal Loan & Savings Co., 1112. Barclay v. Ancaster, 1517. Baril v. Morissette, 291. Bark Fong v. Cooper, 2160, 2161. Barker v. Sandwich, Windsor & Amherst- bury Rw. Co., 2039. Barkwill v. Molloy, 847. Barley & Fawcett, Re, 1279, Barnard-Argue-Roth Stearns Oil & Gas Co. v. Farquharson, 1336, Barnes v. Brogglio, 1341. Barnes v. Ellis, 2039. Barnes v. Yukon Gold Co., 1345. Barnett v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1554. Barnett v. Montgomery, 1296. Barnhouse & Evans, Re, 1119. Barnum v. Beckwith, 93. Baron v. Drewry, 201. Barr & Anderson v, Percy & Co., 1325. Barrett Hstate, Re, 2267. Vi NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Barrett v. Barrett, 1019. Barrette v. Ampleman, 298, 1269. Barrette v. Leclair, 1777. Barteaux v. McLeod, 1735. Barthelmes & Cherry, Re, 2199. Barthels Shewan & Co. v. Peterson, 1930. Bartleman v. Moretti, 800. Bartlett v. Bull, 2297. Bartlett v. Delaney, 729, 731. Bartlett v. Bartlett Mines, 395, 763. Bartling v. Danby, 1394. Bartram v. Grice, 344. Bartrum, Harvey & Co. v. Scott, 576. Basanta & Can. Pac’ Rw. Co., Re, 140. Bashforth v. Provincial Steel Co., Ltd., 1308. Baskin v. Linden, 814, 2131. Bass v. Endelman, 1663. Bastien v. Corporation of Bailiffs, 202. Bastien v. David, 1025. Bateman v. Middlesex County, 1491, 1518. Bates v. Kirkpatrick, 249. Bates v. Little, 488, 1872. Bathurst Lumber Co. & Nepisiquit Lum- ber Co., Ltd., Re, 417, 557. Batsford v. Laurent Faper Co., 1472, 1508. Baugh v. Porcupine Three Nations Gold Mining Co., 1056, 1759. Baughart Bros. v. Miller Bros., 2205. Bauman v. Dafoe, 1913. Baumar v. Carbonneau, 9, 10, 914. Bavastre v. Cleran & Hamon, 1653. Baxter v. Bradford, 2156. Baxter v. Rollo, 2185. Bayda v. Canada North Dakota Land Co., 2147, Bayer v. Clarkson, 100. Baylis, Re, Infants, 1044. Baynes Carriage Co., Re, 420, 911. Baynes Carriage Co. v. Belanger, 756. Bazin v. Bonnefoy, 2079. Beacon Life & Fire Assurance Co. v. Gibb, 524, 1084. Beahan v. Nevin, 1455. Beal, Ex p., 1117. Beam, Re, 1680. Beardmore v. Toronto, 105. Beardsell v. Montreal Street Rw. Co., 817. Bears v. Central Garage Co., 1499. Beath v. Townsend, 408, 482, 13438. Beatrice, The, 1945, 1948, 1950. Beatt v. Bailey, 1199. Beattie v. Bauer, 745. Beatty v. Hodson, 74. Beaubien v. Corticelli Silk Co., 427. Beauchamp v. Beaudry, 1857. ‘Beauchamp v. St. Jean, 1017. Beaudoin, Ex p., 713. Beaudoin v. Gagnon, 6. Beaudoin v. Gerardin, 1050. Beaudry v. Lavigne, 569. Beaulieu v. Larine, 1007. Beaulieu v. Picard, 1467. Beaulieu v. Weinfield, 118. Beaumier v. Skating Rink Co., 1470. Beauregard v. Beauregard, 755. Beaver Stove Co. v. Henault, 1690. Beavis v. Langley, 182. Becher v. Miller, 2046. Becher v. Ryckman, 803. Beck v. Anderson, 1258. Beck v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1536. Beck v. Duncan, 2105, 2187. Beck v. Guthrie, 1584. Beck v. Lang, 1964. Beck v. Trudel, 37. ~- Beck v. York, 524. Becker v. Sauve, 1612. Beckingham, Re, 2287. Beckman v. Wallace, 2164. Bedard v. Phenix Land Improvement Co., 547, 778, Beer v. Lea, 2088, 2172. Begin v. Chaine, 1354. Begin v. Houle, 2013. Beguire v. Lacroix, 1135. Belamy v. Porter, 286. Beland, Ex p., 1022. Belanger v. Belanger, 309. Belanger v. Emard, 327, 6652. Belanger v. Herald Publishing Co., 37. Belanger v. McKinnan, 23. Belanger v. Montreal, 1072, 1431. Belanger v. St. Louis, 1406. Belcourt v. Noel, 1156. Belisle v. Mowat, 963. Beliveau Co., Richard, v. Tyerman, 899. Bell v. Coleridge, 1766. Bell v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1816. Bell v. Robertson, 1876, 1985, Bell v. Sarvis, 2265, Bell v. Schultz, 1879. Bell v. Superior Portland Cement Co., 1056 Bell Telephone Co. v. Avery, 1064. Bell Engine & Thresher Co. v. Bruce, 1789. Bell Engine & Threshing Co. v. Wesen- berg, 1887. Belle Isle Park Co., Re, 1186. Belleau v. Paquet, 1278. Bellefeuille v. Billard, 1690. Belleville Driving & Athletic Assoc., Re, 390. Belliveau, Ex p., 1189. Bells’ Asbestos Mines & King’s Asbestos Mines, 1272. Belyea v. Diocesan Synod of Fredericton, 238. Belzile v. Godbout, 1679. Benjamin vy. McLean, 96. -Bennefield v. Knox, 89. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. vii Benner v. Mail Printing Co., 782. Bennett, Re, 951. Bennett v. Estes, 304. Bennett v. Havelock Electric Light & Power Co., 99, 386, 606. Bennett v. Newcombe, 2172. Benoit v. Benoit, 1038. Benson v, Hutchings, 906. Benson v. International Harvester Co. of America, 1917. Bentley v. Morrison, 1026. Bentley v. Nasmith, 2104. Beresford v. Halloran Construction Co., 506. Bergman v. Cook, 2109. Bergeron v. Dagenais, 1048. Bergeron v. Fortier, 845. Bergeron v. Hull, 1414. Bergeron v. Jonquiere Furniture Co., 360. Bergevin v. Quebec & Lake St. John Rw. Co., 1542. Bergklint v. Western Canada Power Co., 1588. Beriault v. Marcoux, 1911. Berlin Lion Brewery v. Lawless, 1173. Berlin Lion Brewery -Co. v. Mackie, 2205, 2208. Berman v. Gertler, 549, 2117. Bernard v. Davis, 1493. Bernardin v. La Fleche, 280. Bernier v. Leblanc, 758, 918, 979, 997. Bernier v. Leboeuf, 1691. Bernier v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co., 1459, 1465, 2018. Bernier v. Quebec & Levis Ferry Co., 471, 472, 474. . Bernstein v. Lynch, 1620. Berry v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1528. Berry v. McKenzie, 1869. Berthiaume v. Marchand, 1713, Berthold & Jennings Lumber Co. v. Hol- ton Lumber Co., Ltd., 2206. Berube v. St. Alexandre, 1514. Besner v. Levesque, 1739. Bessette v. Brien, 388. Bethune v. R., 1865, Bettcher v. Turner, 961. Bettger v. Turner, 1504. Beufert & Hunter, Re, 1207. Beullac v. Simard, 565, 566, 599. Beveridge v. Awaya Ikeda & Co., 1733. Beveridge & Johnston, 1674. Bianco v. McMillan, 585. Bibeau v. Harbour Comrs., 1037. Bible v. Hill & Moses, 1651. Bigelow v. Graham, 1930. Bigelow v. Powers, 1501. Bigham v. Boyd, 1283. Billings & Can. North. Ontario Rw. Co., Re, 1827. Bilton v. Mackenzie, 1625. Binder v. Mahon, 1'20. Bindon v. Gorman & Murray, 1658. Bingham v. Millican, 987. Bingham v. Shumate, 2050. Binkley v. Stewart, 1080. Birchenough v. Montreal, 1064, 1416, 1418, 1431. Bird v. Hussey, Ferrier Meat Co., 368, 397. Biron v. Prevost, 601. Bisaillon v. Nourie, 1005. Bishop Construction Co. v. Peterborough, 586. Bishop of Fredericton v. Union Assce. Co., 1078. Bissett v. Knights of Maccabees, 2021. Bissonnette v. Corp. of Soulanges, 187. Black vy. Anderson, 540. Black v. Canadian Copper Co., 1640. Black v. Carson, 397. Black v. Townsend, 482, 1348. . Black & Orillia, Re, 1895. Blackie v. Senaca Superior Silver Mines, 300, 2208. Blackshaw v. McDougall Co., 1497, 2020. Blackstock v. Williams, 2159. Blackwell v. Scheinman, 2172, Blais v. Bankers Trust Corp. & Negotia- tors, Ltd., 1787. Blais v. Belair, 2075. Blais v. Bigovaise, 1912. Blaisdell v. Raycroft, 934, Blake v. Clare & Bockest, Ltd., 209. Blake v. Goyette, 22. Blanchard v. Bishop, 964. Blanchard v. Montreal, 1625. Blanchet v. Paris, 150. Blanchette v. Levesque, 208. Bland & Mohun, Re, 1352. Blank v. Romkey, 2014. Bleasdell Machinery Co. v. Spencer, 90. Blessed Sacrament Parish v. Laberge, 2231. Blomquist v. Tymchorak, 2163. Bloom v. New York Tailoring Co., 1786. Blondeau v. Paquet, 2250. Blouin v. Blouin, 894. Blouin v. Kinallah, 1183, 1691. Blyth & McKillop, Re, 1981. Board of Health v. Coteau Landing, 616. Bode v. Eddy, 974. Bodner & West Canadian Collieries, Re, 1452, 1468. Boeckh v. Gowganda Queen Mines, 384. Boehmer, Re, 2253. Boehmer v. Zuber, 2006. Boehner v. Hirtle, 298, 725, 1268. Boeckh v. Gowganda Queen Mines, 50. Boez v. Spiller, 916. Bogardus v. Hill, 604. vill Bohl v. Caron, 1166. Boilard v. Montreal, 2019. Boily v. Bay St. Paul, 1152. Boismenu v. Merineau, 1160. Boivin v. Lessard, 2068. Boivin v. Senecal, 325. Boker v. Uplands, 1322. Boland v. Philp, 2054, Bolduc v. Bouchard, 1006, 1027. Bolohan v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1485. Bolton v. Gilmour Door Co., 98. Bolton v. MacDonaid, 63. Bolton v. MacDougall, 301. Bombardier v. Rivest, 749. Bondy v. Sandwich, Windsor & Amherst- burg Rw. Co., 1619. Bonidetti v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1452. Bonin v. Bergeron, 1009. Bonin v. Ontario Wind Engine & Pump Co., 1915. Booker v. O’Brien, 1739. Booth v. Beechy, 1258. Booth v. Callow, 12385. Bootham v. Smith, 796. Boothe v. Rattray, 1055. Bordeaux v. Jobs, 792. Borden v. Jackson, 1273. Bornstein v. Weinberg, 1233. Boston Shoe Company, In re, 426. Boston Varnish Co. v. Frudel, 925. Boswell v. Kilborn, 108. Botta v. Pene, 297. Bottomley & A. O. U. W., Re, 1094. Bouchard v. Gauthier, 1493. Bouchard v. O’Connor, 794. Bouchard v. Quebec Rw., etc., Co., 1795. Boucher v. Lunn, 1881. , Boudreau v. Beneault, 2062. Boulanger v. Fortier, 79. Boulanger v. Pelletier, 112. Boulay v. Societe Francaise, 617. Boulton & Garfunkel, Re, 2196. Bourassa v. Bourassa, 2303. Bourassa v. Valleyfield, 1139. Bourbonnais v. Lortie, 836. Bourdon v. Cohen, 1688. Bourgault v. Ferland, 1520. Bourgeau v. Turnbull, 2145. Bourgeois v. Borgeois, 929. Bourque v. Bellegarde, 1681. Bourque v. Rigaud, 845. Bouthillier v. Des Gages, 1734. Boutin v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 396. Boutin v. Corona Rubber Co., 1480. | Bowes v. Toronto, 9. Bowles v. Chatfield, 2083. Bowser v. Goodwin, 1881. Bowser v. McCutcheon Bros., 813. Box v. Bird’s Hill Land Co., 389, 392. Boyer v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co., 1452. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Boyer v. Thibault, 1000. Boyes & Dominion Express Co., Re, 321. Boyle v. McCabe, 596. Boyle & Toronto, Re, 9538, 1413. Brace McKay & Co., Ltd. & Prince Hd- ward Island Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Re, 754, Bradfield v. Bank of Ottawa, 238. Bradford & Taylor & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1848. Bradley v. Saucier, 1690. Bradshaw v. Patterson, 1269. Bradshaw v. Saucerman, 1338, 1839. Braithwaite v. Bayham, 81, 343. Brampton Local Option By-law, Re, 874. Brand v. Ross Bros., 1578. Brandies v. East, 975. Brandon Election, Re, 869. Brandon Construction Co. v. Saskatoon School Board, 494, 1682. Brandon Electric Light Co. v. Brandon, 1482. Brandon Gas & Power Co. v. Brandon Creamery & Supply Co., 979. Brantford v. Grand Valley Rw. Co., 1977. Brauer v. Gray, 1640. Brassard v. Laprairie, 194. Brassard v. R., 634. Brazer v. Elkin Co., Ltd., 115. . Bread Sales Act, Re, 204. Breakey v. Bernard, 40, 41, 403. Breckman v. Coldwell, 858. Brecken & Delaney, Re, 2195. Breed v. Rogers, 1058. Breitenstein v. Munson & Shaw, 2046. Bremner v. Braun, 49. Bremner v. Walker, 63. Brennan v. Benoit, 1051. Brennan & Waldman, Re, 2192. Brewer v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1533. Bricault v. Lamarche, 1634. Brien v. Irving, 1672. Brien v. Lancot, 7. Bright & Sarnia, Re, 2217. Bright Schood ‘District, No. 744, v. Yerxa, 1937. Brisebois v. Viau, 83. Bristol v. Kennedy, 1708. British American Investment Co. v. Flawse, 1154. British Canadian Securities v. Victoria, 1634, B. C. Canning Co. v. McGregor, 1950. Brit. Col. Copper Co. Assessment, Re, 180. British Columbia Copper Co. v. McKit- trick, 1467. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co. v. Stewart, 1404. _ B. C, Electric Rw. Co. v. Wilkinson, 1537. B. C. Land & Investment Agency v. Ishi- taka, 339. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. ix British Columbia News Co., Re, 1803. British Columbia Orchard Lands Co. v. Kilmer, 2123. B. N. A. Mining Co. v. Pigeon River Lum- ber Co. & Smith, 2009. Brittle v. Tammaro, 922. Brizard & Brizard, Re, 1024. Brizard v. Heynen, 1024. Brockville & Prescott Road Co. v. Leeds & Grenville, 2246. Brodie v. Patterson, 1380. Brolet v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1822. Brompton Pulp & Paper Co. v. Bureau, 124, Brooke v. Brooke, 942. | Brooklyn Agricultural Society v. Reagh, 355. Brooks v. Mundy, 1317. Brooks & Co. v. Widerman, 1177. Brooks, Scanlon, O’Brien Co., Re, 137. Broom v. Denison, 1188, Broom v. Dominion Council Royal Tem- plars, 1696. Broom v. Toronto Junction, 1645, 2040. Brossard v. D’Aillebout, 918. Brossard v. Sterling Bank, 206. Brotman v. Meyer, 1741. Brousseau v. Benard, 1998. Brousseau v. Quebec, 1520. Brown, Re, 58, 606, 2270, 2291. Brown vy. Allan, 1322. Brown vy. “Alliance No. 2,” 1955. Brown v, Appenheimer, 1220. Brown Construction Co. v. Bannatyne School District Cor., 518, 514. Brown v. Bartlett, 53. Brown v. Brown, 538. Brown v. Chamberlain, 261. Brown v. Clendennan, 103. Brown v. Coleman Development Co. & Gillies, 1165. Brown v. Coxworth, 1591. Brown v. Crabbe & Wright, 218, 334. Brown v. Gilbreath, 27. Brown v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1498, 1494, 2207. Brown v. Gugy, 14, 18, 106, 748, 744, 1180, 2219, Brown v. Hope, 1902. Brown v. Marshall, 756, Brown v. Motherlode Mining Co., 1712. Brown v. Orde, 102, 792, 808. Brown v. R., 789. Brown v. Security Life Ins. Co., 300. Brown v. Street, 2183. Brown v. Thompson, 575, 1268, 1273. Browne v. Timmins, 1698. Brown v. Weir, 1435. Brown & Hast Flamboro, Re, 864. Brownlee v. MacIntosh, 731, 1723. Bruce v. James, 148, Bruce v. National Trust, 1328. Bruce Stewart & Co., Ltd. v. Wedlock, 1874, Brulott v. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., 1547. Bruneau v. Genereux, 2298. Bruneau v. Vezina, 2141. Brunelle v. Ostigny, 238, 256. Brunet v. Beauharnois, 2237. Brunet v. Lauzon, 1789. Brunet v. Montreal, 1400. Brunet v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 583. Brunet & International Coal & Coke Co., Re, 1459. Brussels v. McKillop Municipal Telephone System, Re, 1981. Brydon Jack v. Vancouver Pub. Co., 806. Buchanan, Re, 718. Buchanan v. Oakes, 779. Buchanan v. Winnipeg, 581. Buckley v. Fillmore, 2205. Buckley v. Riou, 328. Bucknall v. British Canadian Power Co., 1337. Bucyrus Trade Mark, Re, 2001. Buell v. Foley, 564, 660. Bulger, Re, 1280. Bull v. St. John & Quebec Rw. Co., 137, 958, 1885. Bullen v. Wilkinson, 2081. Bunting v. Law Union Assce Co., 1707. Bunting v. Western Assce. Co., 1707. Burchell Co., Ltd., v. Dillon, 1751. Burden v. Registrar of Land Titles for the North Alberta Land Registration District, 1200. Bureau v. Laurencelle, 1719. Bureau v. School Comrs., 1300. Burgess v. Zimmerli, 798. Burgoyne v. Mallett, 1246. Burke, Re, 948, 1184, 1974. Burke v. North-West Colonization Co., 902. Burke v. Veinot, 79. Burland v. Earle, 368. Burnett v. British Columbia Accident & Employers’ Liability Co., 1068. Burney v. Moore, 2251. Burns v. Cousineau, 113. Burns v. Hall, 1343. Burns v. Loughrin, 595. Burns v. Matejka, 26, 314. Burr v. Ennis, 1339. Burrard Inlet Tunnel & Bridge Co., Re, 1841. : Burrard Power Co. v. R., 471, 1975, 1977, 2229, Burridge Hstate, Re, 945. Burrows v. Burrows, 1030. Burrows v. Campbell, 188, 187. Burton v. Macfie, 1370. x NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Bushby v. North Sydney, 1677. Bussiere, Ex p., 1047. Butchart v. MacLean, 2121. Butcher v. Stuckey, 1501. Butler v, Bank of Ottawa, 571. Butler v. Butler, 263. Butler v. Mechanical Equipment Co., 544. Butler & Henderson, Re, 2193. _ Butterfield v. Cormack & Mackie, 520, 755. Byerley & Winnipeg, Re, 1418. Byers v. McDonald, 793. Cc. C., Re, an infant, 1047. - Cabot v. Atty.-Gen. for Que., 728, 772. Cabulac, Re, 60. Cadieux v. Art & Industries Co., 1639. Cadieux v. Montreal Street Rw. Co., 1980. Cadwell v. Campeau, 563. Cahill, Re, 327. Caille v. Montreal, 1468, 1466. Cain y. Pearce Co., 99, 2215. Cairncross v. McLean, 1165. Cairns v. Buffet, 1751. Cairns v. Canada Refining & Smelting Co., 1635. Caisley v. Stewart, 2188. Calder v. Naroviansky, 603. Caldwell v. Cockshutt Plow Co., 1921. Caldwell v. Hughes, 580, 1639. Caldwell & Co. v. Stephenson, 1736. Caledonia Biscuit Co. v. Desautels, 427, Caledonia & Haldimand, Re, 22381. Calgary v. Harnovis & Hercovish, 1545. Calgary Brewing Co. v. Jarvis, 409. Calgary Realty Co. v. Reid, 2054. Calgary & Edmonton Rw. Co. v. MacKin- non, 135.~ Calgary & Edmonton Land Co. & Local Improv. Dist. No. 607, Re, 157. Calhoun v. Williams, 255. Calneck v. Vancouver Timber & Trading Co., 1582. Calumet Metals Co., Re, 421. Calvin v. Feldman, 2117. Cameron, Re, 1038. Cameron v. Cuddy, 533. Cameron v. Hull, 2196, 2199. Cameron v. Montreal Tramways Co., 902. Cameron v. Smith, 1355. Cameron v. Sparks, 1019. Cameron v. Watson, 1011. Campbell, Re, 1115, 2257, 2283, 2284, 2289. Campbell v. Blakeley, 870. Campbell v. Bourque, 283. Campbell v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 1525, 1528. Campbell y. Donaldson, 1574. Campbell v. Helmka, 1880. Campbell v. Irwin, 145. Campbell v. Munroe, 2126. Campbell v. Pugsley, 1613. Campbell v. Sovereign Bank, 20, 2141, Campbell v. $01, Taxicabs Verrals, 405. Campbell v. Verral, 47, 1973. Campbell v. Walsh, 1190. Campbell, Wilson & Horne, Ltd., v. Medi- cine Hat Grocery Co., Ltd., 758. Campeau v. Grosboillot, 59. Campeau v. May, 1266, Campsall v. Allen, 1340. Canada Carriage Co. v. Lea, 965. Canada Cement Co. v. Pazuk, 1465. Canada Co. v. Goldthorpe, 1238. Canada Gen. Electric Co. v. Canadian Rubber Co., 590. ee Canada Industrial Company v. Walker, 109. Canada Law Book Co. v. Butterworth & Co., 534, 535. Canada Life Assce. Co. v. Registrar of Assiniboia Land Registration District, 1193. Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Taafe, 1098. Canada Metal Co., Ltd. v. Berry, 1065. Canada North-West Land Co. v. Irwin, 1657. Canada Produce, etc., Co. v. Hatley Dairy, etc., Co., 1927. Canada Provident Ins. & Investment Corp., ‘Re, 416. Canada Settlers Loan & Trust Co. v. Pur- vis, 2055. Canadian Agency, Ltd. v. Tanner, 1409. Can. Amer. Linotype Corp. v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 38. Canadian Anthracite Coal Co. & McNeill Co., Re, 1219. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Colwell, 598. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Davidson, 218. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Gillis, 273. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Rogers, 274, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Smith, 875, Canadian Bldg. & Loan Assoc, & Hamil- ton, Re, 1442. Canadian Collieries, Dunsmuir v. Duns- muir, 532. Canadian Contracting & Development Co. v. Jamieson, 482. Canadian Druggists v. Thompson, 379, 889. Canadian Electric Co. v. Perth, 1412. Canadian Equipment & Supply Co. v. Bell & Schiesel, 1324, Canadian Fairbanks Co. v. Edgett, 2206. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Xl Canadian Fairbanks Co, v. Thompson, 1923. Canadian Fibre Wood & Mfg. Co., 422. Canadian Financiers v. Hong Wo, 1737. Canadian Fraternal Assoc. v. Canadian Passenger Assoc., 1812. Canadian Freight Assoc. v. Winnipeg Board of Trade & Can. Manufacturers’ Assoc., 1804. Canadian Gas Power & Launches, Ltd., Re, Ridge’s Claim, 236, 428, 436. Canadian Gas Power & Launches v. Orr Bros., 1925, 1930. Canadian General Service Corporation, Re, 422. Canadian Knowles v. Lovell-McConnell, 804. Canadian Lake Transportation Co. v. Browne, 553, 1771. Canadian Light & Power Co. v. Julien, 372. Canadian Loan & Mercantile Co. v. Lovin, 1308. Canadian Mail Order Co. Re (Meakin’s Case), 101. Canadian Manufacturers’ Assoc. v. Cana- dian Freight Assoc., 1801. Canadian National Investors, Ltd. v. Can- adian National Estates, 359. Canadian Northern, etc., Co. v. Archam- bault, 954, Canadian Northern Express Co., Re, 321. Can. Nor. Ont. Rw. Co. v. Billings, 1819. Can. North. Ont. Rw. Co. v. McAnulty, etc., Co., 1835. Can. North, Pac. Rw. Co. v. Diamond Glazed Cement Pipe Co., Re, 130, Can. North. Que. Rw. Co. v. Johnston, 1552, Canadian Northern Quebec Rw. Co. v. Naud, 186,142, 955, 1836. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., Re, 1913, 1820, 1841, 1842. Can. North. Rw. Co. vy. Anderson, 1608. Canadian Northern Rw. Co. v. Cora Lynn District School Board, 179. Can. North. Rw. Co. v. Levine, 2022. Can. North. Rw. Co. v. Nault, 1836. Can. Northern Rw. Co. v. Omemee School Dist., 158. Can. North. Rw. Co. v, Robinson, 1796. Can. North. Rw. Co. & St. Boniface, Re, 1829. Can. North, Sask. Rw. Co. & Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1842. Can. North. Tunnel Co. v. Malouin, 955. Canadian Northern Western Rw. Co. v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 450. Canadian Oil Co. v. Clarkson, 799. Canadian Oil Companies v. McConnell, Re, 615. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Crow’s Nest Branch, Re, 1843. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. British American Oil Co., 1807. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1060. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. Canadian Oil Co., 1807. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Carr, 2013. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Coquitlan Land- owners, 1838. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co. v. Hinrich, 1547. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Kerr, 128, 1504. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Maisonneuve, 1799. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co. v. Mathews, 1174. . Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Oligny, 134, 952. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Can. North. Rw. Co. v. Regina Board of Trade (Regina Rates Case), 128, 1796. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co. v. Quinn, . 894, 1496. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Rosin, 889. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Roy, 2024. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. SS. “Kronprinz Olav.” 1069. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. SS. “Kronprinz Olav.” 1952. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. v. Toronto & Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 107. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co. v. Walkerton, 599. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Ontario & Western ‘Co-operative Fruit Co. v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 805. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Savona, Re, 1852. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Steelton Assessment, Re, 159. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. & Vancouver Ice & Cold Storage Co., Re, 1843. Canadian Shipbuilding Co., Re, 102, 425. Canadian ‘Spool Cotton Co. v. Lyall, 895. Canadian Underskirt Co. v. Gorman, 760. Canadian Westinghouse Co. v. Water ‘Comrs. London, 1685. Cancilla v. Orr, 2144. Cangeme & Alberta Coal Mining Co., 89. Canniff v. Chandler, 978. Cantin v. Clarke, 1710. Cap Rouge v. North Shore Turnpike Trust, 1300. Capellini v. Bellanger, 75. Capistran v. Lafond, 1301. Capital Mfg. Co. v. Buffalo Specialty Co., 1056. Capras v. Montreal, 1636. Carbonneau v. Matton, 896. Cardiff Coal Co., Re, 393. Cardin v. Parent, 1697. Cardin v. St. David, 850. Cardinal v. Geoffrey, 1683. xii Cardwell v. Breckenridge, 2213. Caren v. Seminary of Quebec, 25. Carey v. Carey, 527, 2095. Carey v. Roots, 2089. Carignan v. Neault, 1412. Carleton v. Regina City, 1522. Carley, Re, 935. Carlin v. Railway Passengers Assce. Co., 1088, Carlisle v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1800. Carlson v. McEwen, 638, 70. Carlson v. Smilak, 562, Carlstadt Develop. Co. v. Alberta Pacific .Elevator Co., 1908. Carnahan, Re, 1048. Carney v. Carney, 801. Carnwath, Ex p., 95. Caron v. Bannerman, 604. Caron v. Kleinberg, 63, 82. Carr v. Can, Pac. Rw. Co., 1840. Carr v. North Bay, 1144. Carriere v. Lindsay, Ltd., 37. Carrigan v. Granby Consolidated Mines, 1582. Carrington v. Russell, 796, 1638. Carrique v. Catts, 968. Carroll v. Erie County Natural Gas Co., 489, 744, 1346, 1898. ; Carruthers v. Carruthers, 2265. Carruthers v. Nova Motor Co., 1168,. 2023. Carruthers v. Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co., 1548. Carry v. Toronto Belt Line Co., 815. Carse v. Tallyard, 1778. Carstairs v. Cross, 839, 848. Cartage Tolls Tariffs, Re, 1801. Carter v. Can. North. Rw.. Co., 2060. Carter v. Foley-O’Brien Co., 20, 902. Carter.v. Nichol, 960. Cartier v. Boudreault, 1354, Cartwright v. Pratt, 585. Cartwright v. Wharton, 565, 566, 1056. Carty v. B. C. Elec. Rw. Co., 576, 1491. Carvell v. Aitken, 1664. Carveth v. Railway Asbestos Packing Co., 1303. Carvill, Re, 2263. Casavallo v. Casavallo, 1007. Case v. Fiegehen, 1898. Case Thresher Machine Co. v. Sing, 348. Case Threshing Co. v. Haslam Land & Investment Co., 561. Case Threshing & Machine Co., Mortgage Sale, Re, 1367. Casey v. Kansas, 1060. Casgrain v. Normandin, 1688. Casgrain v. Soleil Publishing Co., 1638. Caskie v. M'nister of Lands, 317. Casson v. Stratford, 868. Castonguay v. Jeannotte, 1258. Caswell, Re, 2270. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Caswell v. Law, 785. Caswell v. Toronto Rw. Co., 2088. * Cater v. Belmont, 912. Cater v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1492. Catholic School Commission v. Choquet, 1297, 1137. “ Catholic School Commission v. Provident, etc., Co., 1087. Caulfield v. National Sanitarium, 1700. ‘Cavendish v. Gasson, 593. Central Rw. Co. of Can. & Wells, 1853. Central Trust & ‘Safe Deposit Co. v. Snider, 2264. Cerat v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1551. Chadwick v. Stuckey, 2122, 2139. Chagnon v. Auclaire, 25. Chaine v. School Comrs., 1166, 1935. Chalmers v. Irion, 316. Chambers Electric Light Co. v. Cantwell, 836. Chambers Electric Light & Power Co. v. ‘Crowe, 2023. Champlain Realty Co. v. Renaud, 429, 607. Chandler v. Atty.-Gen. for Que., 570. Chandler & Massey v. Irish, 440. , Chapdelaine v. Wilkinson, 1369. Chapeau v. Auger, 218. Chapman v. Edwards, 2175. Chapman v. McWhinney, 1697, 1741. Chapman v. Wade, 2080. Chapman v. Whitman, 1678. Chappell v. Peters, 1752. Chaput v. Chaput, 878. Charbonneau v. Garveau, 1934. Charbonneau v. Latour, 480. ‘Charbonneau v. Publishers’ Press, 906. Charbonneau v. St. Francis, 845. Charest v. Johnson, 1928. Charest v. St. Donat, 2245. Charette v. Huneault, 61. Charette-Kirk Co. v. McKittrick, 499. Charland v. Bissonnette, 1281. Charlebois v. Martin, 764. Charlebois v. Pelletier, 1691. Charleson v. Royal Standard Investment Co., 320. Charlton & Vidito, 764. Charpentier v. Craig, 1260. Chartrand v. Dominion Paper Co., 207. Chase v. Knight, 2038. . Chateauguay, etc., Rw. Co. v. Lapointe, 1828. ‘Chatelle v. Chatelle, 1279. Chechik v. Finn, 342. Checkik v. Price, 1900. Cheesman v. Corey, 308, 1974, 2058. Cheeseworth v. Davison, 1343. Cheff v. Martin, 2293. Chekaluk v. Webster, 1300. Chene v. Chene, 1692. Chene v. Heirs late Nicholas Chene, 980. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Cherbo & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1790. Chesle v. Benner, 149. Chevalier v. Three Rivers, 151, 1428. Chevrette v, Cournoyer, 925. Chew v. Crockett, 69, 1779. Chew Lumber Co. v. Howe Sound Lumber Co., 2009. Chicoine v. Mutual Ins. ‘Co., 1083. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. v. Jonquieres Pulp Co., 111. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. v. Price, 788. Ching How, Re, 1140. Chiniquy v. Begin, 784. Chisholm, Re, 1006. Chisholm & Berlin, Re, 173. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 1049. Chisholm v. Journeay, 85, 1107. Chisholm v. Wodlenger, 1260. Chizek v. Tripp, 1017. Choquet v. Demers, 114. Choquette v. Paquette Mfg. Co., 1305. Christian Brothers v. Minister of Edu- cation, 1938, 1976. Christiansen v. Vancouver Power Co., 1593. Christie v. Denenberg, 1305. Christie v. Taylor & Collings, 2072. Christie Brown v. Woodhouse, 23. Christina Catherine Hedge v. Charles Mor- row, 940. Christner v. Fisher, 891. Chrotien v. Roberge, 609. Church v. Racicot, 1994. Chwayka v. Canadian Bridge Co., 2207, 2208. Cianfagna v. Atlantic, Quebec & Western Rw. Co., 2017. Cimon Shoe Manfg. Co. v. Therrien, 376. Cinnamon v. Woodmen of the World, 2039. Cing-Mars v. Drolet, 205. Circe v. Murray Pub. Co., 781. Clare v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1793. Clare v. Edmonton, 1633. Claresholm Provincial Hlection, Re, 848. Clarey v. Ottawa, 1395, 1433. Clarke v. Baillie, 305. Clark v. Bartram, 799, 812, 1645. Clark v. British Empire Ins. Co., 1101, 1102. Clark v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1551, 1799. Clark v. Ford McConnell Ltd., 2022. Clark v. Fox, 604. Clarke v. Goodall, 127, 746. Clark v. Halliday, 320. Clark v. Hubbard Co., 398, 445. Clark v. Laing, 2023. Clark v. Loftus, 1094. Clarke & Monds v. Provincial Steel Co., 812. Clark v. Robinet, 328, 814, 2191. Clark v. Swan, 546. Clark v. Wigle, 541. xii Clark v. Wilson, 1661. Clarkson v. Antipitsky, 103. Clarkson v. McNaught & Shaw, 102, 1176, Clarkson v. Marcoux, 1157. Clarkson v. Nelson & Ft. Sheppard Rw. Co., 2023. Clarkson v. Wishart, 931, 1336. Clary v. Golden Rose Mining Co., 369. Clavet v. Forgues, 152. Clayton v. Hanbury, 1607. Clayton v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power iCo., 1463. Clearwater Provincial Election, Re, 837, 853. Cleary v. Aitkin, 1380. Clemens Horst Co. v. Canadian Breweries, 903. Clement v. Dodier, 34, 432, 1078, 1371. Clement v. Dufresne, 1097. Clement v. McFarland, 2174. Clement v. Rheaume, 424, 1096. Clendinning v. Cox, 2104. Cleveland v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 483. Clipsham v. Grand Prairie School District, 19384. Clokey v. Huffman, 53. Clooney, Re, 2282. Clover Bar Coal Co. v. Humberston, 1796. Cloutier v. Demers, 790. ‘Club des Quatre Iles v. Valois, 1266. Club Laurier, Re, 1124. Cluff v. Brown, 902, 903. Coaffee v. Thompson, 2159. Coates v. Sovereign Bank, 252. ‘Cobbledick v. Bersch, 2058. Coburn v. Clarkson, 380. Cochenthaler v. Pauze, 1469. Cochran v. Lloyd, 1180, 2033. Cockburn v. Kettle, 1289. Cockburn v. Lizotte, 207. Cockshutt Plow Co. v. McDonald, 1471. Cockshutt v. Mills, 1922. Cockwell v. Standard Publishing Co., 561. Coderre v. Desfosses, 892. Codere v. Sherbrooke, 1593. Codville v. Smith, 1177. Cohen v. Webber, 346. Cole v. Arnold, 976. Cole v. Cross, 2156. Cole v. Racine, 220. Coleman v. McCallum & Toronto, 1385. Collard v. Armstrong, 1019. Collas v. Langevin, 75, 82. College of Dental Surgeons v. Gagnon, 1682. Collier v. North Shore Turnpike Trustees, 1513. Collier v. Union Trust Co., 1050. Colling v. Stimson & Buckley, 1325. Collins, Re, 2256. Collins v. Can. North. Que. Rw. Co., 116. Collins v. Eaton, 336. xiv Collins v. Gould, 1282. Collom v. McGrath, 61. Colney v. Paterson, 2181. Colonial Assurance Co. v. Smith, 364, 408. Colonial Development Co. v. Beach, 212. Colonial Engineering Co., Re, 439. ‘Colonial Investment Co. of Winnipeg, Re, 416, 424, 459, Colonial Investment Co. v. Borland, 1360, 1362. Colonial Investment & Loan Co. v. Foisie, 1356. Colonial Investment Co. v. Smith, 816. Colonial Loan Co. v. Smith, 600. ‘Colp v. Hunter, 2076. Colquhoun v. Fullerton, 2241. Coltart v. Winnipeg Industrial Exhibition Assoc., 66. Colter v. Osborne, 2006. Columbia Graphophone Co. v. Real Estate Corp., 1641, 1702. Colville v. Small, 327. Colwill v. Waddell, 343. Commercial Bank v. Fehrenbach & Boake, 577. Commercial Bank of Canada v. Great Western Rw. Co., 235, 371, 1848, 2031. Commercial Bank v. Kirkham, 582. Commercial Cable Co, v. Steamship “ Ber- windmoor,” 1954, Commissioners of Transcontinental Rw. v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., and Commissioners of Temiskaming & Nor- thern Ontario Rw., 1063. Como v. Can. North. Alberta Rw. Co. & Can. North. Rw. Co., 1835. Como v. Herron, 1725. Companies Case, 456. Complin v. Beggs, 1749. Compton v. Allward, 1618. Compton v. Veilleux, 1512. Computing Seale Co. v. Desrosiers, 764. Conkle v. Flanagan, 220/. Conn v. Hawes, 333. Connell v. Bucknall, 1762. Connelly v. Trustees Havelock School Dis- trict No. 8, 1937. Connolly v. Connolly, 998. Connor v. Brant, 2240. Connor v. Princess Theatre, 82. Connors v. Reid, 2029. Connor v. West Rydall Ltd. & Farrow, 1782. Conroy v. Conroy, 1638. Consolidated Gold Dredging & Power Co., Re, 2042. Constantineau v. Buist, 230. Constantineau & Jones, Re, 601. Constantineau v. Plouffe, 144. Constantino v. Dick, 2063. Contant v. Ducharme, 580. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Continental Oil Co. v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1801. Contractors Supply Co. v. Hyde, 498. Contractors, Ltd. v. St. Jerome, 921. Conway v. Transfer Co., 323, 325. Cook v. Cook, 585, 2048. Cook v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1591. Cook v. North Vancouver, 1421. ‘Cook v. Vancouver, 2218. Cookshire v. Canadian Tel. Co., 171. Cooney v. Jickling, 526, 599. Coons v. Elvin, 338. Cooper, Re, 2284. Cooper’s Case, 1355. Cooper Hstate, Re, 2258. Cooper v. Anderson, 1650, 2048, 2191. Cooper v. Jack Canuck Publishing Co., 1699. Cooper v. London Street Rw. Co., 1540, 1551. Co-operative Funeral Society v. Trudel, 1037. Copeland v. Wagstaff, 1728. Copeman & Dundalk, Re, 865. Copp, Ex p., 1117. Coppey v. Lear, 348. Coquitlam & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1845. Corbett v. Pipes, 821. Corbiere v. Stuart, 1353. Corbor v. Oakshott, 1371. Cordiner v, A. O. U. W., 1106. Corea v. McClary, 1594. Corelli v. Smith, 5, 12. Corey & Carmichael v. American-Abell Co., 1915. Corinthe v. St. Sulpice Seminary, 727. Corkett Estate, Re, 2280. Cormier v. Turbi, 1778. . Cornier v. Standard Bedstead Co., 1486. Corning v. Yarmouth, 1436, 1966, 1974. Cornish v. Boles, 1231, 2021. Corr, Re, 904, 935, 941, 947. Corriveau v. Simard 1139. Corsbie v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 1170. Céte v. Bank of St. Hyacinthe, 229. Cote v. Olson, 2071, 2119. Cotter v. Osborne, 448, 752, 894, 1066, 1708. Cottingham v. Longman, 1619. Cotton Co. Ltd. v. Coast Quarries Ltd., & Patterson, 1612. Cotton v. R., 466, 468, 1866. Coughlin & Irwin’s Claim, 437. Couillard v. Bolduc, 724. Coulter v. McCarter, 1233. Counter v. Megantic, 1146. County Court Judges’ Income Tax, Re, 171. Courchesne v. Maritime Nail Co., 598. Courchesne v. Talbot, 579, 605, 921, 922. Cournoyer v. Cournoyer, 2069, ‘Coursol v. St. Cyr, 621. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. XV Court v: Glenn, 1678. Cousins v. Brotherhood of Locomotive En- gineers, 1097. * Cousins v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 1097. Cousins v. Moore, 1092. Coutu v. Auclair, 1679. Couture v. Gregoire, 765. Couture v. Montreal, 1302. Coventry v. Annable, 1212, 2051. Cowansville v. Duggan, 223. Cowansville v. Noyes, 165. Cowderoy v. Kirby, 13877. Cowie v. Cowie, 1183. Cowley v. Simpson, 1266. Cox v. Canadian Bank of Commerce, 253, 284, 600. Cox & Co. v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1803. Cox v. Day, 2008. Coxall v. Parsons Bldg. Co., 808. Coyne v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 589. Crabbe v. Crabbe, 1112. Crabbe & Swan River, Re, 1425. Craig v. Lamoureux, 2296. Craik v. Macfarlane, 765, 1669. Cram v. Biehn, 1746. Cram v. Tinck, 2081. Crane v. Lavoie, 281. Crapper v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 123. Crawford v. Colville Ranching Co., 403, 1168. Crawford v. Law, 302. Crawhall, Re, 214. Creamer v. Gooderham, 1258. Crichton Estate, Re, 2282. Crichton v. Ewyer, 300. Crinkley v. Mooney, 804. Crippen v. Hitchner, 550. Croasdaile v. Padden, 2136. Crockett, Re, 944. Crockford v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1594. Croft v. McKechnie, 2040. Croft v. Mitchell, 303. Croome v. Leir, 1167. Crosbie v. Prescott, 1713. Cross v. Carstairs, 837. Crouch v. Pere Marquette Rw. Co., 1527. Crowley v. Silverstone, 578, 748, 1251. Crown Hardware Co., Ltd. v. Delicatessen Ltd., 423. Crown Lumber Co. v. Saulsberry, 1717. Crow’s Nest Pass Hardware Co., Ltd., Re, 434, Crowther v. Cobourg, 28, 1630, Croysdill v. Blackman & Dunlop, 49. Croysdill v. Copeland Chatterson Grain Co., 748. Crucible Steel Co. v. Ffolkes, 763, 804, 820. Cuddy v. Cameron, 447. Cudmore v. Cudmore, 2260. Cuerrier, Re, 947. Culbert v. McCall Co., 409. Cullen v. Archibald, .1609. Cullen v. Picard, 81. Cullerton v. Logan, 824, 2217. Culin, Re, Infants, 1040. Culshaw & Crow’s Nest Pass Coal Co., Ltd., Re, 1563. Cumberland Provincial Election, Re, 854. Cummer Marriage Settlement, Re, 876. Cumming v. Cumming, 310. Cummings v. Johnson, 352, 746. Cunningham v. Canadian Home Circles, 1093. Cunningham v. Hall, 1728. Cunningham v. Michigan Central Rw. Co., 1555. Cunningham v. St. Paul Fire & Marine In- surance Co., 1105. Currey v. Currey, 1008. Currie v. Caloff, 1292. Currie v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1810. Currie & Sterry v. Hoskin, 1728. Currie v. Nicholson, 121. Curry v. E. M. F. Co. of Canada Ltd., 1717. Curry v. Pennock, 1234, 1235. Curry v. Wettlaufer Mining Co., 819. Cushing v. Knight, 2117. Cutknife Stations, Re, 1847. Cyr v. De Rosier, 896. D. D. v. W., 904. Dack, Re, 1278. Dagenais v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1844, Dagenais v. Cardin, 1629. Dagenais v. Denis, 2197. Dagenais v. Modern Realty Co., 2054. Dagenais v. Weiman, 1688. Dahl v. St. Pierre, 2157. Daigle v. Brochu, 1900. Daigle v. Michaud, 1377. Dakota Lumber .Co. v. Rinderknecht, 594. Dale, Re, 2278. Dale & Blanchard, Re, 875. Dallantonio v. McCormick, 1469. Dallin, Re, 918. Dallontania v. McCormick & Can. Pac. Rw. ‘Co., 1487. Daly v. Frank, 1887. Dalziel v. Homeseeker’s Land Co., 2114. Damon v. Lamy, 1411. Damphousse. v. Leblond, 2141. Danbrook v. Parmer, 2146. Dandurand v. Publicity, 786. Dangerfield v. David, 1333. Daniel v. Birkbeck Loan Co., 2027. Daniels & Bridgetown, 180. Dansereau v. Adam, 1984. Dansereau v. Giguere, 295, 299. 1827, ‘ xvi Daoust v. Schiller, 1006. Daoust v. Valois, 867. Darke v. Canadian General Electric Co., 1572, 1589. , Darling v. Flater, 1294. Dart v. Rogers, 2077. Dart v. Toronto Rw. Co., 99, 1532. Dauphin Election, Re, 852. D’Auteuil v. Riou, 78. Davey v. Foley-Reiger Co., 2216. David v. Lambert, 1248. David Dick & Sons, Ltd. v. Standard Un- derground Cable Co., & Hamilton Bridge Works, 1901. Davidson v. Lethbridge, 1431. Davidson v. Peters Coal Co., 1599. Davidson v. Wilkinson & Chandler, 976. Davie v. Victoria, 1433. Davies, Re, 2264. Davies v. Canadian American Coal & Coke Co., 1499. Davies v. Dunbar, 579. Davies v. Mack, 1661. Davies & James Bay Rw. Co., Re, 1833. D’Avignon v. Bomerito, 221, 308. Davis, Re, 2298. Davis v. Barlow, 472. Davis v. Locomotive Engineers, 1070. Davis v. Lowry, 534. ‘ Davis & Korn, Re, 1166. Davis v. Wenatchee Valley Fruit Growers’ Assoc., 1787. Davis v. Winnipeg, 1440. Davis v. Wright, 27, 1295. Davison v. Thompson, 263, 819, 1710. Dawes v. Ward, 2202. Dawson v. Dawson, 84. Dawson Board of Trade v. White Pass & Yukon Rw. Co., 1798. Day v. Horton, 947. Daye v. McNeill Co., 1016. Daynes v. B. C,. Hlectric Rw. Co., 1555. Dean v. Corby Distillery Co., 489. De Blois, Re, 938, 2294, _ Decari v. Lyall, 1054, 1631. Decrean v. Vancanneyt, 905. Deere Plow Co. v. Agnew, 411. Deere Plow Co., Ltd. v. Duck, 410. Deere Plow Co. v. Merritt, 357. Deere Plow Co. v. Shannon, 1916. Deere Plow Co. v. Tweedy, 345. Deevy v. Deevy, 308. D’Hye v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1533. de Grandpre v. de Grandpre, 1185. Deisler v. Spruce Creek Power Co., 1335. Delaney v. Delaney, 2304. Delaney v. Downey, 1884. Delap v. Can. Pac. Rw., 819, 820, 1696, 1709. De La Ronde v. Ottawa Police Benefit Fund Assoc., 1106. Delbridge v. Pickersgill, 1256. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Delestre v. Montreal Opera Co., 2042. Delisle v. Menier, 2017. Dell v. Michigan Central Rw. Co., 1550. Dell v. Saunders, 346. Delta v. Wilson, 822. Delta of Vancouver, Victoria & Hastern Rw. & Navigation Co., Re, 1841. Delta Shingle Co. & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1842. Delyea v. White Pine Lumber Co., 1590. Demarchi v. Spartari, 196. de Mazuel, Re, 615. Demal v. British-American Live Stock As- soc., 1101. Demanche v. Asbestos & Asbestic Co., 1561, Dementitch v. North Dome, 1608. Demers v. Byrd, 208, 1330. Demers v. Choquet, 1187, 1299. Demers v. Gauthier, 1762. Demers v. Hebert, 870. Demers v. L’Eveille, 278. Demers v. McCrae, 1495. Demers v. Moffet, 1934. Demers v. Nova Scotia Silver Cobalt Min- ing Co., 1586. . Demers v. St. Nicholas, 850. Demetre v. Montre, 326. ~ Demetre v. Montreal, 325. Dempster v. Russell, 1985, 1998. Denis Advertising Signs, Ltd. v. Martel- Stewart Co., 87. Denison & Stephenson v. Gillett Co., 501. Deniss v. Quebec, 1414. Denman v. Clover Bar Coal Co., 8, 396, 400, 408, 483. Denton, Re, 2273. Depatie v. Hamilton Brass Co., 1302. Depato v. Zarnie, 1159, Derby v. Ellison, 1507. Derrick v. Elvidge, 46, 312. Dery v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 902. De Saint Aubin v. Binet, 1374. De Salis v. Jones, 3, 520. Desaulniers v. Desaulniers, 39, 110, 1931, 1936. Desaulniers v. Johnston, 1031, 1046, 1964. Desbarats Advertising Co. v. Leluau, 371. Desbiens v. Tremblay, 791. Deschenes v. Morin, 1000. Desjardins v. Bastien, 1864. Desjardins v. Schiller, 1865. Desmeules v. Quebec & Saguenay Rw. Co., 1829. Desmorneaux v. St. Therese, 326. Desnoyers v. Therrien, 1323. Desorcy v. Leclair, 269, 766. Desroches v. Foreman, 655. Desroches v. Robert, 839, 844. Desrochers v. Crump, 515. Desrosiers, Ex p., 1125. Desrosiers v. Lachine, 1188. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. De Struve v. McGuire, 1129. Det Dansk Russike Dampskibsselskab v. Musgrave, 1950. De Vallambrosa v. Pichon, 1640. DeVeene v. Warren, 1713, 2164. Devitt & Borne, Re, 1150. Dibs, Re, 118. Dicarllo v. McLean, 1468. Dick, Re, 641, 691. Dick v. Calgary, 1437. Dick v. Standard Underground Cable Co., 47, 102, 485, 1319. Dicker v. Willoughby Summer Co., 1748. Dickie v. Chichigian, 294. Dickinson v. Austin, 2210. Dickinson v. Harvey, 1294. Dickinson v. World Printing Co., 786. Dickman v. Gordon, 789. Dickson v. Gibbons, 802. Dickson Co. v. Graham, 1249. Dickson v. Van Hummell, 976. Dietrich v. Goderich Wheel Rigs Co., 1308. Dillabaugh v. McLeod, 779. Dilts v. Warden, 1011. Dimock v. Graham, 858. Dini v. Brunet, 108, 524. Dinnick & McCallum, Re, 1387, 1890. Dion, Re, 2271. Dion v. Champagne, 621. Dion v. Dion, 2265. Dionne v. Montreal, 174. Dionne v. Morin, 929. Dion v. National Telephone Co., 2242. Disher v. Donkin, 1664. D’Israeli Asbestos Co. v. Isaacs, 1052. Ditch v. Ditch, 1004. Dixon, Ex p., 821. Dixon v. Comley, 1726. Dixon v. Dunmore, 2170. Dixon v. Georgas Bros., 1668. Dixon v. Pritchard, 968. Dixon v.-Trusts & Guarantee Co., 1640. Dodd v. Mathieson, 596. Dodd v. Vail, 1943. Dodge v. Western Canada Fire Ins. Co., 1076. Doll v. King, 1027. . Dome Lode Development Go., Re, 418. Domina v. Guillemaud, 1724. Dominion Bank v. Armstrong, 1656. Dominion Bank v. Markham Co., Ltd., 243, 264, 757. Dominion Bank v. Salmon, 1114. Dominion Belting v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 1652. Dominion Express Co, v. Brandon, 162, 170. Dominion Express Co. v. Regina, 171. % 4 C.C.L.—B We xvii Dominion & Canadian Northern Express Companies, Re, 1801. Dominion Fish Co. v. Harris, ete., Co., 203. Dominion Fish Co. v. Isbester, 86. Dominion Flour Mills Co. v. Morris, 2004. Dominion Flour Mills Co. v. Pelletier, 150. Dominion, etc., Guarantee Co. v. McKer- cher, 1092. Dominion Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Colonial Engineering Co., 31. Dominion Linen Mfg. Co. v. Langley, 444. Dominion Lumber Co. v. Auger, 1918. Dominion Medical Institute, Re, 423. Dominion Milling Co., Re, 427. Dominion Permanent Loan Co. v. Morgan, 1356. Dominion Quarry Co. v. Morin, 1462, 1485, 1493, 1607. Dominion Register Co. v. Hall et al., Donaghy v. O’Cain, 925. Donald v. McManus, 5387. Donaldson v. Collins, 508. Donaldson v. Defoy, 108, 110. Donkin v. Disher, 1304. Donelly, Re, 951. Donnelly, Watson & Brown Ltd. v. Roberts, 1877. Donogh v. Moore, 539. Donohue v. Recorder’s Court, 576, 691. Dool v. Robinson, 2066. Doran v. Labrador Pulp & Lumber Co., 1950. Dorchester Electric Co. v. Roy, 2224. Dorion v. Phenix Bridge & Iron Works, 1452, Dorlia v. Filiatrault, 1238. Dorman v. Crapper, 2111. Dorward, Re, 2290. Doucet v. Lanoix, 547. Dougherty & Goudy’s Case, 430, 431. Doughty v. Dobbs, 73. Douglas v. Bullen, 2008, 2011. Douglas v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 1185. Douglas v. Carrington, 1172. Douglas v. Douglas, 552. Douglas Bros v. Acadia Fire Ins. Co., 1085, 1770. Douglas Bros., Ltd. v. Auten & Schultz, 275. Douglas v. Young, 1709. Doyle, Ex p., 1127. Doyle Estate, Re, 2257. Drainville v. Savoie, 23, 918, 920. Draper v. Bielby, 2132. Drinkle v. Steedman, 2139. Drolet v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1821. Drolet v. Denis, 1574, 1607. Drouet v. Blane, 584. 338, xviii Drouin v. Ambrose, 46, Drouin v. Auger, 78. Drouin v. Laliberte, 1370. Drouin vy. Perron, 205, 760. Druid Station Location, Re, 1847. Drummond, Re, 2264. Dube v. Mann, 540. Dube v. Montreal, 1520. Dubeau, Re, 641. Dubeau v. Ducharme, 831. Dubeau v. Greffe, 2095, 2103. : Dubeau v. Queen City Realty Co., 909. Dubeau v. Bros. of Charity, 987. Dubee v. Vipond, 105, 111. Dubois v. Dufresne, 2100. Dubreuil v. Aboud, 1472. Dubreuil v. Labelle, 292, 295. Dubuc v. Desautels, 2272. Dubuc v. Laroche, 907. Duchaine v. Dussault, 1177, 1449. Duchaine v. Yamaska, 1145, 1441. Ducharme v. Bazinet, 1284. Ducharme v. Henault, 200, 201. Ducharme v. Magog, 595. Duchesne v. Montreal & Can. North. Que. Rw. Co., 1278, 1648. Duchesneau v. Can. Nor. Rw. Co., 324, 1802. Duclos v. Sparrow, 286. Ducondu v. Berthelet, 1160. Ducout v. Forget, 1065. Dudemaine v. Pelletier, 908, 1740, 1741. Duench v. Ford, 967. Duff v. Lane, 1960. Duffy v. Mathieson & McDonald, 779, 1973. Dufresne v. Caisse, 1167. Dufresne v. Desforges, 35, 127. Dufresne v. Dubois, 2204. Dufresne v. Hudon, 1728, Dufresne v. Villani, 206. Dugas v. Castonguay, 1046, Dugas v. Macfarlane, 163. Duggan v. Quebec & Saguenay Ry. Co., 121. Duggan v. Trenholme, 227. Duggan v. Wadleigh, 1359. Duguay v. Canada Iron Corp., 1452. Duhamel v. Pelletier, 1891. Dulac v. Lauzon, 498. Dumont v. Fraser, 1989, 2223. Dumphy v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co., 1520, 1976. Dunbar & Sons Co., Re, 439. Dundas v. Osment, 966. Dunlop v. Bolster, 2125. Dunlop v. Canada Foundry Co., 1581. Dunlop v. Colonial Engineering Co., 590. Dunn v. Alexander, 2077. Dunn v. Dominion Bank, 1780, 1788. Dunn v. Gibson, 1939. Dunn & Eastern Trust Co. v. Eaton, 537. Dunsmuir v. Colonist Printing Co., 367, 387. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Dunsmuir v. Mackenzie, 532. Dupere v. London & Lancashire Life Assce. Co., 118. Dupius v. Montreal, 1288. Duplessis v. Montreal, 69. Dupont v. Rigler, 573. Dupont v. St. Helen, 1435. Duquette v. Metropolitan Life Assce. Co., 1091. Durand v, Excelsior Life Ins. Co., 812, 2017. Durant v. Huestis & Tuplin, 877. Durie v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1545. Durocher v. Girouard, 10, 878, 984. Durocher v. Kinsella, 1461. Durocher v. Lapointe, 1011. Duryea v. Kaufman, 1676. Duval v. Guay, 1651. Duval v. Joubert, 995. Duval v. Madeleine, 1447. Duval v. O’Beirne, 582. Dykeman, Ex p., 1115. Dynes v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1538. E. Eadie-Douglas v. Hitch & Co., 1327. Eagle v. Meade, 1498, 1627. East Canada Pulp & Power Co., Re, 425. Eastern Construction Co. v. J. D. McAr- thur Co., 1702. Bastern Construction Co. v. National Trust Co., 1995. : Eastern Townships Bank v. Alliance Assn. Co., 200. Eastern Trust Co. v. Fraser, 2288. Baston v. Sinclair, 2074. Eaton v. Dunn, 549. Ebeling v. Bucknell, 792. Eby v. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., 1797. Eckels v. Piche, 312. Economical Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Berlin, 171. Ecroyd v. Rodgers, 2182. Edbourg v. Imperial Timber and Trading Co. & Royal Bank of Canada, 250. Eddles & Winnipeg School Board, Re, 1458. Edgar v. Caskey, 2165. Hdgerley & Hotrum, Re, 2291. Edgeworth v. Allen, 1785. Edmonds v. Edmonds, 1010. Edmondson v. Allen, 2031. Edmonton v. Edmonton Yukon & Pacific Rw. Co., 1820. Edmonton Construction Co. v. Maguire, 2151. Edmonton Dunvegan & British Columbia Rw. Co., Re, 1829. Edmonton Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 1364. Edmonton Provincial. Election, Re, 837. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Edmonton Securities Ltd. v. Lepage, 1729. Edmonton Steam Shovellers, Lid. v. John Gunn & Sons, 1888. Edmonton Vinegar Co. v. Friedrichs, 1562. Edmonton & Calgary & Edmonton Rw. Co., Re, 1820. Edmonton & Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 127, 1814, 1817, 1846. Edwards v. Little Seminary of Marie de Monnoir, 901. Edwards v. Public School Board S. S. Ox- ford, 507. Eggerson v. Smith, 602. Eggerton v. Nicastro, 780. Hisenhauer v. Mackay, 71. f£eisenstein v. Lichman, 2159. Hisler v. Canadian Fairbanks Co., 1907. Eldredge v. Calumet Metals Co., 370. Elford & Cornish v. Thompson, 490. Elgin City Banking Co. v. Mawhinney, 274. Eliasoph v. Razar, 759. Eliot, Re, 2289. Elliott v. Gibson, 61, 86. Elliot v. Hatzic Prairie Ltd., 14, 408, 568. Elliott v. McLean & McLean, 1114. Ellis v. Bllis, 995, 1025. Ellis v. Fruchtman, 1303. Ellis v. Zilliax, 2178. Emard v. Gauthier, 1323. Emerson v. Montreal St. Rw. Co., 820. Emerson v. Quinn, 2083. Emmerson v. Ford McConnell, 567. Emmons v. Dymond Colonial Co., 612. Empire Accident & Surety Co. (Barton’s Case), 431. Empire Accident & Surety Co., Re Faill’s Case, 431. Empire Limestone Company v. Carroll, 1224. Empire Limestone Co. v. McCarroll, 1276. Empire ‘Sash & Door Co. v. Maranda, 220. Empire Sash & Door Co. v. McGreevy, C. P. R. Garnishees, 1111. Employers, Htc., Co. v. United, Etc., Co., 586. Enkema v. Cherry, 2124, 2162. Entwistle, Re, 1803. Entwistle, and Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1846. : Epstein v. Lyons, 2250. Ericsson v. Marlatt, 90. Eriesson Mfg. Co. v. Elk Lake Telephone and Telegraph Co., 1882. Errikkila v. McGovern, 188. Erskine, Re; 2275. Esquimalt Waterworks Co. v. Victoria, 2229, Ethier v. Poirier, 151; Etobicoke v. Ontario Brick Paving Co., 1630. Ettenberg v. Aronson, 2204. XIX Ettenberg v. Desroches, 500. Euclid Avenue Trusts v. Hohs, 992, 1027. Evans, Re, an Infant, 1043. Evans v. Bonneau, 2103. Evans v. Evans, 27, 45, 585, 890. Evans & McLay, Re, 2218. Evans v. Norris, 2163. Evans v. Railway Passenger Assce. Co., 1068. Evanturel v, Evanturel, 1629, 2299. Excelsior Lumber Co. v. Ross, 1984. Evel v. Bank of Hamilton, 16, 1686. Everett v. Schaake Machine Works, 1603. Everly v. Dunkley, 578, 616, 2295. Ewing v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1543. Express Traffic Assn. v. Canadian Mfrs. Assn. & Boards of Trade of Toronto, Montreal & Winnipeg, 322. F. Fairchild, Re, 2283. Fairbanks v. Mussen, 2108. Fairchild Co. v. Hammond, 1884. Fairweather v. Canadian General Elec- tric Co., 1574, 1593. Falconer v. Jones, 1455, 1599. Fallis v. Dalthaser, 547. False Creek Flats Arbitration, Re, 134, 135. False Creek Lumber Co. v. Sloan, 1326. Farah v. Capital Mfg. Co., 969. Farmers’ Bank of Canada, Re, 253. Farmers’ Bank v. Heath, 1785. Farmers’ Bank v. Security Life Assce. Co., 1786. Farmers’ Bank v. Todd, 237. Farquarson v. Farquarson, 1956, 2287. Farquhar v. Royce, 2066. Farquharson v Barnard Argue Roth Stearns Oil & Gas Co., 772. Farquharson v. Can, Pac. Rw. Co., 1502. Farquharson v. Imperial Oil Co., 2213. Farquharson v. Stewart, 1672. Farr v. Groat, 1318. Farrell, Re, 107. Farrell Estate, Re, 2260. Farrell v. Fitch, 1342, 1996. Farrow v. Gardner, 1309. Fauteaux v. Ethier, 846. Fearing Whiton Mfg. Co. v. Melzer, 1160. Fecteau v. Ideal Confectionery Co., 425. Federal Can. Co. v. Whittal, 568. Federenko, Re, 957. Fee v. Macdonald Mfg. Co., 332. Fee v. Tisdale, 762. Feigleman v. Montreal St. Rw. Co., 895. Felson v. Boudreau, 571. Felt Gas Compressing Co. v. Felt, 459, 1675. XX NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Fenske v. Farbacher, 2187. Fenson v. Shore, 544. ; Ferguson v. Anderson, 2206, Ferguson v. Brick & Supplies Ltd., 1562. Ferguson v. Eyre, 2022. Ferguson ». Hayward, 84. Ferguson & Hill, Re, 1367. Ferguson v. Swedish Canadian Lumber Co., 2036. Ferland v. Ranfall, 1486. Fernand v. Metropolitaa Life Ins. Co, 1094. “3 Fernie District Fire Relief Committee v. Bruce, 1656. Fernie & Michel Rw. Co., 1529. Ferrara v. Bligh, 67. Fialowski v. Fialowski, 1199. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Buchner, 1091. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Schneider, 901. Field v. Richards, 1051, 1066. Fillingham, Re, 2271. Findlay v. Falconer, 1240. Finlayson v. O’Brien, 26. Fine v. Creighton, 2153. Finlayson v. O’Brien, 543. Finseth v. Ryley Hotel Co., 128. Fire Valley Orchards Ltd. v. Sly, 369. First National Bank v. Avitt, 1701. First National Bank v. Curry, 270. First National Bank of Iowa City v. Rooney, 271. Fiset v. Larue, 950. Fisher v. Anderson, 595. Fisher v. Doolittle, 2008. Fisher v. Jukes, 126, 895. Fisher v. Kowslowski, 2079. Fisher v. McLeod, 1653. Fisher v. Murphy, 1617. Fisher v. Theriault, 266. Fitchett v. Fitchett, 1002. Fitzgerald v. Chapman, 1052. Fitzgerald v. Williamson, 1328. Fitzmartin v. Newbury, 878. Fitzsimon v. Walker, 1744. Flantz v. Wills, 1161. Fleming v. McNeill, 2010. Fleming v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1535, 2032. Fletcher v. Holden, 1769. Fletcher v. Roblin, 1263. Flett Ltd. v. World Bldg. Ltd., 1319. Fleurquin v. Pilon, 2017. Flitton v. Stange, 1633. Flocks v. Can. North. Coal & Ore Docks Co., 1568. Foisy v. Lord, 1266. Fonseca v. Jones, 319. Fontaine v. Maillet, 15, 577. Foran v. Martel, 2159. Forbes v. Forbes, 594, 1017. Ford v. Canadian Express Co., 1287. Fordham v. Hall, 90, 1361. Fore Street Warehouse Co. v. Vandelin- der, 1155, Forest v. Home Ins. Co., 1084. Forget v. Simmeler, 47. Forman v. Ryan, 2293, 2295. Forrester v. Lafontaine, 1275. Forster v. Hale, 1672. Forster & Medicine Hat, Re, 15, 1415. Fort Frances Assessment, Re, 167. Fort George Lumber Co., Re, .427. Fort George Lumber & Navigation Co., Re, 444. Fort William Commercial Chambers Ltd. v. Braden, 383. Fort William Commercial Chambers Ltd. v. Perry, 382. Fort William Commercial Chambers Ltd. » v. Thomas Edgar ‘Dean, 382. Fortier v. Michaud, 215. Fortier v. Tanguay, 72. Fortin v. Perras, 487, 519. Forward & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1844. Foss Lumber Co. v. R., 1864. , Foster v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1793. Foster v. Mitchell, 1663. Foster v. Moss, 1244. Foster v. Reno, 159, 166. Foster v. United States, Etc., Co., 587. Fournel v. Ottawa, 1139. Fournier v. Comrs. 739. Fournier v. Noel, 1711. Fox v. Reid, 2145. Fox v. Ross, 1260, 2012. Fox v. Selkirk Land & Investment Co., 387. Foxwell v. Kennedy, 32, 948. Frank v. Forman, 7. Frank v. Gazelle Live Stock Assoc., 272. Frankel & Winnipeg, Re, 1299. Fraser, Michael, Re, 1279. Fraser v, Byers Allen Lumber Co., 1157. Fraser v. Byers Allen Co., 1108. Fraser v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 349. Fraser v. Dumont, 1498, 2230. Fraser v. Ekstron & Massey, 281, 1114. Fraser v. Grand Trunk Pac. Branch Lines Co., 1960. Fraser v. Imperial Bank of Canada, 251, - 351. Fraser v. Kirkpatrick, 761. Fraser v. Nowe, 2159. Fraser v. Woods, 769. Frechette v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1451. Frechette v. St. Maurice, 2244. Frederiksen v. Stanton & Richards, 2115. Fredette v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co.. 1505. Freedy, Re, 2301. Freeman v. Bank of Montreal, 242. Freeman v. De Blois, 752. Freeman v, Freeman, 586. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Fremont v. Fremont, 1003. French, Re, 888, 1209, 1958. Frencier v. Beaudry, 68. Freniere v. Beaudry, 82. Friedenberg v. Bailey, 708. Friedman v. Mayer, 2061. Friedman v. Podvol, 118. Friedenberg v. Eaves, 703. Frigon v. Massicotte, 797. Frith v. Alliance Investment Co., 2179. Fritz v. Jelfs, 595, 750, 1706. Frost & Wood Co. v. Ebert, 1930. Frost & Wood Co. v. Howes, 592. Frost & Wood Co. v. Leslie, 1169. Frost & Wood v. Roe, 923. Fruitatives, Ltd. v. La Compagnie Phar- maceutique De La Croix Rouge Ltd., 2001. Fry, Re, 2292, Fry v. Yates, 1763. Fuerst v. Beamolt, 151. Fuerster v. Aebig, 555. Fuller v. Beach, 1315. Fuller v. Bonis, 1639. Fuller v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1827. Fuller v. Maynard, 2176. Fuller v. Northern Light Power & Coal Co., 391. Fuller v. Turner & Beach, 1318. Fullerton Lumber & Shingle Co. Ltd. & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1806. Fullerton Lumber & Shingle Co. & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1807. Fumerton v. Richardson, 2208. Funk v. Simonson, 2101. Furness v. Todd, 1352. Fyckes v. Chisholm, 1278. Fyles v. Miner, 1012. Fysh v. Armstrong, 2056. G. Gaar Scott Co. v. Mitchell, 1874, 1905. Gaar Scott Co. v. Ottoson, 1899. Gabais v. Bouthillier, 284. Gabias v. Baigne, 1668. Gadsden v. Bennetto; 363. Gagne v. Cie d’Entreprises giques, 1486. Gagne v. Cloutier, 82. Gagne v. Dominion Chemical Co., 1487. Gagnon y. Bedard, 586, 765. Gagnon v. Corp. of St. Raphael, 1429. Gagnon v. Cousineau, 112. Gagnon v. Demers, 1467, 1574. Gagnon v. Haileybury, 1617. Gagnon v. Lapointe, 1382. Gagnon v. Pilote, 911. Gagnon v. St. Maurice Lumber Co., 10. Metallur- XX1 Gainor & Co. v. Anchor Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1076, 1086. Galpraith, Re, 2280. Galbraith v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1554. Galbraith v. McDougall, 1661. Galbraith v. Shepherd, 868. Galienne v. Letellier, 783, 1405. Gallagher, Re, 329. Gallagher v. Chauveau, 326. Gallagher v. Freedman, 1873. Gallagher v. Ketchum & Co., 563. Gallagher v. Ontario Sewer Pipe Co., 24, 778, Gallant v. Grayson, 932. Gallore v. Malcolm, 26. Galt, G. F. & J. Ltd. v. Cronsberry, 1667. Garand v. West, 256, 257. Garbutt v. Marshall, 1669. Gardiner & District Registrar at Nelson Re, 1860. Gardiner v. Ware, 1253. Gardner, Re, 57. Gardner v. Eaton, 1782. Garland v..O’Reilly, 980. Garland v. R., 734. Garneau v. Gauthier, 697. Garrett v. Gibbons, 971. Garvey v. Massey, 2108. Gas Power Agency Limited v. Central Garage Co., 28, 1651. Gascoyne v. Dinnick, 814. Gast v. Moore, 193. Gatineau Macadamized & Gravel Road Co. v. Geo. Matthews Co., 2246. ; Gatto v. Toronto, 1520. - Gaudet v. ‘Dupaul, 6. Gaudet v. Megantic, 1402. Gaudet v. Simpson, 872. Gauthier v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1840, 1844, Gauthier v. Rousseau, 207. Gedge v. Lindsay, 962. Geers v. Nestman, 1287. Gelinas v. Finkelstein & Lafond, 118. Gelinas v. Tremblay, 909. Geller v. Benner, 576. Geller v. Loughrin, 34, 450, 1186, 1188, 1190. Genereux v. Binet, 1758. Genereux v. Bruneau, 128. Genereux v. St. Pie, 827. General Administration Society, Re, 156. Genois v. Larouche, 965. George, Re, 1280. George v. Howard, 1748: George v. Humphrey Bros., 2227, 2228. George v. Mitchell, 2227, 2228. Georgian Land & Building Co., Re., 2199. Gerbracht v. Bingham, 2021. Germain v. Maisonneuve, 1464. XXii Gertzbein v. Bell, 2162. Gervais v. Boudreau, 1051. Gervais v. Costello, 1503. Gervais v. Douglass, 206. Giasson v. School Comrs. West, 1936. Gibb v. Beacon Life & Fire Assurance Co., 106, 583. Gibbons Ltd. v. Berliner Gramaphone Co. 97, 1783, 1784. Gibbons v. Cannell, Re, 1296. Gibbons v. Douglas & Bumstead, 313.. Giberson, Ex p., 1189. Giberson v. Toronto Construction Co., 554, 886. Gibson, Re, 1281. Gibson v. Carter, 1175. Gibson v. Drennan, 27. Gibson v. Hawes, 108, 473. Gibson v. Stevenson, 27. Gibson & Toronto, Re, 1416. Gibson v. Verrall, 47. Gibson v. West Luther, 828. Gidney & Armstrong, Re, 944. Gidney v. Morgan, 500. Gignac v. North Shore Rw. Co., 1275. Giguere v. Frechette, 1462. Gilbert, Re, 2266. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2257. Gilbert v.:Store, 1767. Gilbert v. Ullerich, 1367. Giletz v. Runham, 2133. Gill v. Yorkshire Insurance Co., 1104. Gillespie, Re, 215. Gillespie v. Clover Bar Coal Co., 378. Gillespie v. Wells, 2176. Gillies v. Almonte, 864. Gillis Supply Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Rw. Co., 1804. Gilmore v. Callies, 917. Gilmore v. Griffs, 1672. Gilmour & Hughson v. Bank of Ottawa, 1999, 2215. Gilpin v. Hazel Jules Cobalt ‘Silver Min- ing Co., 1783. Gilroy v. Conn, 932. Gimli Provincial Election, Re, 842, 843. Gingras v. Belanger, 82. Girard v, Brunet, 1246. Girouard v. Durocher, 6. Giroux v. Allaire, 548. Gissing v. Haton Co., 4, 1521. Gladston v. Slayton, 1018. Glenn v. Schaffer, 751, 1890. Glickman v. Montreal St. Rw. Co., 817. Gloutnay v. Davignon, 551. Glover & Sam Kee, Re, 1425. Gloy Adhesives, Ltd., Re, 438. Godbout v. St. Laurent, 867. Godchere Estate, Re, 936. Goddard v. Slingerland, 833. of Farnham NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Godkin v. Watson, 2042. Godson & Casselman, Re, 2192. Godson v. McLeod, 518. Gold v. Maldaver, 354. Gold Medal Furniture Co. v. Stephenson, 986, 1180, 1778. Gold & Rowe, Re, 772. Goldberg v. Grossberg, 1372. Goldfields Ltd. & Harris Maxwell Co., Re, 390, 1686. Goldfields v. Mason, 394. Goldsmith v. Harnden, 2282, 2304. Goldstein v. Allard, 1265. Goldstein v. Heft, 277. Goldstein v. Vancouver Timber & Trad- ing Co., 41. Gonyea v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1563. Good v. Bescoby, 2062, 2158. Good & Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Re, 1255, 1257. Goodall v. Clarke, 99. Goodchild v. Sandwich, Windsor & Am- herstburg Rw. Co., 1529. Goode v. Buro, 2156. Goodfriend v. Goodfriend, 996. Goodwin v. Michigan Central Rw. Co., 1496. Gordean v. Douglas, 1171. Gordon, Re, 52, 53, 182, 1191, 2256, 2280. 1458, Gordon v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1540. Gordon v. Gordon, 1669. Gordon v. Gowling, 487, 1905. Gordon v. Holland, 2045. Gordon v. Hopgood, 1665. Gordon v. St. John, 1233. Gorman, Ex p., 1115. Gormley v..Deblois, 753. Gosselin v. Garceau, 856. Goudet v. Vincent, 1108. Goudreau v. Montmagny, 114. Gould v. Ferguson, 1965. Goulding v. Slezinger, 779. Gourdeau v. Quebec & Bernier, 1410. Gourre v. Voskobonik, 277. Gower v. Glen Woollen Mills, 1577, 1595. Gowganda Mines v. Smith, 385. Grace v. Osler, 511. Graf v. Lingerell, 1113. Graham, Re, 981. , Graham v. Bigelow, 487, 904, 1890. Graham Co. v. Canada Brokerage L4d., 1869. Graham v. Graham, 2070. Graham v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1550. Graham v. Macdonald, 1740. Graham Island Collieries Ltd v. Macleod, 380. Grahn v. Litwin, 317. Gramm Motor Truck Co. v. Fisher Motor Co., 2008. ‘ NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Granby School Comrs., etc. v. Lessard, 1689. Grand v. Cote, 583. Grand Council Provincial Workmen's As- sociation v. McPherson, 1277. Grand Falls, Ex p., 161, 775. Grand Mere v. Balcer, 119. Grand Mere Electric Co. v. Public Util- ities Commission, 835. Grand Trunk Pac. Branch Lines, Re, 1200, 1796.. Grand Trunk Pac. Devel. Co., Re, 1197. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1798, 1846. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. v. R. Re, Guaran- tee of Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Bonds, 1852. Grank Trunk Pac. Rw. Co. & Ft. Sas- katchewan Trail, Re, 1814, 1818. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. v. Ft. William Land Owners, 1821. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co. v. Ft. William Landowners & Ft. William Land In- vestment Co., 1819. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co. Station Loca- tion at South Hazelton, Re, 1847. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Station Site, Re, 1844, Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co. v. White, 737. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. & Anderson, 144. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. & Ash, Re, 144. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. Atty.-Gen. for Can., 465, 746, 1850, 1975, 1976. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. Garceau, 602. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. McAlpine, 1481, 1811. : Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. McDonell, 1489. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. MeSween, 1530. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. v. Marleau, 1450. Grand Valley Rw. Co. & Edward B. Stock- dale, 1356. Granger v. Sicotte, 1014. Grant v. Bradley, 1310. Grant v. Carr, 1382. Grant v. McLennan, 840. Grant v. Taylor, 120. Grant v. Von Alvensleben, 1721. Gratton v. Banque d’Hochelaga, 236, 939, 1679. Gravel v. Limoges, 71. Gravel v. Pare, 777. Graves & Tentler, Re, 139. Gray, Re, 1038. Gray v. Balkwill, 987. Gray v. Buchan, 303. Gray v. Employers’ Liability Assce. Co., 985. Gray v. Grand ‘Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Co., 1828. Gray v. Perley, 1982. Graydon v. Gorrie, 2176. Xxiil Great Northern Rw. Co. v. Furness, Withy & Co., 324. Great West Life v. Shields, 815. Great West Life Assurance Co. v. Leib, 1877. Great West Life Assce. Co. v. Whitche- low, 579. Great West Permanent Loan Co. v. Bade- noch, 1032. Great West Supply Co. v. Installations Ltd., 417. : Great Western Rw. Co. v. Braid, 105, 890, 1556, 1853, 2033. Greaves v. Carruthers, 1271. Greece v. Greece, 2202. Green Caveat, Re, 2065. Green v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1956. Green: v. Standard Trusts Co., 1099. Greenlaw v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1795. Greenwood v. Bancroft, 1226 Greer v. Armstrong, 1915. Greer v. Dennison, 1871. Greer v. Greer, 43. Gregson v. Law & Barry, 1039. Greig v. Merritt, 2242. Gremley v. Stubbs, 74. Grenier v. Simoneau, 1667. Grey v. Buchan, 1159. Grice v. Bartram, 487, 1703. Griese v. Walker, 928. Griffin, Re, 939. Griffin v. Blake, 1161. Griffin v. Ruller, 81, 582. Griffith v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1526. Griffiths v. Wallace, 1673. Grills v. Canadian General Securities Co., 817, 820. Grimsby Beach Amusement Co. v. Grand Trunk & Hamilton, Grimsby & Beams- ville Elec. Rw. Cos., 1814. Grimshaw v. Toronto, 1419. Grip Limited v. Drake, 28, 1714. Grocers Wholesale Co. v. Bostock, 1965. Grocock v. Edgar Allen Co., 809, 1301, 1641, 2040. Grondin v. Tisi, 1779. Gross v. Strong, 1121. Gross Real Estate Agency v. Racicot, 1730. Groteau v. Victoriaville Furniture Co., 1484. Grothe v. Canada Line, 324. Grothe v. Garceau, 936. Groudines v. Portneuf, 2237. Groulx v. Sicotte, 110. Groundwater v. Waterman, 2234. Guardian Fire & Life Assce. Co. v. Quebec Rw. Light & Power Co., 1079. Guay v. Duval, 878. Guay v. Gall, etc., Co., 1999. Guelph v. Jules Motor Co., 1777. XXIV Guenard v. Coe, 368, 1705. Guerin v. Davis, 1660. Guerin v. Laprairie, 874. Guertin v. Montreal, 1448. Guertin v. Papineau, 491. Guest’ v. Boston, 2166. Guest v. Hamilton, 1895, 1413. Guest v. Linden, 1326. Gugy v. Brown, 568, 1964. Guilbert v. St. Jean, 1001. Guillette v. Moreau, 2198. Guimond, Ex p., 677, 1127. Guimond v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. 1081, 1087. Guise Bageley v. Vigars-Shier Lumber Co., 1221, 2170. Gullivan v. Strevel, 1721. Gundy v. Johnston, 1172, 1967, 1968. Gunn v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 74. Gunn & Sons v. Hudson’s Bay Co., 48. Gunn v. Miller, 67. , Gunn v. Vinegratsky, 224. ,Gurney v. Braden, 3. Gustafson v. Ennis, 1339. Gwynne, Re, 2259. 2 H. Ha! Ha! Bay Rw. Co. v. Coulombe, 602. Ha! Ha! Bay Rw. Co. v. Larouche, 1838. Hackett v. The Ship Blakeley, 1944. Hackett v. Standish, 607. Hades v. Edmundson, 24, 64. Hadley v. Westman, 1433. Haensgen v. Demers, 37. Haffner v. Grundy, 1744. Hagen v. Fisk, 990. Hagel, Re, 1959. Hagen v. Stewart, 1022. Haggerty v. Latreille, 2226. Haines v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1811. Haines v. McKay, 2041. Hair v. Meaford, 862. Haldimand v. Bell Telephone Co., 1383. Hale v. Tompkins, 80. Halifax Automobile Co., Ltd. v. Redden, 908, 1918. Halifax v. Nova Scotia Car Works, 167. Halifax Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 125. Hall v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1547. Hall v. Slocomb, 1862. Hall v. Stone, 1637. Hall v. Welman, 2110. Hall v. Wildman, 940, 2052. Halliday v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1306. Halliday v. Halliday, 1001. Hallren v. Holden, 2036. Hallvorson v. Bowes, 1664. Halparin v. Bullin, 1307, 1620. Halter & Co. & Goody, Re, 1309. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Ham v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1490. Hamann vy, Galbraith, 2147. Hammans v. McDonald, 1725. Hamel v. Ross, 1267. Hamel v, School Comrs., 1933. Hamelin v. Pepin, 2249. Hamilton, Re, 2252, 2269. Hamilton Estate, Re, 2044. Hamilton Co. Ltd. S. A. & Can, Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1854. Hamilton Mfg. Co. Ltd., Re, Hall’s Case, 441. Hamilton v. Church, 1011. Hamilton v. Isaacson, 268. Hamilton v. McCuaig, 915, Hamilton v, Perry, 614, 1028. Hamilton v. R., 737. Hamilton v. Vineberg, 507, 517. Hamilton v. Smythe, 1912. Hamilton v. York & Baldry, 2203. Hampton v. Macadam, 1332. Hand Fireworks Co. v. Baikie, 545. Handel v. O’Kelly, 2178. Handfield v. College of Physicians & Surgeons, 1334. Handrahan v. Buntain, 965. Haney v. Miller, 1672. Haney v. Winnipeg & North. Rw. Co., 1828. : Hanna v. Frooks, 914. Hannesdottir v. Bifrost, 183. Hansen v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 108, 747, 1487, 1557. Harbec v. Menard, 756. Harbour Comrs. of Quebec v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 2222, — Harbour Comrs. v. Record Foundry, eté., Co., 478. Hardaker, Re, 191, 329. Hardie v. Hardie, 1008. Hardwick v. Kinney, 1693. Hargrave v. Hart, 1477. Harker v. Oakville, 97, 1655. Harley v. Canada Life Assce. Co., 1089. Harmony Pulp Co. v. Delong, 12, 881. Harnovis & Hercovish v. Calgary, 1526. Harquail Co. v. Roy, 1893, 1894. Harrington, Ex p., 1117, 1118. Harris v. Dunsmuir, 2. Harris v. Bliott, 1702, 2211. Harris v. Gottselig & Williams, 1480. Harris v. Hickey & Gardiner, 1288. Harrison, Re, 2260. Harrison Hstate, Re, 2268. Harrison v. Knowles, 595, 1921, 2209. Harrison v. Mader, 131. Harrison v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co., 280, 376, 426, 1883. Harris Maxwell, Larder Lake Mining Co. v. Goldfields Ltd., 31, 1699. Hart, Re, 1043. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Hart v. Bank of British North America, 269, 277. Hart v. Brown, 1061. Hart v. Furness, Whitby & Co., 319. Hart v. Plante, 2302. Hart v. Rye, 917. Hart Parr Co. v. Worth, 1168. Hartney v. Boulton, 199. Harvey, Re, 1094. Harvey v. Farnell, 202. Harvey v. Parton, 887. Hastings, Re, 939. : Hastings v. Dunbar, 579. Hatfield v. Can. Pac, Rw. Co., 886. Hatfield v. Healy, 473. Hatfield v. Imperial Bank, 248. Hatfield v. McCrohan, 260. Hatzie Prairie Co. Ltd., Re, 418. Havelock School District No. 8 v. Con- nely, 1328. Havner v. Weyl, 1758. Haug Bros. & Nellermoe Co, Ltd. v. Baade, 1870. Haug Bros. & Nellermoe Co. utd. v. Blair, 1889. Hawes v. Fulton, 53. Hawes, Gibson & Co. v. Hawes, 804, 805, 903. Hawkes v. Whaley Royce, 1053. Hawkins v. Halifax, 1414. Hawthorne v. O’Borne, 6, 907, 1279. Hay, Re, 2280. Hay & Cote, 818. Hay & Lailey v. Robinson, 1173. Hay v. Sutherland, 1786. Hayes, Ex p., 1118. Hayes v. Harshaw, 1806. Hayes v. Hayes, 1008. Haynes v. Vansickle, 801. Hayward & Dodds v. Graham, 1877. Head v. Stewart, 1161. Healey-Page-Chaffons, 2038, 2105. Healey v. Home Bank, 231. Healey v. Victoria, 1422. Heater v. Anderson, 1943. Heath v. Escanaba Mfg. Co., 308. Heath v. Oliver, 1644. Heaton v. Flater, 1727. Hebert v. Arnold, 991. Hebert v. Can. Resort & Devel. Co., 121. Hebert v. Larue, 1067. Hebert v. Latour, 911. Hebert v. Lamoine, 1440. Hebert v. Montreal Harbour Comrs., 1301. Hebert v. Poirier, 259. Hebert v. Rondeau, 207. Hebert v. St. Michel, 166, 873. Heddle v. Bank of Hamilton, 1277. aa v. Crow’s Nest Pass Lumber Co., 95. Ltd. v. Bailey, Vv, v v “Hill v. v v v v XXV Heimbach v. Grauel, 2075. Heintzman & Co. v. Rundle, 1899. Heisler v. Connors, 563. Heitner & Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., Re, 1101. Heller v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1538. Helson v. Morrisey, 1529. Henault v. Bourgeau, 1715. Henault v. Fauteux, 996. Henderson v. Armstrong, 37. Henderson v. McGinn, 1658. Henderson v. West Nissouri, 1932. Henn v. Smith, 795. Hennenfest v. Malchose, 333. Hennessey v. Dowling, 2018. Henningsen Produce Co. v. 1872. Henry v. Hodge, 26. Hepburn v. Beattie, 781. Hepburn v. Mutch, 1775. Herbert v. Bell, 1716. Herbert v. Clouatre, 21, 1017. Herbert v. Herbert, 153. Herbert v. Vivian, 1745, 1750. Heroux v. Court of Sessions, 153. Herrick v. Sixby, 291, 770, 1262. Herron v. Como, 1722. Herron v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1524, 1530. Hertlein v. Hertlein, 784. Herviau v. Benoit, 1012. Hess v. Ross, 970. Hessey v. Quinn, 577, 1243. Hetu v. Lanoraie, 1429. Hetherington, Re, 943. Hewitt, Re, 1261. Hewitt Allan Co. v. Adams, 1056. Hewitt v. Grand Orange Lodge of British America, 1072. Hickey v. Bedard, 1045. Hicks v. Laidlaw, 2138. Hicks v. Smith’s Falls Electric Power Co., 1458, 1596. Hilborn v. Reilly, 1785. Poggiolli, Hill v. Bible, 2042. Hill v. Forget, 216. Hill v. Handy, 1372. Hill v. Johnson, 997. Ledoux, 487. Hill Hill . Rice Lewis, 1916, 1924. . Simmonds, 131, 154. Hill v. Stait, 344. Hill v. Starr Mfg. Co., 365, 447. Hill v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 1534. Hilty Lumber Co. v. Thessalon Lumber Co. & Traders Bank, 1986. Hind v. Westbrook, 928. Hindus & Immigration Act, Re, 56. Hines v. Park Realty Co., 2198. Hirtle v. King, 568, 991. Hirtle v. Knox, 689, 1291. Hitchcock v. Sykes, 2160. XXVi Hitchin v. British Columbia Sugar Re- fining Co., 1450. Hobbs & Toronto, Re, 1391. Hobkirk v. Lasalle, 860. Hobson Hstate, Re, 944. Hochelaga Bank v. Hall, 252. Hodder v. Lee, 2025. Hodges v. Commercial Travellers Mutual Benefit Society, 409. Hodgins v. Dixon, 1700. Hodgson v. Cowan, 798. Hoffman v. Cohen, 558. Hogg v. Park, 82. Holdday v. Perrin, 1575. Holden v. Ryan, 618, 1397, 2071. Hole v. Simpson, 755. Hole v. Wilson, 2135. Holland v. Hall, 1699, 2036. Hollis Estate, Re, 1045. Holman v. Knox, 12382. Holman & Rea, Re, 712. Holmes v. Holmes, 313, 2142. Holmes v. Lee Ho & Lon Poy, 1781. Holstein v. Knopp, 1252. Holt & Brooks, 1917. Home Bldg. & Savings Assoc. v. Pringle, 1375, 1379, 1880. Home Ins. Co. v. Victoria-Montreal Fire Ins. Co., 1085. Home Bank v. Might Directories Ltd., 1674. Honan v. Parsons, 796. Honsinger v. Honsinger & Small, 2258. Hoodless v. Smith, 1647, 2071. Hooey v. Tripp, 294. Hooper v. Beairsto Plumbing Co., 1576. Hooper v. Smith & Hamilton, 1203. Hoover v. Nunn, 312, 938. Hopfe’s Bail, Re, 694. Hopkins v. Brown, 1648, 1685. Hopkins v. Canadian National Exchange Assoc., 526. Hopkins v. Gooderham, 2035. Hopkins v. Jannison, 1926. Hopper v. Clark, 1285. Horne v. Vancouver, 1429. Horseshoe Quarry Co. & St. Mary’s & Western Ont. Rw. Co., Re, 182. : Horswell v. Campbell, 575, 1369, 1679. Horton v. Maclean, 799. Hoskins, Re, 1129. Hoote v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co. of Can., 1799. Houston v. London & Western Trust Co. Ltd. & Cook, 780. Houde v. Marchand, 1020, 1021. Houghton v. Nicoll, 2116. Houghton Land Corp. v. Ingham, 2078. Houle v. Asbestos & Asbestic Co., 1494. Houle v. Quebec Bank, 2203. Houle v. Scott, 302. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Hounsome. v. Vancouver Power Co., 1823. Howard, Re, 949. Howard v. George, 1727. Howard v. Stewart, 732. Howe, Ex p., 161. Howell v. Hugh Armour & Co., 1223. Howell v. Ironside, 265. Howlett & Bell v. Doran & Galiant, 1313. Howse v. Shaw, 1972. Howse v. Southwold, 1517. Huard v. Feiczewicz, 340. Hubbard v. Gage, 1734. Hubbert v. Home Bank, 278. Huckell v. Pommerville, 292. Huddlestone v. Stewart, 961. Hudgson v. Girardin, 1689. Hudon v. Cool, 1757. Hudson v. Canadian Phoenix Insurance Co., 2205. Hudson v. Napanee River Improvement Co., 1482. Hudson v. Smith’s Falls Electric Power Co., 1447, 1654. Hudson’s Bay Co. v. Kenora, 138. Hudson’s Bay Fire Ins. Co. & Walker, Re, 1078. Hudson’s Bay Mining Co. & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1805. Huegli v. Pauli, 354. Huggard v. Bennette, 991. Hughes v. Exchange Taxicab & Auto- livery, 1617. Hughes v. Montreal, 1519. Hull v. Allen, 11, 12, 40. Hull v. Bergeron, 16. Humberstone & Edmonton, Re, 131. Humphrey & Victoria, Re, 140, 1414. Hunt v. Webb, 1470. Hunter, Re, 2284. Hunter v. Farrell, 523, 2065. Hunter v. Kerr, 2084. Hunter v. Richards, 2220. Hupp v. Can. Pae. Rw. Co., 1792. Hushion & Co. v. Denault, 1869. Hutchcroft v. Leitch, 1474. Hutchins v. B. C. Copper Co., 2017. Hutchinson, Re, 1039, 1044. Hutchinson Co. v. McGowan, 486. Hutchinson v. Twyford, 584. Hutson v. Regina City, 1509. Hutt v. Hutt, 2302. Hyatt v. Allen, 445. Hyde v. Thibaudeau, 425. Hyde v. Webster, 1666, 1672. Hyndman v. Stephens, 2025. I. Imbault v. Crevier, 12, 41. Imperial Hlevator Co. v. Jose, 919. Imperial Elevator & Lumber Co. v. Olive, 1195, 1970. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Imperial Life Assce. Co. v. Audette, 1100. Imperial Oil Co. v. Bashford, 1506. Imperial Paper Mills v. Quebec Bank, 233, 249, 415, 426, 1991. Imperial Rice Milling Co., Re, 1805. Imperial Roofing Co. v. Dick, 509. Imperial Supply Co. v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1676, 1677. Impett v. Ives, 1736. Imrie v. Wilson, 820, 1736, 1743. Independent Cash Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Winterborn, 1756. Independent Lumber Co. v. David, 1226. Independent Lumber Co. v. Gardiner, 576. Industrial Mutual Ins. Co. v. Morency, 1876. Inglis v. Richardson, 811, 1911. Inglis Co. Ltd. John, v. Saskatoon, 1898. Ingraham v. McKay, 1229. Ings v. Ross, 1748. Inkster v. Minitonka School District Trustees, 1935. Inland Investment Co, v. Campbell, 1733. Installations Limited, Re, 417. Insurance Case, 457. International Casualty Co. v. Thomson, 381. International Harvester Co. v. Maxwell, 1175. International Harvester Co. v. Hatelle, 1883. International Home Purchasing Contract Co. & Registrar of Joint Stock Com- panies, Re, 413. Iredale v. Drewery, 504. Ireland v. Andrews, 414. ; Ireson v. Holt Timber Co., 1632. Irish v. Smith, 1336. Irvine v. Hervey, 1670, 1850, 1856. Irvin v. Victoria Home Construction & Investment Co., 1328. Irwin, Re, 2281. Irwin & Campbell, Re, 98, 142. Irwin v. Jung, 816. Irwin v. King Edward Smelting Co., 1166. Irwin v. Stephens, 2040. Irwin, Hawken & Ramsay, Re, 130. Isaac v. Tafler & Guardian Assce. Co., 1082, Ishitaka v. B. C. Land & Invest. Agency, 2007. Italian Mosaic & Marble Co. v. Vokes, 536. J. J. H. Estate of, Re, 2278. Jack v. Kearney, 759, 767. Jackman v. Worth, 28, 813, 1699. Jackson v. Canadian Pac. Rw. Co., 1561. XXVIi Jackson v. Irwin & Billings Co. 2204. Jackson v. Murray, 1163. Jackson v. Pearson, 1347. Jackson v. People’s Trust Co., 476, 2132. Jackson & Savage Ltd. v. Tremblay, 1761. Jacob v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1082. Jacob v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1542. Jacobs v. Wener, 1972. Jacobson v. Pelletier, 2201. Jacques’s Claim, 438. Jacques v. Gelinas, 1405. Jacques Cartier Park Co. v. Quebec, 1976. Jaffray and Cassels v. Imperial Cobalt Co., 304. Jamieson Caveat, Re, 1198. Jamieson v. Gourlay, 484, 750. Jamieson v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 586. Jamieson Meat Co. v. Stephenson, 1658. Jannison, Re, 1092. Jarrett v. Campbell, 102, 2015. Jarvis v. Hall, 1241. Jarvis v. Lamb, 818. Jeannotte v. Jeannotte, 2292. Jenkins v. McWhinney, 1273. Jennison v. Copeland, 2194. Jette v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1462. Jette v. Nantel, 1001. Jetter v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 919. Jewell v. Doran, 125, 564. Jewer v. Thompson, 2191. Jickling, Re, 18. Jocelyn v. Sutherland, 2023. Jodin v. St. Hyacinthe, 859. Johansen v. Anderson, 1587. Johns v. Standard Bank, 241. Johnson, Re, 2256, 2257, 2288. Johnson v. Brown, 933. Johnson v. Farney, 2266, 2283. Johnson v. Henry, 47, 2190. Johnson Bros. v. Hewitt, 882. Johnson Co. v. Imperial Fisheries, 1176. Johnson v. L'Heureux, 267. Johnson v. Merchants Telephone Co., 1513. Johnson Ltd., v. Macrae, 276. Johnson v. Montreal, 1484. Johnson v. Moore, 597, 1286. Johnson’s Co. v. Prothonotary, Johnson v. R. 738. Johnson v. Ranger, 72. Johnston v. Blome, 1476. _Johnston v. Canadian Klondike Co., 1761. Johnston v. Clark & Son, 1625. Johnston v. Dowsett, 972. Johnston v. Halifax, 1448. Johnston v. Johnston, 361, 982. Johnston v. Occidental Syndicate, 1155. Johnston vy. 1680. Mining 589, Thompson, 443. xxviii Johnston v. Tilbury East, 829. Johnston & Carswell Co. v. Despard, 1635. Joiens v. Lockhart, 95. Jolicour v. Cornwall, 607, Jones, Ex p., 1944, Jones, Re, 2280, 2303. Jones v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1454, 1456, 1566. Jones & Cumming, Re, 2194. Jones v. Dickie & Braemer, 1521. Jones v. England, 268. Jones v. Gore, 1708. Jones v, Hamilton Radial Electric Co., 1542, Jones v. Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co., 1545. Jones v. Tuckersmith, 2243. Jones v. Warman, 1008. Jonquieres Pulp Co, v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co., 1184. Joos v. Henschell, 2048. Jordon v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 68, Jordon v. Jordon, 820, 897, 1698. Jouvenat v. Beaudin, 2140. Jubinville, Re, 207. Jubinville v. Kee Foo, 58, 602, 920. Jubinville v. Scott & Browne,- 594. Judge & Sons v. Ship John Irwin, 1954. Juillet v. Leroux, 297. Junic v. Hsterhazy Roman Catholic P. 8, Dist., 180. ; Just & Stewart, Re, 1248. K. Kaiserhof Hotel Co. v. Zuber, 1363. Kalmanovitch v. Muller, 1283. Kalmet v. Keiser, 2034. Kamp v. Albrecht, 2084. Kane v. “John Irwin,” 1957. Karch v. Karch, 998, 1002. Karst v. Cook, 1026. Kastel Hotel Co. v. Recorder’s Court, 327. Kaster v. Corp. of Bailiffs, 200. Kaulbach, Re, 987, 1127. Kaulbach v. Jodrey & Zwicker, 318, 2128. Kay v. Chapman, 1671. Kearney v. Jack, 315. Keay v. Brunner, 1174. Keay v. Regina City, 1397. Keedy v. Daurey, 1990. Keefe, Ex. p., 1126. Keegan v. Banque Nationale, 2103. Keeling v. Brant, 867. Keenan v. Foster, 1983. Keenan Woodware Co. v. Foster, 2207. Keewatin Power Co. v. Kenora, 138. Keitel v, Keitel, 307. Kellett v. B. C. Marine Railways, 1594. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Kelly v. Carrick, 1519. Kelly v. Enderton, 2058, 2148. Kelly v. Holley, 2096. Kelly v. Kelly, 1657, Kelly v. McKenzie, 2018. Kelly v. McLaughlin, 620. Kelly v. Stevenson, 541, 1930. Kelly & Close v. Nepigon Construction Co., 485, 1996. Kelly ‘Douglas Co. v. Sayle & Dick, 1665. Kelly & Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., Re, 1847. Kenna, Re, 591, 1041, 1049. Kennedy, Re, 942. Kennedy v. Can. Fire Underwriters, 1160. Kennedy v. Godmaire, 191, 1366, 1975. Kennedy v. Gorman, 1158. Kennedy v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1592. . Kennedy v. Kennedy v. 2304. Kennedy v. Quebec, etc., Rw. Co., 1808. Kennedy v. Spence, 2178. Kenner v. Proctor, 971. Kennerley v. Hextall, 14, 16, 1723. Kenny, Re., 2280. Kenny v. St. Clements, 826, 828. Kenogami v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co., 2217. Kent & Brown Ltd. v. Brenton, 1942. Kerley v. London & Lake Erie Rw. & Transportation Co., 462, 470. Kern v. Tamblyn, 282. Kerr v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1501. Kerr Co. v. Lowe, 582. Kerr Co., Ltd. v. Seely, 95, 2224. Kerr v. Suter, 51. 4 Kesner v. Lang, 2131. Ketcheson & Can. North. Ont. Rw. Co., Re, 124, 180, 951, 1838. Ketchum & Ottawa, Re, 141. Kettle v. Dempster, 1619. Keyes v. Hanington, 439. Keyes v. McKeown, 516, Kidd & Clement v. Doherty, 1110. Kidd v. Nelson, 539. Kierzkowski v. Dorion, 1975, 2053. Kilmer v. British Columbia Orchard Lands Co., 2117. King v. Northern Navigation Co.,,1610. King’s College v. Poole, 272. King Lumber Mills v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 809, 1503. King Milling Co. v. Northern Islands Pulpwood Co. & Imperial Bank, 1694. Kingdon Printing Co. v. Malcolm, 558. Kinesten v. Maclean, 1472. Kinsella v. Pask, 983. Kinsman v. Kinsman, 273, 476. Kippen v. Baldwin, 815. Harris, 1337. Kennedy, 818, 1275, 2286, 2289, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Kirby v. Briggs, 1464. Kirby v. McIntosh, 342. Kirk v. Harvey, 2111. Kirk v. Torey & Fidelity Ins. Co., Re, 145. Kirkland v. Hole, 1713. Kizer v. Kent Lumber Co., 1604. Klassen v. Wright, 74. Klem v. Puget Sound Lumber Co., 1575. Klenman v. Schmidt, 790. Kline Bros. v. Dominion Fire Ins. Co., 1079. Kline v. Provincial, etc. Ins. Co., 1086. Kling v. Lyng, 2204. Klock v. Molsons Bank, 247, 766, 1993. Kloepfer, Re, 1091, 1101. Knibb v. McConvey, 2178. Knight v. Cushing, 2180, 2186. Knight v. Hanson, 66, 78, 87, 2036. Knight v. Houson, 2027. Knoor v, Clark, 516. Knowles v. McLaughlin, 29, 1650. Knox v. Bunch, 2107. Knox & Belleville, Re, 1398. Koerman v. Parlee, 538. Kokoliades v. Kennedy, 326. Kokorutz v. Irwin, 309. Koleardis v. Kennedy, 623, 722. Kolega v. Genser, 922. Kolp v. Hunter, 310, Kominick v. B. C. Pressed Brick Co., 412. Kootenay Valley Fruit Lands Co., re, 368, 1855. 3 Kostenko v. O’Brien, 1574. Kouri v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 216. Kovinski v. Cherry, 1268, 1267. Krehm v. Bastedo, 800, 1873. Kreuszynicki v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1585, 1588. Krzus & Crow’s Nest, Pass Coal Co., Re, 1464, 7 ; Kuntz Brewery Co. v. Grant, 1645. Kussner v. Merchants Bank of Canada, 937, Kuula v. Mouse Mountain, 20. Kyles & Chester v. Wilson, 2252. L. Labadie v. Rinquet, 117, 856. La Banque Nationale v. Lemire, 286. Labbe v. Congregation of, Notre Dame, 1299. Labelle v. Lalonde, 25. Laberge v. Langelier, 1136, 1137. Labine v. Labine, 1668. Labonte v. Desjardins, 1761. Labonte v. North American Life Assce. Co., 1088. Labrecque v. Patrqu, 292, Lacasse, Re, 2266. Lacasse v. David, 2249. EXIX Lac Du Bonnet & Can, Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1845, Lachance v. Lebeuf, 1972. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co. v. Charest, 117. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co. v. Charlebois, 117. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co. v. McArthur, 574. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co. v. Ross, 1827. Lachute Shuttle Co. v. Frothingham & Workman, 1871, 1905. Lacoste v. Cedar Rapids Co., 952. Lacouture v. Lacroix, 623. Lacouture v. Laurin, 325. Lacroix v. Chabot, 603. Lacroix v. Laprairie Brick Co., 1636, Lafex v. Lafex, 2209. Laflame v. Starnes, 68. Laflamme v. St. Jacques, 996. La Fleche v. Bernardin, 280. Lafond v. Lafond, 2300. Lafontaine v. Brisson, 2155. Lafontaine v. Poulin, 1036. Lafontaine Park v. Montreal, 116. Lafreniere v. Mondou, 208. Lafvendal v. Northern Foundry Co., 1474, 1569. Lagace v. Boyer, 1166, 1713. Laidlaw Lumber Co. v. Cawson, 1112. Laidlaw & Campbellford 0. & W. Rw. Co., Re, 1824. Laing, etc., Co. v. Duval, 460, 925. Laister v. Crawford, 32. Lake Erie Excursion Co. v. Bertie, 292, 294. Lake of Woods Milling Co. v. Ralston, 1284, Lallemand v. Larue, 227. Lalonde v. Lachine, 1283. Lalonde v. MacKay, 805. Lamarche v. Archambault, 200, 571, 922. Lamarche v. Montreal, 216. Lamarre v. Charbonneau, 1753. Lamb v. Lashby, 1648. Lamb v. North, 1661. Lamb v. Thompson, 1221. Lambert v. St. Sauveur, 296. Lambert Pharmacal Co. v. Palmer, 2004. Lambertus v. Lambertus, 1101. La Minerva v. Lovell, 2238. Lamont v. Olson, 1880. Lamontagne v. Berube, 850. Lamontagne v. Galbraith, 1682. Lamontagne v. Grosvenor Apartments, 406. Lamontagne v. Woodlands, 826. Lamoraie v. Doucet, 10. Lamoureux v. Craig, 2297, 2298. Lamoureaux v. Simpson, 2047. Land Owners Limited v. Boland & Paxton, 8, 10. Land Registry, Re, 727. Land Titles Act, Re, 1203, 1208. Lande v. Learo, 1777. XXX Landry v. Beauregard, 871. Landry v. McCall, 217. Landry v. Rivard, 1013. Landry v. St. Guillaume, 1138. Landsborough, Re, 1298. Landskrowner v. Crober, 151, 696. Lane v. Beacham, 2200. Lane v. Crandell, 1619, 1622. Lane v. Rice, 2169. Lang v. John Mann Brick Co., Ltd., 1574. Langan v. Newberry, 2102. Langdon v. Molsons Bank, 592. Lange v. Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co., 803. Langevin v. Duval, 2090. Langis v. Roy, 299. Langley v. Joudrey, 265, 278, 896, 2205. Langley v. Lavers, 277, 2205. Langley v. Peel Lumber Co., 886. Langley v. Rowlands, 1739. Langlois v. Berthiaume, 1737. Langlois v. Charpentier, 2089. Langlois v. Quebec & Lake St. John Rw. Co., 1812. Langworthy v. McVicar, 911, 1022. Laperriere v. Pierreville, 1298. Lapierre v. Banque St. Jean, 238. Lapierre v. Bienvenu, 481. Lapierre v. Drouin, 1927. Lapierre v. Judge, 118, 870. Lapierre v. La Banque de St. Jean, 105. Lapierre v. Magnan, 2063. Laplante v. Laplante, 118. Lapointe v. Desautels, 1909. Lapointe v. Giguere, 1452. Lapointe v. Larin, 1428. Laporte v. Wilson, 2008. Larcher v. Sudbury, 22384. Lardon v. Valade, 1668. Larence v. Larence, 774. Larin v. Lapointe, 1442. Lariviere v. Royal Trust Co., 52. Larochelle v. Lar6échelle, 876. Larose v. Webster, 531, 539. Larry v. Baker, 941. Larson v. Rasmussen, 2134. Larue v. Chateau Frontenac Co., 41, 1219. Larue & Cloutier, Ltds v. Bastien, 150, 151. Lastuka v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1457. Latham v. Heaps, 1483. Latimer v. Fontaine, 620. Latimer v. Park, 2153. Latour v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1836. Latour v. Montreal, 1424. Latraverse v..Cardin, 1637. Latreille v. Beaumier, 1236. Latulippe v. Methodist Church of Megan- tic, 2261. Laurent v. Lemire, 877. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Laurentian Granite Co. v. McLaughlin, 392, 1789. Laurentian Stone Co. v. Bourque & Ob- late Fathers, 598. Laurentide Paper Co. v. Canada Iron Fur- nace Co., 1714. Laurie v. Polson Iron Works, 561. Laursen v. McKinnon, 91, 92, 2013. Laursen & South Vancouver, Re., 136. Lavallee v. Burrage, 279. Lavallee v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1858. Lavallee v. McDonald, 158. Laveck, Thomas H. & Patrick, v. Camp- bellford Lake Ontario & Western Rw. Co., 2018. Lavell v, Canadian Mineral Rubber Co., Ltd., 418. Laverdure v. Gres Falls Co., 1466. Lavergne v. Lariviere, 575, 577. Laviolette v. Longueil, 180. Lavoie v. Laroche, 621. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2258. Lawrence v. Pringle, 2091. 1789, ‘Laws, Re, 1047. Lawton v. Wilcox, 902. Lax v. Calgary Fire Ins. Co., 587. Laycock v. Lee & Fraser, 1765. Laycock v. Speers, 2020. Lazier v. MacCullough, 398. Leach v. Haultain, 1202. Leach v. Young, 933. Leadbetter v. Port Hood, 161. Leadley v. Cruickshank, 2009. Leadlay v. Leadlay, 879. Leakim v. Leakim, 1008, 1011. Lear v. Canadian Westinghouse, 1568. Lebeau v. Lapierre, 28. Lebel v. Bradin, 1037. Leberre v. Beauchamp, 1448. LeBlanc, Ex p. 1118. Leblanc v. Fraserville, 1508. Leblanc v. Laporte, 1892. Lebrun v. Sevigny, 881, 1019. Leckie v. Marshall, 478, 1182, 1341, 2142, 2144, Leclaire v. Laviolette, 1997. Leclerc v. Bedard, 1026. Leclerc v. Boucher, 49. Leclerc v. Fissiault, 1740. Ledoux v. Hill, 620. Ledoux v. Ledoux, 1590. Leduc v. Lafrance, 1226. Ledwell v. Charlottetown Light & Power Co., 867, 1833, 1757. Lee v. Chipman, 83. Lee v. Olympian, 1944, Lee Him, Re, 58. Lefebvre v. Lachine, Jacques Cartier & Maisonneuve Rw. Co., 117. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Lefebvre v. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co., 1824. Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 950, 2290. Lefebvre v. Lupien, 761. Lefebvre v. Trethewey Mine, 1455. Lefebvre v. Wilder, 112, 116. Legare v. Glass & Large, 1171. Legare v. Verret, 894. Legault v. Montreal Terra Cotta Co., 1792. , Legault v. Pointe Claire, 1298, 2238. Legeas v. Trusts & Guarantee Co., 936. Leger v. Ledoux, 39. Leger v. Viau, 990. Legrand v. Poirier, 1599. LeHigh Cobalt Silver Mines & Heckler, Re, 266. Lehr v. Peterson, 52. LeHuray v. Abrahamson, 37. Lekas v. Zappas, 974. Lelacheur v. Manuel, 70. Lelerc v. Bernard, 1682. Lemay v. Lefebvre, 1914. Lemay v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1480. Lembke v. Chin Wing, 1176. Lemieux v. Seminary of St. Sulpice, 1721. Lemire v. Faucher, 854. Lemoine v. Dorval, 1260. Lemoine v, Dubeau, 121, 856, 861. Lemon v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1802. Lenetsky v. Shaw, 1168. Lennox v. Goold Sharpley & Muir Co., Ltd., 1919. Lenz & Bowstead, Re, 2280. Leonard v. Cousineau, 1274. Leonard v, Cushing, 98, 1782. Leonard & Sons v. Kremer, 1902. Leonard’s Patent, Re, 1675. Lepage v. Bouchard, 1719, 1730. Lepage v. Letourneau, 296. Le Pas, Re, 1812. Leroux v. McIntosh, 87, 926, 1268, 2303. Leroux v. Reade, 608. Lesage v. Henderson, 1688. Lesage v. Montreal, 326. Lesageeto Co. v. Squire, 755. Leskas v. William, 208. Leslie, Re, 1050. Leslie v. Canadian Birkbeck Co., 362, 400. Leslie v. Hill, 541, 2047. Leslie v. McKeown, 71, Leslie v. Pere Marquette Rw. Co., 1822. Lessard v. School Comrs., 1185. Lesser v. Cohen, 136, Lester v. Turcotte, 77. Letang v. Decarie, 118. Lethbridge & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1842. Letourneau v. St. Constant, 874. Letson v. The “ Tuladi,” 1949. Levasseur v. Pelletier, 1430. Silver Cobalt XXX] Leveille v. Cousineau, 1230. L’Evenement Publishing Co. v. Letourn- eau, 785. Levesque, Re, 215. Levi v. Levi, 1012. Levine v. Can. North. Que. Rw. Co., 2018. Levine v. Serling, 111, 745, 1051, 1179. Levitt v. Webster, 2158. Levy v. Victoria, 1123. Lewis v. Bucknam, 1741. Lewis v. Dominion Lumber & Fuel Co., 153. Lewis v. McInnes, 153. Lewis v. Richard, 53. Lewis Furniture Co. v. Campbell, 271. Lewis & Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., Re, 146. Ley, Re, 2262. Leys’ Estate, Re, 2265. Leyser Green Co. v. Chaleyer Co., 1715. L’Hirondelle v. Taft, 77. Lightning Creek Mining Co. 1347. Lillie v. Thomas, 352. Lilly & Co. v. Robertson, 261. Limereaux v. Vaughan, 2046. Linazuk v. Canadian North. Coal & Ore Dock Co., 1482. Linde, etc., Co. v. Taillon, 1299. Lindsay v. Davidson, 1583. Lindsay v. LaPlante, 279. Lindsey v. Le Sueur, 481, 819. Ling v. Montreal, 1512, 1522. Linner v. Montreal, 1703. Liset v. British Columbia Lumber Corp., Ltd., 1475. Little v. Hyslop, 948. Little Sturgeon River Mackie, Re, 141. Little & Local Improvement District No. 189, Re, 1152. Livermore v. Gerry, 1600. Livingston v. Livingston, 1667. Lloy v. Wells, 2182. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 996. Lloyd v. Smith Bros. & Wilson, 1476. Lloyd v. Stronach, 2208. Lloyd and A. O. U. W., Re, 1092, 1093. Lloyds Plate Glass Insurance Co. v. East- mure, 1767. Lloyd & Co. v. Scully, 19. Leach v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1545. Local Improvement District No. 161, Saskatchewan & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1818. Lochrie v. Consumers Cordage Co., 513. Lock v. Snyder, 591, 2061. Lockhart, Re, 948, Lockwood v. McPherson, 77. v. Hopp, Slides Co. v. XXxXii Loffmark v. Adams, 1591. London Fence Co., Re, 430. London v. Newmarket, 1064. London & Lancashire Ins. 290, 766. Long v. Smiley, 302. Long v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1526. Longman v. Maxwell, 1036. Longmore v. McArthur & Co., 16. Lonsdale Estate, Re, 2248. Lopwell, Re, 936. Lorange v. Lauzon, 1009. Lord v. Bergeron, 573. Lord v. Cercle de Fraserville, 1136. Lorne v. Arnold, 2247. Lorne Park, Re, 771. Lorraine v. Norrie, 1629. Lorrain v. Trudeau, 861. Lortie v. Aubry, 1601. Lortie v. Montreal, 1437. Lotbiniere v. Lotbiniere County, 1418. Lott v. Given, 1239. Love & Bilodeau, Re, 916. Love v. Love, 1637, 1714. Love v. Machray, 81. Loveland v. McNairney, 1064, Lowe v. Lowe, 564. Lowes v. Nicholls, 2059. Lowes v. Herron, 2086. Lucas v. North Vancouver, 1436. Luciani v. Toronto Construction Co., 1456. Lucyk v. Goski, 792, Lum Yet v. Hugill, 1640. Lumsden v. Spectator Printing Co., 784. Lusher v. Choquet, 1298. Lloyd Machinery Co. v. Publishers Press, Ltd., 1884. Lyall v. London Brass Works, 1891. Lyall v. Robillard, 1779. Lymburner v. D’Amour, 507. Lynch v, St. Athanase, 1442. Lynch v. William Richards Co., 399. Lyon v. Borland, 1630. Co. v. Hart, Me. McAllister, Re, 2274. McAllister v. Johnson, 1285. McAllister v. McMillan, 2293. McAlpine v. Proctor, 897. McAndie v. Jackson, 2148. McArthur v. Cardston, 555. McArthur v. Imperial Trust Co., 2044. McArthur v. The “ Johnson,” 1955. McArthur v. McLean, 519. McAvoy v. Rannie, 1429. McBain v. Cavan, 1408. MacBeth v. Flood, 2038. McBrayne v. Imperial Loan Co., 1747. McBride v. Brooks, 919. McBride Vv. McNeil, 8383. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. McBride v. Rusk, 911. McCabe v. McCullough, 779. McCallum v. Bruce, 756. McCallam v. Hurry, Re, 1119. McCallum v. Proctor, 2075. McCartney v. Miller, 962. McCatherin v. Jamer, 1428, 1424, McCaughey & Clinton, Re, 158. McClarty v. Beaudry, 2068. McClellan v. McClellan, 981. McClement v. Kilgour Mfg. Co., 98, 1594, 1603, 1605. McConnell v. Hull, 186. McConnell v. Vanderhoof, 480. McConnell v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 2016. McCormick v. Kelliher Lumber Co., 1451, 1457, 1579, McCormick v. Simpson, 2254. McCormick v. Triggs, 2099. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hislop, 1867. McCoubrey & Toronto, Re, 1393. McCraw v. Vaillancourt, 1002. McCready Co. v. Alberta Clothing Co., 237. McCready v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1802. MacCullough & Graham, Re, 1197. McCullough v. Lester, 1039. McCurdy v. Grant, 52. : McCutcheon v. Johnson, 15, 1694. McCutcheon Brick Co. v. Gardiner, 2062. McCutcheon Lumber Co. v. Minitonas, 165, 186. McDermott v. Bielschowsky, 330. McDermott v. Coates, 1757. McDermott v. Terminal Development Co., 36. McDermott v. Western Canada Fire In- surance Co., 1073. McDevitt, Re, 2260. Macdonald, Re., 85, 107, 642. McDonald Estate, Re, 947, 2268. McDonald v. Baxter, 70. McDonald v. Belcher, 6, 568. McDonald v. B. C. Hlec. Rw. Co., 1554. Macdonald v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1482, 1492. * Macdonald v. Delion, 890. Macdonald v. Domestic Utilities Mfg. Co., 806. McDonald v. Edey, 149. McDonald v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1486. Macdonald v. Halgerson, 569. Macdonald v. Lambe, 1267. McDonald v. Leadlay, 2056. Macdonald v. Logan, 1685. McDonald v. London Guarantee & Acc. Ins. Co., 1088. Macdonald v. Macdonald, 145. McDonald v. McKay, 2034. MacDonald v. Sovereign Bank, 893. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. McDonald v. Sydney, 1519. Macdonald & Co. v. Teasdale, 1180. Macdonald v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1616. Macdonald & Toronto, Re, 1423. McDonald v. Trusts & Guarantee Co., 567. McDonald Thresher Co, v. Stevenson, 1296. Macdonnell v. Davies, 1226. McDonell v. Thompson, 990. McDonnell v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1466. McDougall v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1540. McDougall v. Occidental Syndicate, 1155. McDougall v. Paille, 984. MacDougall & Co., v. Penticton, 560. McEachen v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1550. McElmon v. British Columbia Electric Co., 1503. McEnroe v. Trethewey, 1734. McEwan & Calgary, Re, 1402. McEwan & Dougherty v. Marks, 587, 589. McEwen & Hesson, Re, 1123. McFarland v. Bank of Montreal, 243. McFarlane v. Collier, 397. Macfarlane v. Davis, 969. McFarlane v. Fitzgerald, 1933. McFaul v. White & Rogers, 1618. McFetridge v. McCabe, 742. McGarrity v. Thompson, 2294, McGibbon, Re, 1963. McGibbon v. McGibbon, 1262. McGill, Re, 2252. McGill Chair Co., Re, 100, 434. Macgill v. Duplisse, 1165. McGillivray v. Conroy, 766, 1191. McGillivray v. Montreal Assce. Co., 273. McGillivray v. Moose Jaw, 1514. McGivern v. Montreal Tramways Co., 2040. McGowan v. Hunter, 899. McGowan Cigar Co. v. O’Flynn, 1901. McGowan v. Stanstead, 1405. McGraw v. Hall, 1571. McGreevy v. Hodder, 2165. McGreevy & Murray, Re, 1197. McGregor v. Chalmers, 2097. McGreggor v. Currie Estate, 932, 2043. McGregor v. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Rw. — Co., 471, 727, 776, 1975, 1976. McGregor v. Hemstreet, 1368. McGregor v. St. Croix Lumber-Co., 368. McGregor v. Whalen, 1999. McGuire v. Brighton, 826. . McHugh v. Union Bank of Canada, 337, 339. MclIlvenna v. Goss, 2146, 2199. McInnes Farms Ltd. v. McKenzie, 2174. McInnes v. Nordquist, 612. McInnis v. McInnis, 2297. McInnis v. Stewart, 1266. McIntosh v. Grimshaw, 2041. McIntosh v. Simcoe, 1624. McIntosh v. Wilson, 1253. 40.¢c.L.—c XXXill McIntyre, Ex p., 1126. McIntyre v. Stockdale, 2172, McIntyre v. White, 2008. McIntyre v. Wilson, 1376. MclIvor v. Kerr, 2082. McKane v. O’Brien, 1942. McKay, Re, 2255. McKay v. McCuaig, 294. McKay v. Davey, 1928. McKay v. McKay, 2302. McKay v. Mason, 31, 392. Mackay & Nelson, Re, 2199. McKay v. Settee, 129. McKay v. Johnston, 1162. McKay, Cameron v. McKay, Re, 2254. McKean v. Dalhousie Lumber Co., 1992. McKee v. McClocklin, 214. McKee v. Verner, 930. McKenna v. Cummiskey, 155, 654, 2016. McKenty v. Vanhorenback, 258. Mackenzie, Estate, Re, 2253. Mackenzie, Re, 2255. McKenzie & Blundell v. Ball, 527. Mackenzie v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1546. McKenzie v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 323. McKenzie v. Elliott, 490. McKenzie v. Goddard, 882. Mackenzie & Hamilton, Re, 2195. Mackenzie v. Monarch Life Assce. Co., 381. McKenzie v. Piche, 1738, 1746. MacKenzie v. Scotia Lumber & Shipping Co., 564, 1993. McKenzie v. Teeswater, 1386. Mackenzie v. William Gray & Sons Co., Ltd., 930. McKeon, Re, 2269. McKeown v. Lechtzier, 1244. McKerral v. Edmonton, 1479. McKillop & Benjafield v. Alexander, 1208. McKinley v. Graham, 938. McKinnell vy. Rembrandt School District Trustees. 496. McKinnon, Re, 1189. McKinnon’s Case, 432. McKinnon v. Cohen, 1224. McKinnon v. Minatty, 63. McKinstry v. Irvine, 355, 14€9. Mackintosh v. Bank of New Brunswick, 248, 1759. Mackissock v. Brown, 1659. McKissock v. McKissock, 1031. MacKissock & Thomas v. Black, 498. McLaren, Re, 2279. McLaren v. Fortier, 1045. McLaren v. Tew, 910. McLarty v. Todd, 222. McLaws v. Smith, 1660. McLaws v. Wellband, 1959. McLean v. Doutre, 2216. XXXIV McLean v. Downey, 1611. McLean v. Rudd, 958. McLean, Stinson & Brodie, Re, 101. McLennan, McFeeley & Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 1647. McLeod v. Amiro, Re, 1296. MacLeod v. Harbottle, 1220. McLeod v. Higginbotham, 1765. McLeod v. Holland, 155, 2031. McLeod v. Meek, 154. McLeod v. Peterson, 1753. McLeod v. Rorey, 749. McLeod v. Sawyer-Massey Co., 2065. McLeod Bros. v. Sickavitch, 767, 1183. McLorg v. Cook, 2031. McLorg v. Johnston, 601. McLorg v. Mersman, 2107. Maclure v. Cusack, 147. MacMahon v. Railway Passengers Ins. Co., 810, 900. McManamy v. Hayes, 120, 152. McManus v. Edmonton P. S. Board, 530. McManus v. Rothschild, 1323. McMenemy v. Grant, 292. McMennamin v. Evans, 236, 263, 1179. McMicken, Re, 1191. MeMillan v. Atty.-Gen. for Ont., 1207. McMillan v. Kaake & Neff, 919. McMillan v. Stavert, 237. -McMeans v. Kidder, 2143. MeMillan & Farrell v. Southern Alberta Land Co., 515. McMulkin v. Traders Bank, 931. McMullen v. Coughlan, 1603. -MeMullen v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1466. McMurtry v. Leushner, 1355. MeNair v. Collins, 65. McNabb v. Toronto Construction Co., 22. MeNair v. Graham, 303. McNair v. McNair, 999. McNally v. Anderson, 879, i711. McNally v. Halton Brick Co., Ltd., 1561, McNeill, Re, 2274. McNeill Estate, Re, 2044. McNeil & Sask. Hotel Co., Re, 692. McNerney v. Forrester, 1471. McNichol v. Brucks, 62. McNichol & Winnipeg, Re, 1421. McNiven v. Piggott, 2133. McNutt, Re, 129, 648, 989. McPartland v. Russell, 1638. McPhee v. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Rw. Co., 1592. McPherson v. Faris, 70. McPherson v. Ferguson, 1192. McPherson & Booth v. Temiskaming Lum- ber Co., 1989. McPherson v. United 1171. McPherson v. Vancouver, 1508. States Fidelity, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Macphie v. Tremblay, 308. McPhillips Street Subway, Winnipeg, Re, 1820. MacPortland v. Russell, 1778. McRae v. Frooks, 914. McVaught v. McKenzie, 848. MeVeity v. Ottawa Citizen, 782, 1698, 1710. McVicar v. Nicholson, 329. - M. Maccarone v. Zanga, 1274. Mace v. Tibbs & Blair, 975. Mack & Board of Audit of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glen- garry, Re, 1941. Madawaska License Comrs., Re, 1125. Maday v. Maday, 1004. Mader v. Harrison, 131, 524, Madill v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1642. Madore v. Martin, 2299. Magnussen v. L’Abbe & Bengsten, 1585. Magrath v. Ranney, 1680. Mah Po v. McCarthy, 1685. Maher, Re, 1042. Maher v. Birchenough, 1181. Maher v. Roberts, 335. Maher v. Shorey, 1366. Maher v. Timothy, 861. Mahomed v. Anchor Fire & Marine Insur- ance Co., 1075, 1082. Maille v. Canada Publishing Co., 787. Maille v. Maille, 1691. Maillet v. Fontaine, 569. Mair & Gough, Re, 2291. Maisonneuve v. Carpentier, 1420. .Maitland v. Mackenzie & Toronto Rw. Co., 1260, 1621. Maitland v. Mills, 1584. Major v. Turner, 1892. Malcolm v. Gallero, 1715. Malcolm v. McNichol, 1251. Malcolmson v. Wiggin, 2109. Malfaire v. Schultz, 1244. Malo v. Roy, 907. Malone v. Hamilton, 1435. Maloney v. O’Brien, 78, 1863. Maloof v. Labad, 393. Malot v. Malot, 1016. Maloughney v. Crowe, 2174. Malouin v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 1275. Manchester v. Brown, 1730. Manegre v. Laferriere, 1009. Manitoba Commission Co., Re, 419, 420, 421. Manitoba Lumber Co. v. Emerson, 1881. Manitoba Windmill & Pump Co. v. McLel- land, 1927. Manley v. Young, 307. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Mann v. Fitzgerald, 834. Mann v. Rudolph, 149. Mann v. St. Croix Paper Co., 1986. Mann v. Vigeon, 1987. Manning v. Winnipeg, 1408. Mansfield v. Toronto General Corp., 2181. Manson v. Pollock, 2116, 2167. Manufacturers, etc. v. Cairn 8.S. Co., 320, 476, 894. Mantha v. Hamelin, 1690. Manufacturers’ Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 1372. Manufacturers’ Lumber Co. 1856. Maple City Oil & Gas Co. v. Charlton & Ridgetown Fuel Supply Co., 1028. Maple Leaf Milling Co. v. Western Can- ada Flour Mills Co., 924. Maple Leaf Portland Cement Co. v. Owen Sound Iron Works Co., 888. Mara & Wolfe, Re, 2291. Maranda v. Dufour, 1778. Marbleton v. Ruel, 2219. Marce v. McCall, 1178. March v. Stimpson Computing Scale Co., 1283. March Bros. & Wells v. Banton, 2069. Marchand v. Allaire, 926. Marchand Sand Co. & Can. Pac. Rw., Re, 1808. Marchessault v. St. Ours, 2245, Marcil v. Canadian Klondike Mining Co., 1163. Marcil v. Poirier, 277. Marckel v. Taplin, 2136. Marcotte v. Davis, 1838. Marcoux v. Guay, 761, 1374. Margolis v. Birnie, 2057. Marion v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 2022. Maritime Gypsum Co. v. Ridden, 520. Markey v. Sloat, 36, 1286. Marquis v. Cantin, 2211. Marois v. Miller, 609. Marotta v. Reynolds, 2161. Marquis v. Frechette, 1136. Marriage Laws of Canada, Re, 461, 1022. Mars v. Drury, 2027. Marshall, Re, 2302. Marshall v. Gowans, 1622, Marshall v. Kinnilburgh, 1652. Marshall v. Leckie, 326, 586, 1341. Marshall v. Western Canada Fire Ins. Co., 1081. Marsil v. Lanctot, 644, Marson v. Coulter, 1023. Marson v. Grand Trunk Pac. 1859, 2010. Martel v. Vignault, 1020, 1021. Trusts v. Pigeon, Rw. Co., XXXV Martens v. O’Brien, 569. Martin & Co., 1892. Martin v. Beck Mfg. Co., 101. Martin v. Clarke, 1176. Martin v. Fowler, 213. Martin v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1560. Martin v. Howard, 82. Martin v. Joly, 1887, 2170. Martin v. Lussier, 2084, 2203. Martin v. McLeod, 2206. Martin v. Middlesex, 2214, 2219. Martin v. Molsons Bank, 584. Martin v. St. Raphael, 1298. Martineau v. Debien, 1790, 1931. Marvin, E. B., The, 1946. Mason v. Goldfields, 569. Mason & Risch Co. v. Mooney, 1906. Mason v. Ledoux, 38. Mason v. Reeves & Co., 1719. Masse v. Germain, 500. Massey v. Ewen, 605. Massey-Harris Co. v. Horning, 760. Massey-Harris v. Hutchings, 603. Massey-Harris v. Moore, 723. Massey-Harris v. Smith, 343. Massey & Lee’s Case, 429. Massey v. Walker, 2136. Massicotte v. Lavoie, 1719. Masson v. Clavette, 31. Masterson v. Dorer, 1712. Match v. Clavir, Re, 2192. Materi, Re, 943. Mathers v. Royal Bank of Canada, 389. Matheson v. Kelly, 195, 574. Mathieson v. Tremblay, 1871. Mathieu v. Morin, 291. Matson v. Mond Nickel Co., Ltd., 1574. Matte v. Plouffe, 1137. Matte v. School Comrs., 1936. Matthew Guy Carriage & Automobile Co., Re, 100, 368, 429. Matthew Moody Co. v. Desormiers, 39. Matthews v. Heintzman & Co., 1891. Matthews v. Metropolitan Contracting Co., 52. Matthews v. Omansky, 2000. Matthewson v. Burns, 2094, 2171. Matts v. Marcotte, 913. Maves v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1794, Mavner v. Weyl, 2170. Maxwell v. Halladay, 998. Maxwell v. Longmoore, 575, 603, 1180. May v. Conn, 79. Maybury v. O’Brien, 2174, 2188. Mayer v. David, 1237. Meaford Elevator Co. v. Montreal Trans- portation Co., 1609. Mears v. Arcola Wood Working Co., 1114. Mechanical Equipment Co. v. Butler, 1873. XXXVI Medcalf v. Oshawa Lands & In'vestnfents, Ltd., 2084, Meichen v. Kuffen, 1154. Meighen v. Couch, 2199. Meikle v. McRae, 1755. Meivre v. Steine, 2181. Melady v. Jenkins, 320. Mellor v. Mellor, 1000. Melvin v. McNamara & Grieve, 1655, 1656. Melynk v. Can. North. Coal & Ore Dock Co., 1590. Menard v. Couillard, 2192. Menard v. Leduc, 16386, 1789. Menard v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1532. Menard v. Thibault, 1159. Menary v. White, 2055. Menier v. Viau, 1304. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Canada Steel Co., 1596, 1606. Mercanti'e Trust v. Steel Co., Ltd, & Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1561, 1587. Mercer Hstate, Re, 617. Mercer v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1695. Merchants Bank of Canada _v. 1194, Merchants Bank of Canada v. Price, 1202. Merchants Bank v. Thompson, 261. Mercier, Ex p. 709. Mercure v. Bassinet, 1005. Mercure v. Outremont, 608. Meresse v. Harris, 768, 926. Meredith v. ‘Slemin, 581, 2208. Merriam v. Public Parks Board of Port- * age la Prairie, 506. Merrick v. Campbell, 1330. Merritt v. Corbould, 1720. Merritt v. Toronto, 2225. Merson v. Wollenberg, 1213. Mervin Board of Trade & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1841. Mesenger v. Stevens, 66. Messervey v. Simpson, 1703. Messier v. Senecal, 44. Metropole Hotel Co. v. Recorder’s Court of Montreal, 1136. Metropolitan Bank v. Austin & Graham, 272. Meunier v. Billet, 24. Meunier v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1789, 1858. Meunier v. Doray, 915. Meunier v. Talbot, 437. Mexican Northern Power Co., Ltd., v. 8. Pearson & Son, 1641. Meyer v. Clarke, 799. Meyer v. Toronto, 135, 954. Michaels v. Heyman, 1873. Michaud v. Moreau, 1001. Midland Rw. Co. of Manitoba & Can Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1842. Hastie, 1159, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Middleton v. Black, 1916. Mid-West Agency v. Munro, 2169. Mignault v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1284, Mihm v. Balcolvski, 724. Mikulasik v. Scouten, 1507, Miles Bros. Inc. v. Bell, 1693, 2030. Miles v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 910. Milholm & Conaty Stack Co., Re, 1490. Millard v. Dominion Townsite Co., Ltd., 1750. Millard v. Gregoire, 1367. Miller, Re, 472. Miller v. Allen, 15, 2093. Miller & Richards v. Angus, 1884. Miller v. Demers, 1688. Miller v. Diamond Light Co., 115, 366. Miller v. Halifax Power Co., 952, 2230. Miller v. Hand, 1765, 1766. Miller v. Kaufman, 1445. Miller v. Miller, 1002. Miller v. Moore, 547. Miller v. Wentworth, 1612. Miller v. Winn, 595. Millett v. Silver, 1927. Milligan Settled Estates, Re, 881. Milloy v. McGill, 50. Mills, Re, 876. Mills v. Freel, 2013. Mills v. Marriott, 2160. Milne & Thorold, Re, 863. Milton v. Surrey, 90. Minchin v. Samis, 797. Miner v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 566, 567. Miner v. Hinch, 2064. Mining Locations, Re, 1346. Minister of Public Works & Billinghurst, 736, 952. Minnie, The, 1946. Minor v. Keegan, 1692. Minot Grocery Co. v. Durick, 316. Minnesota & Ontario Power Co. v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 2215. Minto v. Morrice, 164. Miramichi Pulp & Paper Co., Re, 439. Mireault v. Gauthier, 492. Mission District Board of Trade & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1817. Mitchell, Re, 2268. Mitchell v. Doyle, 1297. Mitchell v. Fenderson, 1627. Mitchell v. Heintzman, 912, 1621, 1701. Mitchell v. Peake, 2248. : Mitchell v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 1571. Mitchell v. Wilson, 2140. Mitchener v. Sinclair, 1684. Moachon v. Blair, 71. Modern House Manufacturing Co., 430, 481. Moffat v. Huberdeau, 995, 996. Moffat v. Montgomery, 110, 1278. Moffat & Crow’s Nest Pass Co., Re, 1447. Re, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Moir v. O’Brien, 555. Moline v. Blythe, 1654. Molleur v. Montmagny Mutual Ins. Co., 1083, Molsons Bank v. Courval, 1649. Molsons Bank v. Howard, 276, 342. Mo!sons Bank v. Jodoin, 1689. Molsons Bank v. Klock, 46. Molsons Bank v, Parent, 279, 1678. Momsen vy. The “Aurora,” 1945, 1949. Monadnock Realty Co. v. Quebec Bank, 1060. Monarch Bank, Re, 101. Monarch Mfg. Co. v. Blouin, 340. Monarch Life Assce. Co. v. Mackenzie, 401. Monarch Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 1316. Moncton, Ex p. 162. Mondeu v. Paulet, 206. Mondor v. Tache, 748. Mondou v. Paulet, 205, 208, 209. Monrufet v. British Columbia Electric Rw. Co., 1482. Montcalm v. Lesage, 113. Montica v. Meyers, 1678. Montet v. De Werthemer, 1961. Montgomery BHstate, Re, 1279. 3 Montgomery, Lumbers v. Montgomery, Re, 941, 1029. Montminy v. Montminy, 1689. Montreal v. Allard, 177. Montreal v. Chartrand, 109. Montreal v. DeLisle, 19, 120. Montreal v. Fraser, 194. Montreal v. Lamarche, 43. Montreal v. Matley, 603. Montreal v. Metropolitan Hotel Co., 1138. Montreal v. Milot, 1939. Montreal v. Montreal Street Rw. Co. & Atty..Gen. for Can. & Atty-Gen. for Quebec, 1797. , Montreal v. Noel, 955. Montreal v. St. Denis Land Co., 112, 113, ily, Montreal v. Tiffin, 1268, 2245. Montreal, etc., Power Co. v. Clearihue, 795. Montreal Baseball, etc., Co. v. Berthiaume, 38. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Clearihue, 796. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. De- chevigny, 1681. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Gribble, 110. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Plow, 835. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Vipond, 406. 1946, XXXVii Montreal Police, etc., Society v. Lapointe, 1107. Montreal Street Rw. Co. v. Bastein, 1445. Montreal Street Rw. Co. v. Feigleman, 891. Montreal Street Rw. Co. v. Girard, 2016. Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 1260. Montreal Street Rw. Co, v. Montreal Star Pub. Co., 2022. Montreal Street Rw. Co. v. Normandin, 1168, Montreal Tramways Co. v. Board of Con- ciliation, 1298. Montreal Tramways Co. v. Conant, 2019. Montreuil v. Ontario Asphalt Block Pav- ing Co., 1056. Montreuil v. Walker, 2263. Moodie v. Hawkins, 803. Moody v. Kettle, 1750. Moon v. Moon, 1000, 1002. Moore v. Canadian Fairbanks Co., 1905. Moore v. Cornwall, 827. Moore v. Crosland, 78. Moore v. Gagnon, 903. Moore v. Johnston, 76. Moore v. Modern Skirt Co., 1872. Moore v. Robert Hyland Realty Co., 971. Moore v. Thrasher, 594, Moorehouse v. Perry, 1347. Moose Jaw Securities, Ltd., Re, 1207. Moquin v. Dingman, 616. Moquin v. Turgeon, 1049. Moran v. Burroughs, 1504, 1560. Morang & Co. v. Le Sueur, 556. Moray v. Booner, 389. Moreau v. Guimont, 1313. Morency v. L Ange Cardien, 2249. Morgan v. Avenue Realty Co., 931. Morgan v. Cardin, 847. Morgan v. Johnson, 2152, 2155. Morgan v. Morgan, 1004. Morgan v. Provost, 117, 1062, 1217. Morgan v. Sorel, 889. Morgan v. Thames Valley Garden Land Co., 17038. Morin v. Beck’s Weekly, 117. Morin v. Gauvreau, 1014. Morin v. Paquet, 1184, 1698. Morissette v. Auger, 991. Morissette v. Baril, 47, 49. Morissette v. Brompton, 296. Morissette v. Clement, 578, 582. Moritz v. Christopherson, 1182. Morris, Re, (Chateauguay Election Case), 844, Morris v. Churchward, 1694. Morris v. Whiting, 493. Morrison v. Laverdiere, 1005. Morrison v. Pere Marquette Rw. Co., 1845. Morrison v. Rutledge, 812. XXXVili Morrison v. Wilson, 1294. Morrison Thompson Hardware (Co. v. Westbank Trading Co., 402. Morse Trusts, Re, 2289. Morse v. Langston, 991, 1682. Mortimer v. Fisher, 1291. Moyer v. Jones, 2024. Moshier v. Eastnor, 826. Mosier v. Rigney, 2292. Mosseau v. Tone, 1310. Mothersill v. Toronto Eastern Rw. Co., 2250. Mott, Re, 10438. Mount Royal Ins. Co. v. Meunier, 112, 576. Mousseau v. Litchfield, 1147. Mowat v. Martindale, 1753. Mueller v. B. C. Electric Co., 1479. Muir state, Re, 467. Muirhead vy. Bullhead Butte, S. D., 179, 1936. Mulholland v. Barlow, 2014. Mullin v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1653. Mulvenna v. Can. Pac, Rw. Co., 17038. — Mummery v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 46. Municipal Construction Co. v. Regina City, 1408. Munn v. Keyes, 936. Munn v. Vigeon, 1999. Munn v. Young, 1709. Munro’s Case, 4384. Munro v. De Blois, In re, 608, 920. Munro v. Montreal, 38. Munro v. Standard Bank of Canada, 222. Munro & Mead v. Yorkton Agricultural & Industrial Exhibition Association Lim- ited, 149. Murchie v. Mail Publishing Co., 484, 749, 805. Murphy, Re, 1941. Murphy v. Lamphier, 2020. Murphy v. McGibbon, 2043, 2290. Murphy v. Sandwich, 186. Murphy v. Traders Bank, 446, Murray’s Case, 253. Murray v. Coast Steamship Co., 1305. Murray v. Plummer, 900. Murray v. Thames Valley Garden Land Co., 1699, 17038, 2020. Mussellwhite v. Lucas, 2160. Mutchenbacker v. Dominion Bank, 1997. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Morency, 587. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Paquet Co., 1079. Mutz v. Murr, 1650. “My Valet,” Ltd. v. Winters, 2002. Myers v. Myers, 942. Myers v. Roope, 497. Myers v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1548. Myerscough & Lake Erie & Northern Rw. Co., 137. Myles v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1657. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Myles v. Morrison, 850. Mylnzyuk v. North-Western Brass Co., Ltd., 1312. N. Nadeau v. Paradis, 1491. Naffzenger & Brockdorf v. Hahn, 1751. Nam Sing, 2302. — Nargang v. Kirby, 1923. Nargang v. Nargang, 996. Nassar v. Equity Fire Ins. Co., 1075, 1085. National Bank v. Hamel, 278. National Husker Co., Re, E. P, Worthing- ton’s Case, 435. National Trust Co. v. Brantford St. Rw. Co., 1356, 1363. National Trust Co. v. Trusts-& Guarantee Co., 376, 424, 1645, 1710. National Trust Co. v. Western Trust Co., 1210. Nault v. Nault, 1046. Navarro v. Radford-Wright Co., 2015. Neal v Rogers, 338. Nebraska Investment Co. v. Island Lumber Co., 2117. Nelles v. Hesseltine, 123. Nelson v. Brewster, 1695. Nelson v. Charleson & Ballinger, 775. Nelson v. Morrissey, etc., Rw. Co., 1529. Nelson v. Nelson, 993. Neostyle Envelope Co. v. Barber-Eliis, Ltd., 1674. Nepisiquit Real Estate & Fishing Co. v. Canadian Iron Corp., 963, 1063, 2226. Neros v. Swanson, 558, 561. Nesbitt v. Investment Trust Co., 119. Ness v. Babcock, 1308. Neville v. Eaton, 263. Neville v. Eaton & International Heating Co., 2039. Neville v. Guillet, 1862. Newberry v. Langan, 2193. New Hamburg Mfg. Co., 1915. New Hamburg Mfg. Co. v. Webb, 750, 910. Newhouse v. Northern Light, Power & Coal Co., Ltd., 1064. Newstead v. Rowe, 1766. Newton v. Foley, 211. Ney v. Ney, 28, 997, 1023. Niagara v. Fisher, 2235. Niagara Falls Co. v. Wiley, 1720. Niagara Navigation Co. v. Niagara, 2234. Niagara Navigation Co. v. Niagara-on-the- Lake, 2209. Niagara & Ontario Construction Co. v. Wyse & United States Fidelity & Guar- anty -Co., 1686, 1772. Nichol v. Nelson, 1247. Nicholas v. Creighton, 1688, 1940. Moresby Ltd. v. Klotz, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Nicholls, Re, 2052. Nicholls Estaté, Re, 940. Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Ross, 1912. Nichols & Shepard Co, v. Skedanuk, 808, 1850, 1358. Nicholson v. Drew, 1204. Nicholson v. McKale, 276. Nickner v. Marchand, 861. Niel v. Day, 1497. Nieminen v. Dome Mines, 590. Nigro v. Donatti, 1598, 1602. Nilan v. McAndless, 1221. Niles v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 2219. Nisbet v. White, 913. Nixon v. Dowdle, 1738. Nobbs v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 1321. Noble Crouse, Re, 1128. Noble v. Boothby, 271. Noble v. Campbell, 1373. Noble v. Noble, 1270. Noel v. Gourdeau, 924, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1025. Noel v. Poulin & Houde, 24. Noelle’s Trade-mark, Re, 2000. Nokes v. Kent Co., 1582, 2036. Nolin v. Gosselin, 2244. Nordheimer, Re, 2277, 2278. Nordheimer v. Gravelle, 1027. Norfolk v. Roberts, 1403, 1434. Norman v. McMurray, 2154. Normandin v. Montreal St. Rw. Co., 2032. North American Exploration & Develop- ment Co. v. Green, 2043. North Battleford & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1814. North Gower Local Option By-law, Re, 863, 1142. North Shore, etc., Co. v. Wallis, 1333. North of Scotland v. Kimber, 1780. North Vancouver Ferry & Power Co. v. Bunbury, 960. North Vancouver & Jackson, Re, 1417. North Vancouver & Loutet, Re, 141. North West Battery v. Hargrave, 382. North West Thresher Co. v. Fredericks, 915. Northern Assce. Co. v. Hart, 8. Northern Colonization Agency v. MclIn- tyre, 1735. Northern Commercial Co. v. Powell, 130, 227. Northern Crown Bank v. Lumber Co., 235, Northern Crown Bank v. Hebert, 1777. Northern Crown Bank v. International Electric Co., 279. North. Crown Bank v. Matzo, 1714. Northern Crown Bank v. Molson, 25. Northern Crown Bank v. National Matzo & Biscuit Co., 904. Great West XXXIX Northern Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Cordova Mines, Ltd., 375, 1348. Northern Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Winnipeg, 45, 183, 1858. Northern Hardwood Sheilds, Re, 615. Northern Sulphite Co. v. Craig, 1760. Notre Dame v. Roberge, 353, 598, 952. Notre Dame de Graces v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 38. Nova Scotia Car Works v. Halifax, 1440. Nurnberger v. Choquet, 1428. Nutana Municipality & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1852. Nyblett v. Williams, 782. Lumber Co. & oO. Oag & Order of Canadian Home Circles, Re, 909. Oak Bay v. Gardner, 1386. Oakshott v. Powell, 2034. O’Brien v. Corbett, 1511, 2037. O’Brien v. Quebec & Saguenay Rw. Co., 1160. O’Brien v. Pearson, 2185. O’Callaghen v. Ahern, 1006. O’Callaghen v. Coady, 775. O’Connor v. Sturgeon Lake Lumber Co., Ltd., 1983. Odesse v. Mathieu, 880. O’Donnell v. Widdifield, 1407. O’Gorman v. Fitzmaurice, 2173. O’Hearn v. Richardson, 2148. Oickle v. Oickle, 154. Oicle v. Oicle, 1289. Okell & City of Victoria, Re, 1417. O’Kelly v. Downie, 2149, 2150. O’Leary v. Nihan, 83. Oliphant v. Alexander, 2147. Oliver v. Laurent, 613. Oliver v. Slater, 724. Oliver v. Woofine, 1000, Ollier v. Hadley, 119. Olmstead & Exploration Syndicate of Ont., Re, 1335. Olson & Johnson Co. v. McLeod, 19. Olson v. Machin, 404. Olver v. Winnipeg, 94. Owen Sound Lumber Co. v, Seaman Kent Co., 1641, 1642, 1696, 1698, 1993. Owens v. Chopin, 877. O’Neill, Ex p., 1116. O’Neill v. Boldt, 1062. O’Neill v. Edwards, 339. ONeill v. Harper, 2236, 2241. O’Neil v. London, 1512. O'Neil v. O’Neil, 1787. Ontario Accident Ins. Co., Re, 435. Ontario Asphalt Block Co. v. Cook, 11. xl NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Ontario Asphalt Block Co. v. Montreuil, 2098, 2171. Ontario Bank, Re, 240, 243, 253, 254, 429, 434, 441, 1975. Ontario Bank v. Bradley, 2209. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 809, 1711. Ontario & Western Co-operative Fruit Co. v. Hamilton, Grimsby & Beamsville Rw. Co., 805, Ontario Sugar Co., Re, 432. Ontario Wind Engine & Pump Co. v. El- dred, 413. Oppenheimer v, Brackman & Ker Milling Co., 2. Ordway v. Olsen, 1925, : O’Regan v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1565, 1566. Orford v. Aldborough, 827. Organ v. Gamache, 1715. Orman v. Hollins, 596, 897. Orton v. Highland Lumber Co., 557. Oscar v. Peugnet, Re, 958. Oscar & Hattie v. R., 1948. Osler v. Coltart, 175. Osment v. Dundas, 1247, Osment v. Indian Head, 178. Otis v. Weidmark, 1255. Ottawa Electric Co. v. Cunningham, 1447. Ottawa Wine Vaults v. Larche, 811. Ottawa Wine Vaults Co. v. McGuire, 311. Ottawa Young Men’s Christian Avssocia- tion v. Ottawa, 176, 177. Ottawa & Gloucester Road Co. v. Ottawa, 2232, 2240. Ottawa and Grey Nuns, 174. Otter Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v, Rand, 1072. a Ouderkirk, Re, 2283. Quelette v. Albert, 335, 756. QOuelette v. Cantin, 857. Ouimet v. Bazin, 449, 465. Ouimet v. Durand, 795. Ouimet v. Laberge, 2300. Ouimet v. Ouimet, 997. Ould, Ex p., 1969. Outlook Town-site Co. & Kennedy, Re, 193. Outremont v. Joyce, 124, 2242. Outremont v. Missionary Sisters, 601. Outremont v. Sisters of Immaculate Con- ception, 1421. Overseers of the Poor v. Burbine, 254. P. Pacaud v. Perkins, 1134. Pacaud v. St. Pierre, 137. Pacific Coast Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 1078, 1348. Pacific Cold Storage Co, v. Troughton, 322. Page v. Doucet, 1266. Page & Jacques v. Clark, 2085. Page v. Lafond, 257, 888. Pagliai v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1807. Paiement v. Dubois, 759. Pallandt v. Flynn, 1112. Pallen v. “Iroquois,” 1951, 1956. Palmer, Re, 2267. Palmer v. May, 335. Palmer v. Palmer, 1034. Palmer v. Ross, 1111. Palmiero v, Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1493. Palo v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1794. Pambrun & Short, Re, 1354, Pang Sing v. Chatham, 474. Papineau v. Guertin, 497. Paquette v, Auclair, 23. Paquet v. Balcer, 544, 1332. Paquet v. Bordeleau, 1893. Paquet v. Clermont, 868. Paquet v. Montreal, 953. Paquet Co. v. Paquin, 9, 11, 259, 896. Paradis, Re, (Richelieu Election Case), 847, Paradis v. Cardin, 845. Paradis v. Corp. of Dunham, 1334. Paradis v. Horton, 767. Paradis v. Letourneau, 1001. Parent v. Kennedy, 191. Parent v. Latimer, 299. Parent v. Plante, 722. Parish v. Parish, 999. Parizeau v. Meloche Levis, 927. Park v. Pullishy, 275. Park v. Schneider, 898. Parker v. McAra Bros, & Wallace, 1771, Parkinson v. Dolsen, 70. Parks v, Can. North. Rw. Co., 1791. Parks v. Journal Co., 783. Parks v. Simpson, 60, 1159. Parmelee v. Brouillard, 589. Parshley v. Hanson, 1781. Parsons v. Francis, 801. / Parsons v. London & Royal Bank, 1062, 1411, 1645, Pascal v. Bank of Montreal, 2297. Paskwan v. Toronto Power Co., Ltd., 1597. Patenaude v. Morgan Co., 1452. Paton v. Price, 1740. Patry v. Corp. of Beaumont, 1392. Paterson, Re, 2281. Patterson Hstate, Re, 946. Patterson v. Aldborough, 2239. Patterson v. Dart, 1379. Patterson v. Dodds, 197, 368. Patterson v. Fanning, 68. Patterson v. Lane, 728. Patterson v. Neill, 812. Patterson v. Oxford Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 1082. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. xli Patterson v. Palmer, 122, 924. Paterson Timber Co. v. “British Colum- bia,” 1952. Paterson Timber Co. v. Can. Pac. Lum- ber Co., 1982. Pattison v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co. North Rw. Co., 1550, 1558. Pattison v. Elliott, 617. . Pattison v. Emo, 165. Paul v. Mondou, 1245, Payette v. Payette, 1230. Peace Co. v. Peace, 1064. Peacock v. Crane, 1764, Peacock v. Wilkinson, 2194. Peake v. Mitchell, 2248. Pearce v. Hart, 66, Pearce v. Toronto, 610. Pearlman v. Great West Life Assce. Co., 610. Pears v. Stormont, 608, 1241. Pearson v. Adams, 618, 769. Pearson v. OBrien, 2086. Pease v. Johnston, 341. Pease v. Moosomin & Sarvis, 1695. Peace v. Randolph, 289. Pease v. Sexton, 1274. Peck v. Lemaire, 1178. Peel v. Peel, 1281. Pelekaise v. McLean, 76. Pelissier v. Houle, 1972. Pelletier v. Ackerman, 757, 891. Pelletier v. Guidi, 1962. Pelletier v. Rajotte, 1184. Vv, Vv v, & Can. Pelletier v. Roy, 734, 1265, 1343. Pelletier v. St. Laurent, 960. Peloquin v. Bilodeau, 965, Peloquin v. Woodley, 32. Pelton, Re, 1187, 1430. Pengelly-Akitt Ltd., Re, 438. Pennington v. Honsinger, 8. Pennington v. Reed, 1696, Pentland v. Mackissock, 2138. Pentz v. Haughn, 760. People’s Coal Co. v. Port Hood Richmond Rw. Coal Co., 1896. Pepin v. Provencher, 2141. Pepin v. Villeneuve, 2216. Pepperas v. Le Duc, 520. Periard v. Bergeron, 1882, 1895. Perkins v. Jones, 548. Perks v. Scott, 2107. Permanent Building Society v. Longtin, 270. Perodeau v. Richard, 7. Perrault v. Durocher, 529, Perrault v. Rumley Products Co., Ltd., 1350. Perrini & Co. v. Peacock, 558. Perry v. Downs, 969. Perfy v. Gugy, 9. Perry v. Morley, 871. Perryman v. Jardine, 405. Paterson v. Bitulithic & Contracting Co., 2247, 2248, Peterson v. Father Morrisey Co., 590. Peterson v. Hulbert, 338. Peterson v. Johnston, 1881. Petipas v. Myette, 2014. Pettit v. Barton, 262. Pettit v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1532, 1815. Peugnet, Re, 957. Phalen v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 1579. Pharmaceutical Assoc. of Que. v. Modern Drug Store, 830. Pheasant Point Farmers & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1849. Phelan v. Coutlee, 46, 889, 941. Pherill v. Henderson, 1161. Philie v. Cote, 240. Philips, Re, 1049, 2275. Phillips Estate, Re, 2269. Phillips v. Canada Cement Co., Ltd., 1484. Philips v. Conger, 1991. Phillips v. Lawson, 803, 818, 1696. Phillips v. Monteith, 2204. Phillips & Whitla, Re, Solicitors, 1966, 1968, 1971. Phenix Bridge Co. v. Haley, 2035. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Morin, 1086. Picard v. Revelstoke Saw Mill Co., 1737, 1746. : Pichet v. Lemay, 867. Pickard v. Deutcher-Canadier Co., 1476. Pickels v. Lane, 784. Pickels Co. v. Pickup, 813. Pickering v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 747, Pickering v. Thompson, 941. Pickford & Black, Ltd. v. Steamship “Lux,” 1954. Pickles v. China Mutual Ins. Co., 1105. Picotte v. Vigeant, 21, 26, 34, 37, 216, 1691. Pigden v. Pigden, 312. Pigeon v. Preston, 1058, 1236, Pigott v. Battleford, 1409. Pigott v. Bell, 2197, 2242. Piggott & Kern, Re, 2191. Pike & Reinhardt & Clinton, Re, 158. Pilon v. Lachine, 1137. Pincheck v. Strong, 1121. Pinki v. Western Pacing Co., 1779. Pinnelle & Thompson, Re, 104. Pinto Creek Election, Re, 854. Pion v. Fortier, 758, 979. Pioneer Lumber Co. v. Rooney, 1312. Pioneer Tractor Co., Ltd. v. Peebles, 360. Piper Estate, Re, 2281. Piper v. Stevenson, 1264. 1963, xhii Piquette v. Landry, 1903. Pitl v. Hamel, 302. Piton v. United Townships, 1759. Pitt River Co. v. Shaake, 2113, Pitts v. Campbell, 308, Pittsburgh Cobalt Co., Re, & Robbing, 104, 415, 421, Pitura v. Haney, 1705. Pitze v. Cook, 2208. Plamondon v. Larue, 576, 1028. Plante v. Cliche, 715. Plante v. Guevremonte, 353. Plaunt v. Gillies Bros., 186. Playfair v. Cormack, 303, 800. Playfair v. Meaford Elevator Co., 1609. Plouffe v. Dion, 1961. Plouffe v. Plouffe, 982. Plourdt v. Gauvreau, 837. Plourde v. Rioux, 299. Plowman v. Jenkins, 303. Plummer v. Davie, 2249. Pocock v. Novitz, 563. Point Grey By-law, No. 15, Re, 1405, Poirier v. Archambault, 2070. Poirier v. Legrand, 1584. Poirier v. R., 741. Pollard, Re, 877. Pollington v. Cheeseman, 1654. Polson Iron Works, Re, 391. Polson Iron Works v. Laurie, 5388, 561. Polson Iron Works v. Main, 1687. Pomerlau v. Thompson, 1320. Pontbriand Co., Ltd., Ré, 422. Pontiac Gold Mining Co. v. Beaumont, 50. Port Hood Town Clerk, Re, 1480. Portage Fruit Co. v. Portage la Prairie, 823. Porter v. Rogers, 2143. Portlance v. Milne, 1583. Pouliet v. Leclerc, 2292. Poulin v. Eberle, 838, 1261. Poulin v. Raymond, 609. Pouliot v. Bernard, 1690. Pouliot v. Demers, 120. Powell Rees v. Anglo-Canadian Mortgage Corp., 474, 762, 763, 806, 1780. Power v. McGillivray, 2154. Power v. Munro, 757. Powell v. Vancouver, 771. Prairie Stock Farm, Ltd. v. McFatridge, 1055. Pratt v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co., 1077. Pratt v. Gravel, 949. Pratt v. Lovelace, 1478. Pratt v. Pipe, 800. Pratt v. Robert Hyland Realty Co., 971. Pratt v. Waddington, 77. Prefontaine v. Grenier, 248, 1975. Prentiss v. Anderson Logging Co., 1293. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Prentice v. Brown, 1325. Presentation v. Gagnon, 2238. Presseau v. Mathews, 21, 571. Pressick v. Cordova Mines, 1455, 1482. Prevey v. Security Coal Mines Co., 2161. Prevost v. Parent, 1428. Price, Re, 927. Price v. Parsons, 2129, Price v. Wright, 64. Priest, Re, 595, Priester, Re, 2263. Primeau v. Mouchelin, 62. Primeau v. Pantel, 62. Prince v. Tracey, 1349. Prince Albert v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 172. Prince Rupert Location, Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1799. Pringle, Re, 2279. Pringle v. Dwyer, 30, 1650. Pringle v. Stratfortl, 574. Prinneveau v. Morden & Jones, 1256. Prior v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1794, 1818. Proctor v. Parsons Bldg. Co., 1569, 1642. Producers Rock & Gravel Co., Re, 423. Proulx v. Dominion Chemical Co., 53. Provencher Dominion Election, Re, 842. Provost v. Paquin, 2070. Provost v. St. Gabriel Lumber Co., 405. Prowd v. Spence, 1009. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Carrier, 1089. Prudholme v. Labelle, 2139. Prudhalme & Prince Rupert Comrs., Re, 1124. Pugsley v. Bruce, 8. Pukulski v. Jardine, 405. Pulford v. Loyal Order of Moose, 1217, 1228. Pullan v. Jones, 45, 479. Pulos v. Soper, 340. Purcell v. Grand Trunk Pac. 1818. Purdy v. Colter, 915. Purse v. Ferguson, 13867. Putnam v. Young, 1015, Pyne v. Pyne, 1700. License Rw. Co., Q. Quail v. Beatty, 2198. Qu’Appelle Long Lake & Sask. Rw. & S. S. Co. v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1823. Quay, Re, 2270. Quebec Bank v. Craig, 232. Quebec Bank v. Davidson, 150. Quebec Bank v. Frechette, 271. Quebec Bank v. Freeland, 1175. Quebec Bank v. Sovereign Bank, 1985, 1996. Quebec, etc., Ferry Co. v. Bernier, 1681. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Quebec, etc., Co. v. Dorchester Electric Co., 616, 617. Quebec, etc., Rw. Co. v. Langlais, 464. Quebec, etc., Co. v. Vandry, 18. Quebec Fire Assce. Co. v. Anderson, 105, 106. Quebec Land Co. v. Quebec, 114. Quebec & Lake St. John Rw. v Kennedy, 1804. Quebec & Lake St. John v. Valliers, 113, 114, 115. Quebec & St. Maurice Industrial Co. v. Daigle, 2222. Quebec & St. Maurice Industrial Co. v. Quirion, 1998. Queen City Realty Co. v. Massicotte, 30, 45. Queer v. Greig, 1616. Quigley v. Bastard, 865, 875. Quimby, Re, 2286. Quimet v. Fleury, 767. Quinlan & Gordon v. St. John, 1233. Quist v. Serpent River Logging Co., 1459. R. v. Alexander, 651. . Allen, 638, 1115. . Allerton, 651. . Allingham, 1126. . Anderson, 673. . Angelo, 632. . Atkinson, 644. . Austin, 662. . Bachrack, 696. . Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 710. . Barker, 97, . Barnes, 718. . Basker, 462. . Betchel, 652, 694. . Bevan, 1135. . Bleiler, 629, . Bloom, 646, . Boagh Singh, 679. . Board of Assessors, Fredericton, 161, . Bond, 716. . Bonner, 723. . Booth, 1991. . Borih, 1133, . Bradley, 1134. . Brady, 708. . Britnell, 677. . Brouse, 664. . Burke, 633, 709. Campbell, 677. v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 173, 324, 714, 962, 1495, 1769, 1880, 1977. . Vv. Carey, 633, 707. . Vv. Charlton, 905, . v.-Chartrand, 696. v. Chew Deb., 719. PPP PAPA DPD PPP PPR PPP PA AAA SASS ANAA4A4SNNA44 HAA AAAS: a PRR mp xii R. v. Chilman, 624, Chitnita, 702. v. Chlopek, 1953. v. Clark, 1131, v. Clarkson, 1118, v. Cohen, 691. v. Cook, 1130. v. Corey, 628. v. Cornell, 625. v. Crawford, 622, 652. v. Crooks, 645. v. Crouse, 1129, Vv. v. v. Vv. Vv. v. v. Vv, Vv, a . Cruikshanks, 650. . Curry, 630, 679. . Daniel, 669. . Davey, 98, 704. . Davis, 648, 707, 1130. . Day, 712, 1944. . Deakin, 910. . Demetrio, 668. . Dick, 700. v. Doll, 1393. v. Dorr, 1135. v. Dubois & Brady, 667. ¥. Duclos, 737. v. Dunlap, 714. v. Durocher, 649, 704. v. ‘Durlin, 639. vy. Earley, 669. v. Eberts, 687. v. Farduto, 670. v. Faulkner, 700. v. Ferguson, 623. v. Fitzgerald, 623. v. Fraser, 1128. v. Frizell, 697, v. Fuerst, 720. v. Gamble-Robinson Fruit Co., 54. v. Gibson, 675. v. Gilbert, 675. v. Gilmour, 1131. v. Girvin, 653. Grand Falls, Grand Falls, 161, 775. v. Graves, 624, 664, 674, 701. . Vv. Gray, 641. v. Gregg, 648. . Hagel & Westlake, 713. . Hamilton, 1007, 1424. . Hamlink, 1295. . Hammond, 670. . Harran, 101, 1188. . Harris, 722. . Harris, 327. . Harvie, 91. . Hatch, 655, ED .# beky . Hi a Ex p. azelwood, 640. eisler, 293, 728. icks, 638. inman, 624, POR PW WA DW WR A A DB BD Pevrerrrrrecre. an PRP PARP RW RR dB oD BD 1V a SSSSASS SAS SSS AAAS ASA AAAA RSA AAAS AAANASASANXAAAAAAANABANN AN AANA AHA NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. . Hogue, 695, 1185. . Holmes, 691. . Holowaskawe, 691. Holyoke, 1126, Honan, 659. Hoo Sam, 635. Howes, 2. Hung Gee, 668, 707. . Hurd, 687, . Hutchins, 656. Hutton, 689. Imen Din, 663. . Jackson, 634. . James, 634, . Jessamine, 675. . Johnson & Carey Co., 55, 657, 690, . Jones, 570. . Jung Lee, 646, 667, 690. . Kay, 1118. . Keenan, 715. . Kendall, 736. King, 676. Kinman, 654, Knowles, 570, 655, Kolember, 721. . Kolotyla, 689, 690. Koogo, 1140. Krafchenko, 709. Lafreniere, 655. Lagrace, 631. Lake, 710. Langlois, 692. Lapham, 661. . Lapointe, 1130. Laughton, 652. . Lawless, 1134. Leach, 99. . Lee Tuck & Lung Tung, 679. . Leschinski, 1141, Levy, 1121. Lew, 682. Limerick Township, 1519. Lombard, 626. . Lovitt, 1866. Lumgair, 670. Lynn, 628. fe . McColl, 642. McElroy, 688, 1131. McGivney, 633. McInulty, 630. McKay, 708, 1187. McKeown, 697. McLean, 11381. McLennan, 682. . Macleod, 741, 1301. McNamara, 701, . McNutt, 1129. . McQuarrie, 1189. . Magyar, 632. PADADAAA DADA DD ADD DAH DDD D AAD D AAPA A PDP P DPW DW AAAS S445 4444544545443 AS5ASAAAAAS SAAS ASAASASSAAAAAAAAAASAAS HANSA . Mah Kee, 666. . Mahoney, 1141. . Mali, 717, 719. . Manconi, 636. . Marcinko, 660, Marr, 714. . Martin, 688. Massey-Harris Co., 413. Matheson, 677, 1126, 1127, 1189. Michaelson, 623. . Miller, 666, Minchin, 637, . Mitchell, 708, 988. Moncton Land Co., 736. Montminy, 705. Monvoisin, 694, Morgan, 2, 662, Mulvihill, 706. Munroe, 690. Murray, 638, 704, 1117. Nelson, 694. . Nesbitt, 664. Nickerson, 1117, Nugent, 626, 710. O’Connor, 1134, Palangio, 59. . Paton, 1981. Paul, 635. Peck, 1116, 1117. Pelkey, 681. Pelton, 96. Petrie, 53, Pember, 1424, Pescaro, 2. Pfister, 1135, . Pilgar, 693. . Plourde, 696. Point Grey License Comrs., 1122. Pope, 713, 1392. . Powell, 726. Quong Wing, 463. Rand, 1116, 1189. Ratz, 675. Redd, 709. . Riddell, 1130. Rioux, 657. . Ritchie, 1124. . Rivers, 737. . Robert, 700. . Rogers, 736. . Ronald Curry, 678. . Rossi, 1134. . Rouleau, 636. . Roy, 92. . Royal Bank, 1646. . Ryan, 656. . Sadik, Bey, 628. . Scheller, 631. . Scott, 653. . Seguin, 709. v << AAA AAA AA HA ANKS AA RA MHRA AFA AA AR AAAS ARR A AA AAAS ARAB HSS SASS: DH POWWEB chee Mon @ m4 NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. . Sharpe, 643. Shouldice, 651. . Sidney, 678. . Sinclair, 661, 733. Sovereen, 697. . Sparks, 1426, Sperdakes, 698, 988. Spintlum, 699, Stair, 698. Standard Soap Co; 696. Stark, 668. Stauffer, 636, 703. St. Catharines Hydraulic Co., 742. St. Clair, 658, 661. Stephenson, 1131. St. Pierre, 630. Suck Sin, 1125. Sweeney, 1116, 1187. . Sylvester, 717. . Taggart, 737, . Tanner, 715. . Tansley, 662. . Taylor, 721. . Thaw, 641. Thompson, 632, 688. . Toronto Rw. Co., 460. . Toy Moon, 680. Trepanier, 711. Trottier, 647. . Valiant, 1948. Van Metre, 632. . Vincent & Fair, 638, 722. . Wakelyn, 625. Waldon, 469, 470, 660. . Walker, 662. Wallberg, 740. . Walsh & Crane, 669. . Webb, 628. . Wedderburn, 95. . Weiss & Williams, 640, 658, West, 708. White, 97. Whistnant, 663. . Whitney, 1132. . Wilson, 570, 659, 717, 1117, 1118. Willis & Pople, 713. Wing, 655. Wood, 676. . Woodroof, 644, Woodworth, 1116, . Wright, 624. . Youngs, 656. l . Yovan Naoum, 629, Zinck, 155. . Zyla, 654. rel, Angus v. Knox, 870. rel, Atty.-Gen. for Que. v. Cotton, rel. Craig v. Ego, 872. rel. Froehlich v. Woeller, 857. xlv ex rel, Giles v. Elderman, 656. ex rel. Hogan v. Jollivette, 858. ex rel. Morton v. Roberts, 855. ex rel. Morton v. Rymal, 855. ex rel. Sabourin v. Berthiaume, 860. ex rel. Sovereen v. Edward, 1143. Rex ex rel. Turner v. Laity, 469. Rex ex rel. Warner v. Skelton, 24, 872. Rex ex rel. Wells v. Green, 1933. Rex ex rel. Whitesides v. Hamilton, 1392. Raby v. Arbic, 2294, 2303. Raby v. Montreal Turnpike Trustees, 1511. Racine v. Dansereau, 580. Racine v. Meloche Heirs, 1037. Rae v. Parr, 592. Rahim, Re, 57, 92. Raichlin v. Katz, 229. Rainy River Boom Cor. v. Rainy Lake Lumber Co., 2214. Rainy River Navigation Co. v. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. & Minnesota & Ontario Power Co., 1780, 2215. Rainy River Navigation Co. v. Watrous Island Boom Co., 2211. Railway Companies’ Demurrage Charges, Re, 1802. Rakha Ram v. Tinn & Uday Ram Joshi, 41, 1652. Rally, Re,, 2278. Ram v. Boston & Maine Rw. Co., 322, 323. Ramage v. Deyoe, 1908. Ramelson v. Levinson v. North-west Hide & Fur Co., 1759. Ramsay v. Barnes, 1055. Ramsay v. Hitchcock, 594. Ramsay v. Toronto Rw. Co., 816, 1485, 1549, : Ramsay v. Turcotte, 230. Rand v. Otter Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 1084. Rankin & Winyard, Re, 1109. Ranney v. Stirrett, 593. Rasminsky, Re, 215. Raszis v. Gaudry, 154. Rat Portage Lumber Co. v. Hewitt, 1314. Rat Portage Lumber Co. v. Margulius, 269. Ratham v, Caldwell, 2186. Ratner Bros. v. Porter, 62. Ratterbury & Clinton, Re, 158. Raven Lake Portland Cement Co., Re, 424. Rawlings v. Tomiko Mills, 1498. Ray v. Wilson, 283. Raycroft v. Cook, 934. Raymond v. Leclerc, 908. Raymond v. Meunier, 2098. Raymond v. Temiscouata Rw. Co., 2221. Rea Consolidated Gold Mines v. Cordasco, 607. PP mp PS xlvi Read v. Ferguson, 1156, Reader v. Calumet Metals Co., 907. Reaman & City of Winnipeg, Re, 1402. Reaves v. Hyde, 892. Reddy v. Rutherford, 519. Reddy v. Stropple, 775. Redferns, Ltd. v. Inwood, 1014. Reed v. Smith, 2012. Reeve v. Mullen, 2194. Reeves & Co. v. Friel, 994. Reeves & Co., Inc. v. Stead, 1361. Reeves v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1542. References by Gov.-Gen., Re, 123. Regan v. McConkey, 1712. Regina & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1815. Regina Board of Trade & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1805. Reichnitzer v. Employers’ Liability Assce. Cor., 1088. Reid v. Albertan Pub. Co., 786. Reid v. Charpentier, 1836. Reid v. Moore, 1878, 1909. Reid v. Taber Trading Co., 613. Reid & Letich Collieries, Re, 1467. Reiffenstein v. Dey, 2026, 2029. Reinholz v. Cornell, 75. Reinhorn v, Knechtel Furniture Co., 1782. Reinhardt Brewery v. Nipissing Coca Cola Bottling Works, 1109. Rejeski v. Taylor, 842, 843. Removal of Agents from Agency Stations, Re, 1845. Renand v. Tourangeau, 2263. Renaud v. Lariviere, 606. Renaud v. Thibert, 614, Rennie Infants, Re, 1096. Renouf v. Dubuc, 1681. Renaud v. Pontiac & Abbitibi Mining Co., 1052. Renton v. Gallagher, 1292. Restall v. Allen, 1781. Retail Merchants’ Association, Ltd., Re, 435, Reynolds v. Foster, 2153, 2154. Rheaume v. Choquet, 1138. Rheaume v. Stewart, 114. Rhodenizer v. Marshall, 776. Ricard v. Grand ’Mere, 1406. Rice v. Galbraith, 1740. Rice v. Proctor, 1744. Rice v. Sockett, 515, 896. Rice Lewis & Son, Ltd. v. George Rath- pone, Ltd., 1317. Rich v. Melancthon Board of Health, 1334. Richard v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1494. Richard v. Goulet, 1284. Richard v. Grandmere, 109. Richard Beliveau Co. v. Miller, 217, 229. Richard v. St. Ours, 9. Richards v. Collins, 185, 189. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Richards v. Lambert, 11, 1857. Richards v. Producers Rock & Gravel Co., Ltd., 1940. Richards v. Thompson, 1371. Richards v. Verrinder, 1939. Richardson, Re, 2287, Richardson & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1847. Richardson v, Allen, 1788. Richardson v. Carnegie, 2010. Richardson, & Sons, Ltd., James v. Beam- ish, 1718. Richardson v. Georgian Bay Milling & Power Co., 1906. . Richardson v. Ramsay, 2067. Richardson v. Richardson, 11. Richelieu & Ont. Nav. Co. v. Cape Breton, 108, 1952. Richer v. Cote, 1066. Riches v. Zimmerli, 1763. Richmond & Drummond Fire Ins, Co. v. Macdonald, 401. Rickart v. Britton Mfg. Co., 49, 813, 1639, 1707. Rickley v. Stratton, 1332. Riddell, Re, 584. Riddell v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1821. Riddell v. Riddell, 999. Rideout v. Howlett, 2233. Ridge’s Claim, Re, Canadian Gas Power & Launches, 236, 428. Ridout v. Howlett, 2010, 2011. Ringland v. Edwards, 1321. Ringwood & Kerr Bros., Re, 1627. Riopel v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1789, 1858. Riopelle v. Riopelle, 722. Riordan v. McLeod, 898, 1157, 1178. Rioux v. Proulx, 584. Ririazes v. Langtry, 54. Rispin, Canada Trust Co. 2261. Ritchie v. Gibbs, 2151. Rithet v. Ship Barbara Boscowitz & Por- ter, 1944. Rivet v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 578. Roberge v Jacobs Asbestos Mining Co., 1465. Roberts v. Bell Telephone Co. & Western Counties Electric Co., 1597. Robert v. Equitable Fire Ins. Co., 1074. Robert v. Girard, 23. Roberts v. Gray, 914. Robert v. Kingsbury Footwear Co., 1480. Robert v. Vegiard, 603. Robert Bell Engine Co. v, Burke, 1922. Robertson v. Beers, 52. Robertson v. Colborne, Re, 1395. Robertson & Defoe, Re, 2071. Robertson v. Hastman, 22. Robertson v. Grant, 963. Robertson v. Hooper, 164. v. Davis, Re, NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Robertson v. Ives, 878, 934, 1108. Robertson v. Matthews, 2130. Robertson Asbestos Mining Co. v. Houle, 39. Robillard v. Corporation of Bailiffs, 200. Robillard v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 592. Robillard v. Harris Mfg. Co., 397. Robinson v. Casey, 910. Robinson v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1850. Robillard v. Catholic School Commission, 580. Robillard v. Chevalier, 334, Robinson v. Ford, 1205, 1774, Robinson v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1538, 1812, 2025. Robinson v. McCauley, 226, 1181. Robinson v. Montreal Tramways Co., 2015, 2024, Robinson v. Osborne, 1271. Robinson v. Regimbal, 55. Robinson v. Reynolds, 1743. Robinson vy. Saanich & Aikman, 200. Robinson v, Starr, 2129, Robitaille v. Proteau, 746. Robitaille v. Robitaille, 2210. Rochford v. Brown, 18. Rochon v. Corbeau, 491. Rochon v, Favreau, 496, Rochon v. Lalonde, 1365. Rockwell v. Parsons & Hall, 944. Rodgers v. Fisher, 2081. Rogers v. Grand Trunk Pac. 1793. Rogers v. Hewer, 2183, 2186. Rogers v. Imperial Portland Cement Co., 2020. Rogers v. National Drug Co., 1216. Rogers v. National Portland Cement Co., 486, 810, 1699. _ Rogers v. Troop, 891. Rogers v. Wahnapitae Power To., 2020. Rogers v. Wood, 1172. Rogers Hardware Co. v. Rogers, 366. Rogers Lumber Co. v. Gray & Hosmer, 1873. Rogers Lumber Co. v. Smith, 1202, 1218. Rohls & Co, v. MacLean, 1326. Roleau v. Bishop Construction Co., 408. Rolland v. Grand Trunk Rw, Co., 111, 142. Rolston v. Jamer, 1423, 1424. R. C. Episcopal Cor. v. Richmond, 168. R. C, Episcopal Corp. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 168, 325. Romang v. Tamburri, 882. Romaniski v. Wolanchuk, 1181, 2187, Rondeau v. Robitaille Eureka Co., 1757. Roneche, Re, 940, Root v. Vancouver Power Co., 1498. Rosaire v. Grand Trunk Rw. O©o., 2251. Rw. Co., xlvii Roscoe v. McConnell, 2021. Rose v, B. C. Refining Co., 365, Rose v. Clark, 1615. Rose v. Savoie-Guay Co., 1365. Rose v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1523, 1533. Rosenberg v. Bochler, 2195. Rosenberg v. Johnson, 265. Rosenberg v. Jutras, 231. Rosenbloom v. Sutherland, 833. Rosenfelt v. Biron, 1427, Rosenthal v. Pitblado, 304. Rosenveesen v. Thackeray, 144. Rosevear v. Halliday, 1673. Rosio & Jones v. Beach & Turner, 1317. Ross & Calgary, Re, 161. Ross v. Chandler, 1670. Ross v. Eastern Saskatchewan Land Co., 2167. Ross v. Henderson, 76. Ross v. Johnsons Co., 1942, Ross v. Pearson, 87, 1169. Ross v. Regina Agricultural & Industrial Exhibition Assoc., 557, Ross & Phillips v. Schmitz, 1376. Ross v. St. Lawrence Brewery Co., 447. Ross v. Webb, 1770, 1960. Ross Realty Co. v. Lachine, etc., Rw. Co., 1824, Ross-Ross v. Westmount, 1638. Rostrom v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1607. Rothchild v. Montreal Tramways Co., 1642, Rouleau v. International Asbestos Co., 1338. Roumageon v. Chene, 1219. Roumageon v. Greenberg, 1228. Rourke v. Tompkins, 1164. Rousech v. Schindler, 2167. Rousseau v. Cliche, 30. Rousseau v. Jolin, 1863. Rousseau v. Marcotte, 48. Rousseau v. Ouimet, 1789. Rowe v. Quebec Central Rw. Co., 1795. Rowlands v. Langley, 1732. Rowland v. McCallum & McKillop, 104. Roy v. Belair, 1011. Roy v. Dundon, 62. Roy v. Giard, 1915. Roy v. Godin, 2249. Roy v. Ranger, 1613. Royal Bank v. McPhee, 1656. Royal Bank of Canada v. Rex, 464. Royal Bank v. Schaffner, 9. Royal Guardians v. Clarke, 1106. Royal Hamilton Yacht Club v. Jarvis, 185. Royal Trust Co., Re, 1351. Royal Trust Co. v. Baie de Chaleurs Rw. Co., 93, 287, 289, 290, 439, 888. Royal Trust Co. v. Molsons Bank, 241. 1349, 1379, 1710, xlviii Royston Park Sub-division & Steelton, Re, 1862. . Rubensky v. Montreal, 2017. Rudd v. Cameron, 789, 794. Rudd v. Manahan, 777, Rudd Paper Box Co. v. Rice, 1079, 1448. Ruddy v. Milton, 1436, Rueber, Re, 2279. Ruff v. McFee, 1228. Ruffer v, Rattray & Sons, 21. Ruffnen v. Quebec & St. Maurice Industrial Co., 1466. Rumely Co. & Registrar of Saskatoon Land Registration District, Re, 1206. Rumley v. Gorham, 4, 1684, 1896. Rumley v. Saxauer, 973. Rundle v. Trusts & Guarantee Co., 818. Rural Municipality of Vermillion Hills No. 195 v. Smith, 177. “Rutherford v. Murray-Kay, 1698. Ruthman v. Quebec, 111. Ruthrauff v. Black, 1762. Rutledge v. Anderson, 477. Ruttle v. Ruttle, 1004. Ryan v. Alliston, 865. Ryan v. Gabriel, 1507. Ryan v. McIntosh, 78. Ryan & District Registrar of Titles at Vancouver, Re, 1860. Ryan & McCallum, Re, 1388. Ryder v. St. John Rw. Co., 1483, 1499. Ryland v. Delisle, 384. 8. St. Albert R. C. Episcopal Corp, v. Shep- pard & Co., 1222, St. Amand v. Decelles, 913. Ste. Anne Hunt & Fish Club v. Ouelle Pulp &.Lumber Co., 2213. St, Amour v. Lalonde, 994, 1034. St. Arnaud v. Guilbault, 255. St. Aubin v. Benoit, 1026. St. Aubin v. Brunet, 2178. St. Aubin v. Desmarteau, 123, 124, 126, 129, 766. St. Boniface By-law, Re, 1399. St. Clair v. Stair, 475, 789, 815, 819, 890, 1698. St. Cunegonde v. Montreal Water & Power Co., 180. St. David’s Mountain Spring Water Co. v. Lahey, Re, 1251, St. Denis v. Henry, 586. St. Denis v. Trudeau, 1167. St. Felix v. North Shore Turnpike Trust- ees, 1297. St. Flore v. Shawinigan Hydro-Electric Co., 166. Ste. Foye v. Quebec County, 1438. St. Germain v, Gauvreau, 1832, 1682, River NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. St. Germain v. L’Oiseau, 1734. St. Gregor Mercantile Co. v. Roth, 913. St. Honore v. Thomas, 193. St. John & Gordon, 1233, 1236. St. John & Quebec Rw. Co. v. Bull, 95, 1836. St. John & Quinlan, 1233, 1236. St. John River S. S. Co. v. Crystal Stream S. S. Co., 95, 605, 20385. St. John River 8S. S. Co. v. Star Line S. S. Co., 1956, St. John’s v. Bonin, 182. St. Johns v. Marchand, 922. St. Just v. Blanchette, 1320. St. Lawrence Realty Co. v. Casualty Co., 1236. St. Louis v. Thomas, 2239, 2245. St. Michael, etc., Co. v. Riendeau, 777. St. Onge v. Binette, 585, 617, 873. St. Ours v. Marchessault, 954. St. Paul Electric Light & Power Co. v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co., 1977. St. Paul Provincial Election, Re, 843. St. Pierre v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1822. Maryland y St. Sulpice Seminary v. Canada Industrial Co., 831. St. Thomas v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1817. St. Vital Municipal Election, Re, 855. Saad v. Simard, 1251. Saanich By-law, Re, 1396. Sabbath v. Baker, 766. Sabourin v, R., 738. Sager v. Manitoba Windmill & Pump Co., 970. Saindon v. Temiscouata Rw. Co., 1823. Salesses v. Harrison, 1229. Salmo Mine-Owners & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1810. Salter v. Everson, 2247. Salter & Local Imp. District No. 186, Re, - 1149. x Salter v. McCaffrey, 1275. Saltsman v. Berlin R. & C. Co., 43. Sam Chak v. Campbell, 58, 1285. Samwell v. Kindt, 147. Sanders v. Edmonton Dunvegan & British Columbia Rw. Co., 1830. Sanderson v. Saville, Re, 1386, 1338. Sandford v. Cameron, 2068. Sandford v. Cameron, 2154, Sandwich Land Improvement Co. v. Wind- sor Board of Education, 1935. Sandwich, Windsor & Amherstburg Rw. Co. v. Windsor, 174. Sandwith v. Cowper & Garrioch, 788. Sanford Mfg. Co. v. McEwen, 582. Sanford Mfg. Co. v. Stockton, 2032. Sanitary Water Still Co. v. Tripure Water Co., 811. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Sansoucy v. Ethier, 2011. Sarnia & Sarnia Gas & Electric Co., Re, 140. Sargent v. Chandler, 978. Sargent V. Hidsvig, 1738. Sarnia Gas Co. v. Sarnia, 1423. Sarnia Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Sarnia, 2041. Saskatchewan Land Co. v. Leadley, 50. Saskatchewan Land & Homestead Co. v. Moore, 406. Saskatchewan Supply Co. v. McFarland, 553. Saskatchewan Valley Land Co. v. Wil- loughby, 1158. Saskatoon Lots, Re, 1196. Saskatoon v. Temperance Colonization Society, 2248. Sattler v, Wilson, 1243. ‘ Saturday Night v. Horan, 307, Sauerman v. E. M. F. Co., 42, 524. Saunders v. Deavitt, 1179. Saunders v. Harvey, 390. Savard v. Gagnon, 217. Savard v. Vezina, 2002. Savoy & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1814. Sawdon, Re, 2271. Sawyer v. Mutual Life Assce. Co., 1090, 1095. Sawyer-Massey Co. v. Dagg, 1886. Sawyer-Massey Co. v. Szlachetka, 1871. Sawyer-Massey Co. v. Weder, 1259. Scaizo v. Columbia Maccaroni, 1464. Scamen & Can. Nor. Rw. Co., Re, 904. Scandinavian American National Bank of Minneapolis v. Kneeland, 589, 1775, 1776. Scarborough Securities v. Locke, 1230. Scarlett v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1494. Schaefer v. Millar, 2099. Scharf v. Warner, 328. Schink v. School Comrs., etc., 1937. Schliefer v. Kaufman, 908, Schneider v. Laurentides Brick & Sand Co., 419. Schoen v. Macdonell, 1971. Schofield v. Blome, 1476. Sehofield-Holden v. Toronto, 805. Schofield & Toronto, Re, 677, School Comrs, v. Audet, 178. School v. Canelos, 1681. School Commissioners v, Galarneau, 111, 1184, School v. Sophketes, 1662. Schoolarinos v. Canelos, 591. Schooner v. Fortier, 1427. Schultz v. Faber & Co., 554. Schultz v. Toronto, 1391. 4 0.c.L.— p+ xlix schwartz v. Bielschowsky, 620. Schwartz v. Halifax & S.-W. Rw. Co., 962. Schwartz v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 1497. Scobie v. Wallace, 2141. Scotney v. Smith Bros. & Wilson, 1587. Scott v. Allen, 1013. Scott v. Dalphin, 87, 96. Scott v. Greenshields, 362. Scott v. Hull, 896. Scott v. Megantic, 1513. Scott v. Merchants Bank, 239. Scott v. Moachon, 1744. Scott v. Paquet, 892, 1015, 1975. Scott v. Quebec, 1692. Scott v. Siemen, 446. Scott v. University of Toronto, 19, 409. Scott v. Versailles, 42. Scott v. White, 2195. Scully v. Madigan, 449, 761. Scully v. Nelson, 1702. Scully v. Ontario Jockey Club, 585, 1648. Scully v. Ryckman, 1347, 1348. Seale v. Drouin, 573. Seaman v. Sauble Falls Light & Power Co., 2214. Seaton, Re, 2288. Secrest v. Secrest, 999. Securities Corp. v. Hamilton, 20388. Securities Development Corp. v. Brethour, 414, Security Life Ins. Co. v. Gosselin, 2209. Sedore v. Coleman, 2049. Sequin v. Hawkesbury, 1391, 2243. Sekyer v. Hyde, 992. Selkirk Land & Investment Co. v. Robin- son, 2189. Sells, Ltd. v. 1868. Seminary v. Jacobs, 79. Semi-Ready, Ltd. v. Tew, 228. Senecal v. Meunier, 2201. Seriesky, Ex p., 988. Serling v. Levine, 123. Serling v. Olsen, 1283. Serling v. Sapery, 587, 590. Shantz v. Clarkson, 401, 803, 2207. Shantz & Son Co. v. Good, Re, 390. Shapiro v. Rosenburg, 21. Shapiro v. Smith, 921, 1687. Shapter v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 816. Sharpe v. Dundas, 1895. Sharp v. McNeil, 317, 2048. Sharpe v. White, 304, 482, 540. Shattuck, Re, 2262. Shaver v. Sproule, 1356. Shaw v. Dominion Townsite Co., 1750. Shaw & Portage la Prairie, Re, 864. Thomson Stationery Co., Ltd., 1 NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Shaw v. Robinson, 2027. Shaw v. St. Thomas Board of Education, 1474, Shaw v. Tackaberry, 934. Shawnigan, etc., Co. v. Magnan, 954. Shawnigan Hydro-Elec. Co. v. Shawni- gan Water & Power Co., 127, 1394. Sheahen vy. Toronto Rw. Co., 1491, 2026. Sheard, Re, 2266, Sheardown v. Good, 1158, 1712, 2155. Shearer v. Canadian Collieries (Duns- muir), Ltd., 1598. Shearer v. Forman, 2288. Shedden Forwarding Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 215, Shefford v. Douais, 187, 188, 198. Shelby, The, 1949. Shelly, Re, 1400. Shepard v. Shepard, 2046. Shepherd v. Rose, 1238. Sherbrook Land Co., Ltd., Re, 1864. Shere, Re, 929. ‘Sheriff v. Aitcheson, 2169. Sherlock v. Wallace, 302. Sherman v. McAuley, 52. Sherwood, Re, 2278. Shilala, Ex p., 1126. Shondra v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 1589. Shore v. Weber, 1200. Shuttleworth v. Seymour, 1327. Sibbitt v. Carson, 1736, 1756. Siche Light Co. v. Fortin, 421. Sickler v. Spencer, 1320. Siegwart Beam Co. v. Deschambault, 1410. Siemens v. Dirks, 1861, 1862. Sievell v. Haultain, 1210. Sillers v. Overseers of the Poor, 1677. Silver Spring Brewery v. Jodoin, 206. Silverstream, Re, 1950. Silvert v. Carlson, 2074. Simard v. Poulin, 21. Simback v. Saga, 1944. Simington v. Moose Jaw Street Rw. Co., 1481, Simmerson v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1587. Simmons v. Mulhall, 1248. Simoneou v. Hebert, 1050. Simonson v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 1461, 2019. Simpkinson v. Hartwell, 60. Simpson v. Caledonia, 1393. Simpson v. Davis, 1766. Simpson v. Parks, 60, 1159. Simpson v. Proestler, 2133. Simpson & Dawley v. Proestler, 725. Simpson v. Rees, 1174. Simpson v. Rubeck, 1314. Simpson v. Tallman Brass & Metal Co., 1604. Sinclair, Re, 1210, 1833. Sinclair v. Peters, 2234. Singer v. Prosky, 2012. Singer v. Russell, 1737. Sirois v. Belleau, 1670, 1762. Sirois v. Kidd, 122. Sissenwein v. Larose, 587. Sisters of Charity v. Forrest, 597. Sisters of Charity v. Vancouver, 176. Sisters of notre Dame & Ottawa, Re, 169. Siven v. Temiscaming Mining Co., 1568. Sjostrom v. Gale, 52. Skeans v. Hampton, 1052. Skewis v. Kamloops, 1514. Skill v. Lougheed, 589. Sklarink v. Whitehouse, 1501. Slater v. Vancouver Power Co., 1567. Slater v. Watts, 154. Slater Shoe Co. v. Burdette, 411. Slaughenwhite v. Western Assurance Co., 1104. Sleuter v. Scott, 2005. Slingsby v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1530. Smart v. McIntosh, 2130. Smeaton v. Lynn, 2121. Smith, Re, 97, 1045, 1109, 1958, 2260, 2271. Smith, Ex p., 852. Smith v. American-Abell Engine & Thres- her Co., 329, 341. Smith v. Anderson, 189. Smyth v. Bandel, 1173. Smith v. Barff, 1750. Smith v. Benor, 776, 780. Smith v. Bertie, 2240. Smith v. Berwick, 1483. Smith v. Bond, 1772. Smith v. Boothman, 615. Smith v. Campbell, 204. Smith v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1693. Smith v. China Mutual Ins. Co., 1105. Smith v. Crump, 148. Smith v. Doll, 993. Smith v. Dorval, 1333. Smith v. Dun, 787. Smith v. Ernst, 1789, 2166. Smith v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co., 1089, 1098. Smith v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1552, 1553. Smith v. Haines, 970. Smith v. Hamilton Bridge Co., 1583. Smith v. Harbour Comrs. of Montreal, 37, 889. Smyth v. Harris, 42, 1065, 1702. Smith v. Hopper, 933. Smith v. Kilpatrick, 2106. Smith & Link, Re, 1048. Smith v. McLean, 852, Smyth v. McLellan, 564. Smith v. Mason, 254. Smith v. Mills, 1301. Smith v. Murray, 900. Smith v. National Trust Co., 1268, 1368. NAMES UF CASES DIGESTED. li Smith & Patterson, Re, 2196. Smith v. Raney, 778. Smith v. Rosenberg, 579, 1220. Smith v. Royal Canadian Yacht Club, 1599. Smith & Rural Municipality of North Cypress, Re, 1151. Smith v. Saskatoon, 1198. Smith v. Shapiro, 1238. Smith v. Simpson, 1171. Smith v. Stanley Mills, 814. Smith v. Sugarman, 225. Smith v. Walker, 1711. Smith v. Western Canada Flour Mills Co., 411. Smith v. Wilson, 1276, 2198. Smith v. Ulen & Edmonton, 1624. Smith v. Yukon Gold Co., 26, 1342. Smolik v. Walters, 1602. Snell v. Bickles, 2157, 2177. Snell & Dyment, Re, 768. Snetsinger, Re, 2263. Snider v. Carlton, 2264. Snider v. Minnedosa Power Co., 931, 1686. Snider v. Snider, 1697, 1704, 2154, Snow v. Wolseley Milling Co., 1909. Snowball Co. & McLaren v. Sullivan & Tingley, 472, 1052. Society of Arts v. Prevost, 423. Soder v. Yorke, 3. Solicitor, Re, 100, 604, 1957,.1961, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972. Solomon v. Montreal Street Rw. Co., 606. Somervell Bros. v. Trotter, 1868. Sonier v. Breau, 791. Soper, Re, 880. Soucy v. Beaupre, 1050. Soucy v. St. Antoine, 24, 600, 1430, 2244. Soulliere & McCracken, Re, 2282. Souris School District Corporation No. 285 and Bullock, Re, 135, South Dawson Territorial Election, Re, 840. Southwell v. Williams & Schank, 2110. Sovereign Bank v. Clarkson, 262. Sovereign Bank v. McIntyre, 404, 893. Sovereign Bank v. Parsons, 1687. Sovereign Bank v. Sevigny, 42. Spedding v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 323. Speller v. Greenshields, 1218. Spencer v. Davidson, 2124. Spenard v. Rutledge, 1754. Spencer v. Spencer, 551. Spinlove, Re, 1047. Spitzer Bros. v. Union Bank, 1685. Sporle v. Edmonton Exhibition Assoc., Ltd., 517. Sporle v. Grand Trunk Pac. Rw. Co., 1791. Spotton v. Gillard, 220. Spring Creek School District, Re, 178. Sproat’s Executors’ Case, 253.. Spruce Vale S. D. No. 209 v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 169. Staats v. Canadian Pac. Rw. Co., 1488. Stages, Re, 956. Standall v. Standall, 999. Standard Bank v. Brodrecht, 247. Standard Bank v. Lemaire, 276. Standard Cobalt Mines Ltd., Re, 419, 439. Standard Clothing Co. v. Saskatchewan Valley Land Co., 1246, Standard Gold Mines v. Robinson, 586. Standard Ideal Co. v. Standard Sanitary Co., 1976, 2008. Standard Loan Co. v. Faucher, 1351, 1693. Standard Trusts Co. v. Hurst, 1362. Stanley v. Willis, 1241. Stanton, Re, 22538. Stanzel v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 2021. Staples, Ex p., 1118. Stapley v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 807. Starke Cooperage Co. v. Migneault, 2128. Starratt v. Dominion Atlantic Rw. Co., 537, 2021, 2026. Starratt v. White, 96, 814. Stather v. Bennett, 16, 1164, 1167. State Bank of Butler v. Benzanson, 275. Stautfer v. London & Western, 490. Stavert v. Barton, 48. Stavert v. Campbell, 107. Stavert v. Macdonald, 48. Stavert v. McMillan, 105, 569. Stecher Lithographing Co. v. Ontario Seed Co., 223. Steele, Re, 2279. Steel v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 2015, 2017, 2025. Steele v. McCarthy, 2109. Stein v. Hauser, 353. Steinacker v. Squire, 80. Steinberg v. Abramovitz, 1709. Stephens v. Cairns, 1648. Stephen v. Gray, 1197. Stephenson v. Gold Medal Furniture Co., 125, Stephenson v. Sanitaris, Ltd., 1132. Sterling Bank v. Laughlin, 237. Stetcher Lithographing Co. v. Ontario Seed Co., 1159. Stevens v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1521, 1529. Steven v. Pryce-Jones, Ltd., 501. Stevens v. McArthur, 309. Stevenson v. Lecker, 151. Stewart v. Montreal, 1688. Stevens v. Moritz, 2152. Stevens v. Ullerich, 1183. Stevenson v. Rollitt, 2063. Stevenson v. Sanders, 2085. Stevin, Ltd., A. & P. v. Dick, 1893. Stewart, Re. 358, 1093. Stewart v. Battery Light Co., 987. ‘Stewart v. Borm, 2122, li NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Stewart Co. v. Daly, 586. Stewart v. Henderson, 800, 903. Stewart v. Jubb, 1245. Stewart v. Marsh, 2125. Stewart & Matthews Co. v. Ross, 921. Stewart v. Saunders, 2044. Stewart v. Steele, 1614, Stewart, Howe & Meek Co., Ltd., Re, 415. Stewart River Gold Dredging Co., Re, 415. Stiffel v. Corwin & Can. Pac. Rw. Co. 1318. Still v. Watson, 63. a Computing Scales Co. v. Allen, 1706. Stimson v. Hamilton, 975. ~ Stinson v. Hoar, 2130. Stinson & College of Physicians & Sur- geons, Re, 1331. Stitt v. Can. North, Rw. Co., 1792. Stockman v. Stockman, 2253. Stocks v. Boulter, 318, 748, 2078. Stockton v. Mallinson & Dominion Express Co., Re, 321. Stoddart v. Owen Sound, 859, 1152, Stoddart v. Union Trust Co., 352. Stokes v. Griffin Curled Hair Co., 1595. Stone Limited v. Atkinson Bros., 103. Stone v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1556. Stone v. Theatre Amusement Co., 393. Stone v. Vallee, 957. Stoness v. Anglo-American Ins. Co., 1080. Storie v. Hancock, 2157. Story v. Stratford Mill Bldg. Co., 1447, 1449. Stott v. Municipality of North Norfolk, 824. Stout v. Adams, 70. Strachan v. McGinn, 2075. Strano v. Mutual Life Assce. Co., 1090. Stratford Fuel, Ice, Cartage & Construc- tion Co., Re, 437, 438. Stratford P. S. Board v. Stratford, 178. Strathclair & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1798. Strayer v. Hitchcock, 1753. Strickland v. Ross, 2096. Striemer v. Nagel, 1965. Stringer v. Oliver, 2177. Stroh v. Ford, 967. Strome v. Craig, 971. Strong v. Arran, 2235, Strong v. Crown Fire Ins. Co., 20, 1074, 1088, 1158. ; Strong v. London Machine Tool Co., Ltd., 1726, 1758. Strong v. Van Allen, 442. Strong & Campbellford, Lake Ontario & Western Rw. Co., Re, 1824. Strong & Ontario & Quebec Rw. Co., Re, 1824. Strothers v. Taylor, 540. Stuart v. Bank of Montreal, 768, 810. Stuart v. Hamilton Jockey Club, 391. Stuart v. Martel, 37. Sturgeon v. Canada Iron Corporation, Ltd., 1562. Sturgeon Falls v. Imperial Land Co., 181, 1639, 1642. Sturgeon v. Starr, 1039. Sturmer & Beaverton, Re, 588, 862, 1147. Styles v. Lasher, 562. Sugar Refineries Freight Rates, Re, 1803. Sugden, Re, 1050. Sullivan v. Brill, 358, 397. Sullivan v. Dore, 1214, 12380. Sullivan v. Valleyfield, 1513. Summers v. Blair, 1239. Sun Electrical Co. v. McClung, 1250. Sunbury & Queen’s Election, Re, 852. Sundy v. Dominion Natural Gas Co., 536. Superior v. Hutchins, 22, 230. Surrey & Great North. Rw. Co., Re, 1854, 1855. Sutcliffe v. Smith, 2145. Sutherland Estate, Re, 2261. Sutherland v. Bell & Schiesel, 202. Sutherland v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1471. Sutherland v. Phenix Brass Works Co., 1491. Sutherland v. Rhinhart, 1727, 1755. Sutherland v. Sutherland, 187. Sveinson v. Jenkins, 2151. Swale v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1655, 1800, 1809, Swan v. Eastern Townships Bank, 105, 1908. Swanson v. McArthur, 562, 1649, 1785. Swayzie, Re, 2280. Sweet v. Archibald, 265. Swift v. David, 1990. Swift Canadian Co. v. Hasterbrook, 883. Swilling v. Arnold, 81. : Swilling v. Glass, 81. Swinehammer v. Hart, 1265. Sydie v. Saskatchewan & Battle River Land & Development Co., 1212. Sydney v. Chappel, 147. Sykes v. Soper, 211. T. Tait v. New Westminister, 2241. Talbot v. Girouard, 758. Talbot v. Gourchesne, 768: Tanguay v. Dale, 809, Tanguay v. Royal Paper Mills Co., 367. Tanguay v. Tanguay, 950, 1666. Taprell & Calgary, Re, 1398. Tasker v. Moore, 88. Tasse v. Goyer, 1021. Taylor v. B. C. Electric Rw. Co., 1488. Taylor v. Charokin, 1660. Taylor v. Frigon, 1252. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Taylor v. Gage, 1054, 1384. Taylor v. Grant, 38, 1163. Taylor v. Palmer, 965. Taylor v. Paradis, 602. Taylor v. Pelof, 1056. Taylor v. Toronto Construction Co., 2207. Taylor v. Waddell, 550. Taylor v. Yeandale, 983. Taylor & Canadian Northern Rw. Co., Re, 144, Teagle & Son v. Toronto Board of Ed- ucation, 498. Teed, Ex p., 1126. Tehennosophotha v. Dominion Bridge Co., 1652. Telfer v. Dun, 799. Telfer v. Grose, 37. Temiskaming Mining Co. v. Siven, 1564. Temple v. North Vancouver, 189, 190. Teppo v. West Canadian Collieries, 1591. Thamer v. Jundt, 2295. Thaw, Re, 56. Theoret v. Allen, 65. Theoret v. Choquet, 326. Theriault v. Chevrier, 1031. Theriault v. Cochrane, 1396, 1404. Theriault v. Evans, 1780. Therien v. Viau, 761. Therrien v. Deschambault, 859. Therrien v. Tisdale, 860. Thibaudeau v. St. Theele, 1415. Thibault v. Raymond, 977. Thibodeau v. Levesque, 871. Thibodeau v. Viau, 1913. Thien v. Bank of B. N. A., 245. Thistlethwaite v. Sharp, 1229. Thomas v. Day, 1648. Thomas v. Fisk, Ltd., 591. Thomas v. McNaughton, 1659. Thomas v. Ward, 1616. Thomas v. Winnipeg, 1448. Thompson, Re Rural Municipality of, 1146, 1150, Thompson v. Baldry, 1055. Thompson vy. Brethour, 921. Thompson v. Columbia Coast Mission & Tidey, 1449. Thompson v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1557. Thompson v. Halifax Power Co., 952, 2230. Thompson v. McDonald, 2197. Thompson v. McPherson, 1337, 1340. Thompson v. Playfair, 1988. - Thomson v. Stikeman, 247. Thompson v. Wilson, 1894. Thompson v. Yockney, 1193, 1358. Thordarson v. Akin, 298. Thorne v. Roy, 1465. Thornton, Re, 2261. Thuot v. St. Athanase, 121. Tiderington, Re, 91. Tighe v. Jorgensen, 256. . 4 ¢.c.L.— Da Viti Till v. Oakville, 97, 1649. Timmins, Ex p., 161. Timmons v. Brown, 93. Tinsley v. Schacht Motor Car Co., 540. Toal v. Ryan, 2292. Tobin v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1586. Tobin Mfg. Co. v. Lachance, 1462. Tocher v. Thompson, 1243, 1918. Todd v. Mager, 855. Toffey v. Sutherland, 313. Tollington & Co. v. Jones, 1560. Tomlinson, Re, 1044. Tompkins v. Hale, 2035. Toney, James, 629. Tonucci v. Livingstone, 1274. Toohill, Re, 1204. Tookey & Edmonton, Re, 1439. Toombs v. Block, 752. Topper v. Birney, 2040. Torangue v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1595. Toronto v. Delaplante, 1398, 1405. Toronto v. Ford, 1385. Toronto v. Foss, 1391, 1401. Toronto v. Garfunkel, 1388. Toronto v. Hill, 1975. Toronto v. Peel, 2239. Toronto v. Schultz, 1391. Toronto v. Stewart, 1385. Toronto v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1412, 1975. Toronto v. Wheeler, 1389. Toronto v. Williams, 1390. Toronto Carpet Co. v. Wright, 1057. Toronto Club v. Dominion Bank, 258. Toronto Club v. Imperial Bank, 258. Toronto Club v. Imperial Trusts Co., 258. Toronto Construction Co. v. Strati, 1598. Toronto Developments Ltd. v. Kennedy, 49, 1053, 1710. Toronto General Trusts Cor. v. Estlin, 1033. Toronto General Trusts Cor. v. Municipal Construction Co., 809, 1595, 1600. Toronto Mfg. Co. v. Ideal House Furnish- ers, 899. Toronto Plan M. 188, Re, 2233. Toronto Rw. Co. v. Toms, 1490. Toronto Type Foundry Co. v. Riddett, 333. Toronto & Niagara Power Co. v. North To- ronto, 100, 369, 459, 1052, 1056. Toronto & Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co., Re, 1797, 1979. Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co. v. Toronto, 1851, Toronto, North Toronto & York, Re, v. Toronto-& York Radial Rw. Co. and Wad- dington, 101. Touchette v. Dominion Textile Co., 1459. Touhey v. Medicine Hat, 2238. Tourangeau v. O’Brien, 1602. Tourbin v. Ager, 1057. Town v. Kelly, 1664. Town Topics Co., Re, 366. liv NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Towns v. Towns, 994. Townshend v. Cox, 106, 692, 1118. Townsend v. Northern Crown Bank, 107, 249, 251. Tozman v. Lax, 2195. Tracy, Re, 2263. Traders Bank v. Bingham, 1909, Traders Bank v. Klock, 1177. Traders Bank of Canada v. Lockwood, 444. Trahan v. Boutet, 1003. Trahan v. Cardinal, 2283. Trapp & Co. v. Prescott, 69. Travellers Ins. Co. v. Travellers Life Assce. Co., 359. Travis v. Coates, 1742. Trawford v. B. C. Electric Rw. Co., 5, 17. Treadgold v. Rost, 2168. Tremayne v. Hudson’s Bay Co., 1694. Tremblay v. Chicoutimi, 1439. Tremblay v. Depatie, 120, 121, 573, 1016. Tremblay v. Dussault, 2060. Tremblay v. Girard, 860. Tremblay v. Henault, 799. Tremblay v. Levesque, 768. Tremblay v. Montreal, 1063, 1443. ._Tremblay & Desbiens Co. v. North Shore, etc., Co., 34. Tremblay v. Parish of Grand Bay, 1265. Tremblay v. Pigeon River Lumber Co., 1998. Tremblay v. Simoneau, 1463. Trenhaile, Re, 2258. Trenton v. Fraser, 181. Trepanier v. Lefebvre, 988. Trethewey v. Moyes, 1911. Tripodi and West Canadian Collieries Ltd., Re, 898. Trites Wood Co, v. Waters, 92. Trondeau v. Montmagny, 1166. Trotter v. Russell, 76. Trottier v. Belair, 1778. Trottier v. Deschenes, 2037. Trottier v. National Mfg. Co., 916. Trowbridge v. Home Furniture and Carpet Co., 596. Trudeau v. Town of St. Laurent, 175. Trudel v. Assad, 1761. Trudel v. Maisonneuve, 118. Truesdell v. Holden, 1287. Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Abbott Mitchell Iron & Steel Co., 373. Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Boake, 933. Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Grand Valley Rw. Co., 1376. Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Whitlaw Co., Ltd., 210. Trust & Loan Co. v. Demers, 119. Tucker v. Bank of Ottawa, 48. Tucker v. Massey, 1747. Tucker v. Titus, 478, 1366. Tudhope-Anderson Co. v. Kerr, 1883. Tudhope Motor Co., Re, 421. Tudor v. Quebec, etc.. Rw. Co., 1811. Tuhotte v. Jervis Inlet Lumber Co. 1984. Turgeon v. Esplin, 736. Turgeon v. St. Charles, 125, 1128, 1426. Turgeon v. St. John, 859. Turnbull v. Corbett, 1511, 2037. Turnbull Real Estate Co. v. Segee & Ward, 1192, 1272. Turner, Re, 937, 1493. Turner & Carosella, Re, 190. Turner v. Surrey, 1680. “Turret Age” v. Jenks, 1953. Turriff v. King, 1332. Tuxford v. Tuxford, 1010. Tveit & Can. North. Rw. Co., Re, 1834. Twin City Transfer Co. of Edmonton & Can. Pac. Rw. Co., Re, 1846, 1855. Twyford v. Bishorpic, 1273. Tyrrell v. Murphy, 347. Tytler v. Genung, 2112, 2113. Uz. Uhlenburgh v. Prince Albert Lumber Co., 1495. Ulmer v. Adolf, 131. Underwood v. Cox, 521. Union Bank v. Anchor Investment Co., 1177. Union Bank v. Aymer, 1176. Union Bank v. Crate, 1914. Union Bank of Canada v. McKillop & Sons, Ltd., 370, 372, 1173. Union Bank v. Toronto Pressed Steel Co., 1161. Union Brewing Co. v. Page, 1153, 1896. United Bldg. Corp. & Vancouver, Re, 1392. United Fuel Supply Co. v. Volcanic Oil & Gas Co., 1345. United Injector Co. v. Morrison, 1674. United Motor Co. v. Slinn, 1652. United Nickel Copper Co. v. Dominion Nickel Copper Co., 1063, 1343. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Brunet, 340. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Caron, 340. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Drouin, 111, 113. United Shoe Machine Co. v. Laurendeau, 115. . United States v. Webber, 639. Uplands Ltd. v. Goodacre, 529. Upper Ottawa Improvement Co. v. La- france, 1996. Upton, Re, 2268. Urbasz v. Gall, 1164. Vv. Vacarezzo v. Charpentier, 50, 991. Vachon v. Moffett, 2210. Valade v. Lerox, 119. YAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. lv Valci v. Small, 1601. Vallee v. Shedden Forwarding Co., 1448. Vallerand v. Lachance, 1251. Vallieres v. Ont. & Que. Rw. Co., 109. Vallieres v. Villeneuve, 879, 880. Vanbuskirk v. McDermott, 2202. _ Vancouver v. Cummings, 1510. Vancouver v. McPhelan, 1510. Vancouver v. Vancouver Lumber Co., 730. Vancouver Coal Prospecting Co. v. Mun- dell, 538. Vancouver Land & Improvement Co. v. Pillsbury Milling Co., 2128. Vancouver Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Van- couver Timber & Trading Co., 523. Vancouver & Prince Rupert Meat Co. v. Great North. Rw. Co., 1810. Vancouver & Vancouver, Victoria & East- ern Rw. & Nav. Co., Re 1818. Vanderwater v. Marsh, 490. Vandry v. Quebec Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co., 45. Van Felson v. Quebec, etc., Co., 203. Van Horn v. Verell, 811, 1617. Van Horne & Winnipeg & North. Rw. Co., Re, 1828. Van Hummel] v. International Guarantee Co., 358. Vannatta v. Uplands, Limited, 1316. Van Ripper v. Bretall, 979. Vanvalkenburg v. Northern Co., 1611. Vary v. Morin. 284, Vassar School District v. Spicer, 1934. Vaughan v. Schneider, 262. Vaughan-Rhys v. Clarry et al, 1995. Vaughan-Rhys v. Laidlaw, 1987. Veilleux v. Atlantic & Lake Superior Rw. Co., 290. Velasky v. Western Canada Power Co., 1623. Verma v. Donohue, 2118. Vermette v. Gagnon, 1756. Vermont Steamship Co. v. Abby Palmer, 1943, 1945. Verner v. Toronto, 1441. Vernon Steamship Co. v. Palmer, 1953. Verrall v. Dominion Automobile Co., 1613. Vezina v. Moise, 794. Viau v. Brunet, 1036. Viau v. Sauve, 743. Viau v. Villeneuve, 1606. Vick v. Toivonen, 448. Vickerman v. Mackenzie, 152. Victor Mfg. Co. v. Regina Trading Co., 1875. Victoria Machinery Depot Co. vy. “Canada” & The “Triumph,” 1956. Victoria Voters’ List, Re, 874. Navigation The Abby The Vidal v. Cauchon, 1228. Vidal v. Ivey Co., 1510. Vidito v. Venoit, 1779. Vienna v. Roszkosz, 158. Vigneault v. Brouillard, 1464. Vilandre Co., Ltd., Re, 436. Villeneuve v. Bilodeau, 399. Villeneuve v. St. Alexander, 1295. Vincent v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 1468, Vine, Re, 937. Vineberg v. Jones, 264. Vineberg v. Vineberg’s, Ltd., 2004. Vining Estate, Re, 2283. Vipond v. Sisco, 572. Vipond v. Watts, 1990. Vipond v. Windsor, 906. Viva, The, 1948, Vogler v. Campbell, 307, 309, 2301. Volcanic Oil & Gas Co. v. Chaplin, 2223, 2230. Von Serbinoff v. McCarthy, 1231. Voyer v. Lepage, 892. Ww Waddell v. Richardson, 2011. Waddington & Toronto & York Radial Rw. Co., Re, 1978. Wadsworth, Re, 880. Wadsworth v. Canadian Rw. Acc. Co., 1068, 1069. Wagner Bros. v. Western Elevator Co., 204. Wainwright v. Farmer, 568. Waite v. Edwards, 577. Wakuryk v. McArthur, 1308. Walberg v. Stewart & Co., 1600. Wales v. Harper. 1615. Walker, Ex p., 2297. Walker Co., S. E., Re, 437. Walker v. Barker, 2152. Walker v. Canadian Northern Rw. Co., 1559, 1626. Walker v. Harris, 1788. Walker v. Maxwell, 2147. Walker v. Miller, 710. Walker v. Skey, 2152. Walker v. Westington, 2218. Walker v. Wilson, Re, 614. Walker & South Vancouver, Re, 141. Walker & Webb v. Macdonald & Foy, Ltd., 578, 1740. Walkerville v. Walkerville Light & Power Co., 1438. Wall v. Dominion Canners, 1700, 1701. Wallace, Re, 475, 1958. Wallace’s Case, 433. Wallace v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1553. Wallace v. Day, 1250. Wallace v. Employers’ Cor., 579, 1071. Wallace v. Fleming, 869. Tns, Liability Assce. lvi NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Wallace v. Lindsay, 611. Wallace v. McSweeney, 1709. Wallace v. Potter, 1268, 1781. Wallace v. Smart, 332. , Wallace Bell Co. v. Moosejaw, 528, 542. Wallberg v. Jenckes Machine Co., 549. Wallberg v. R., 740. Waller v. Montreal, 1299. Waller v. Sarnia, 1518. Walsh v. Hennessey, 265. Walsh v. Mason; Stevens v. Mason, 1329. Walsh, Collier & Filsell, 55. Walters v. Wylie, 1224, Walton v. Biggs, 1237. Wanderers Hockey Club v. Johnson, 1156. Ward v. McBride, 794. Ward v. Proulx, 209. Ward v. Saunderson, 2010. Ward v. Victoria Water Works, 768. Ward v. Wray, 317, 968. Wardhaugh v. Wiseman, 1012. Warner v. Cameron, 1067. Warner v. Norrington, 589. Warren v. Murray Bay, 1434. Warren v. Pettingill, 1653. ‘Warren v. Whitby, 1385. Warren Gzowski & Co. v. Forst, 301, 306. Warwick v. Gagnon, 499. Washburn v. Robertson, 1289. Washburn v. Wright, 1304. Wasson v. Harker, 122, 1369, 1370, 1645. Waterland v. Greenwood, 2033. Waterloo v. Berlin, 1978. Waterloo Mfg. Co. v. Kirk, 351. Waterman v. Howard, Re, 612. Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Ball, 1687. Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Howland & Sask. Mutual Devel. Co., 29. Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Keller, 2029. Waters v. Campbell, 1961, 1962. Waters v. Toronto, 1289. Waterville v. Dudevoir, 1437. Wathen v. Ferguson, 32, 2008. Watson Co. v. Bowser, 1662. Watson v. Cadwallader, 1644. Watson Stillman Co. v. Northern Electric Co.. 523. Watson & Order of Canadian Home Cir- cles, Re, 1091. . Watt v. Knox, 762. Watt v. Macfarlane, 1789. Watts v. McLeay, 496. Watts v. Robertson, 1768. Watts v. Tolman, 1108. Wattsburg Lumber Co. v. Cooke Lumber Co., 520, 1497. Wauchope School District Assessment, Re, 156. Waugh-Milburn Construction Co. v. Slater, 1565. Weaver v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1531. Webber v. Copeman, 526. Webber v. Gaffin, 153. Weber v. Bowman, 2215. Weber & Morris, 1680. Webster v. Black, 1254, Webster v. Leard, 35. Webster v. Snider, 2072. Wedgery v. Dudley, 1700. Weekes v. Schrader, 2115. Weidman v. Shragge, 548. Weilgosz v. McGregor, 198. Weir v. Weir, 597. Weiss v. Rhodes, 2128. Weitzen Land & Agricultural Co. v. Win- ter, 1311. E Welland v. Canadian Freight Assoc., 1806. Welland County Lime Works v. Augus- tine, 479, 744. Welland County Lime Works Co. v. Shurr, 1344, 1345. Wellband v. Walker, 885. Wellesley v. McFaddin, 259, 287. Welsh v. Harrison, 878. Wentworth v. Burlington Commissioners, 167. Wentworth v. Saltfleet & Burlington Com- missioners, 167. Wentworth v. West Flamboro, 99, 293. Weppler v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1570. Wertheim v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co., 485, 748, 750, 1901, 1903, 1995. West v. Browning, 2069. West v. Corbett, 1460, 1505, 1854. West v. Mayland, 2012. West v. Montreal, 35, 1405, 1413. West Nissouri Continuation School, Re, 1932, 1933. West Toronto v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1979. Westacott Infants, Re, 1040. Westaway & Greaves v. Close, 1743. Westell v. McLaughlin, 96. Westergaard v. Weyl, 1724. Western Canada Flour Mills v. Middle- boro, 1872. Western Coal Co. Ltd., Re, 437. Western Hospital v. Phoenix Sundry Co., 1762. Western Planing Mills Co. v. Haton, 504, Western Trust Co. v. Pophan, 1370. Westhaver v. Halifax & South Western Rw. Co., 1507. West Lorne Scrutiny, Re, 866. Westmount v. Evans, 604, 929. Westmount v. Hicks, 33, 1508. Westmount v. Montreal, Heat & Power Co., 159. Westmount School Comrs. v. Galarneau, 25, 617. Weston, Ex p., 1115, 1117. Weston v. Middlesex, 1516. Woeffle, Re, 2279. Whaley v. O’Grady, Anderson & Co., 397. Whalls v. Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 46. Wharton v. John Deere Plow Co., Ltd., 410. Whelan v. Knights of Columbus, 1071. Wherry v. Chaest, 202. Whicher v. National Trust Co., 287. Whitchelo v. Colvin, 29, 613. White Co. v. Cannon, 262, 286, 972. White v. Casey, 2249. White v. Kearney, 51, 993. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. White v. Lake, 593. White v. Leet, 630, 697. White v. McDougall, 1192, 1680. White v. McIntosh, 342. White v. Wh'te, 1000. White & Co., Ltd., v. Donkin, 1929. White & Sutherland’s Claim, 437. White, George & Sons, Co. v. Hobbs, 1930. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Belanger, 1888, Whitehead v. McClaive, 961. Whitford v. Brimmer, 96, 318, 760. Whitney v. Kerr, 7, 115, 753. Whitney v. Small, 1169. Whittaker v. Taylor, 967. Wickham v. Grand Trunk Pacific Rw. Co., 89. Wickham v. New Brunswick & Canada Rw. & Land Co., 290, 331, 373, 764, 930, 1352, 1851. Wicks v. Miller 542. Widell Co. & Johnson v. Foley Bros., 43. Wiggin & Elwell v. Browning, 306. Wighton v. Hitch, 1340. Wigle v. Gosfield South, 823. Wilais v. Williamson, 1318. Wilbur v. Nelson, 1708. Wilbur v. Wildman, 1912. Wilcox v. Wilcox, 1031, 1035. Wilcox & Frost Co. v. Lamare, 585. Wildman v. Wildman, 2300. : Wilds v. Bank of Toronto, 1288. Wile v. Wamboldt, 97. Wiley v. Trusts & Guarantee Co., 525, 1178. Wilkinson v. McGugan, 132. Wilkinson v. Canadian Express Co., 321. Wilks v. Matthews, 217, 231. Will, Mountain Re, 2290. Williams v. Box, 601, 1381, 1383. Williams v. B. C. Electric Rw. Co., 1536, 1538, 2021. Williams v. Government Rw. Managing Board, 1806. Williams v. Klingel, 1761. Williams v. Salter & Karwick, 298, 735. Williams v. Sanford, 753. Williams v. Sun Life Assce. Co., 1366. Williams v. Tait, 1639. Williams v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1543. Williamson v. Bank of Montreal, 1944. Williamson v. Bawden Machine & Tool Co., 100. Williamson v. Grigor, 93. Williamson v. Playfair, 1780. Willoughby v. Conover, 77. Willoughby v. Saskatchewan Valley & Manitoba Land Co., 2029. Willoughby v. Wainwright, 276. Wills v. Brown, 203. Wilson, Re, 2281. Wilson v. Cameron, 521, 2105. lvii Wilson v. Deacon, 1716. Wilson v. Delta, 825. Wilson v. Hart, 1681. Wilson v. Henderson, 2015. Wilson & Holland, Re, 2191. Wilson v. Kerner, 1237. Wilson v. Latter, 811. Wilson v. McClure, 40. Wilson Co. v. Mayflower, 255, 545, 1127. Wilson v. Nationa] Electrotype, 1175. Wilson v. Sanderson-Harold Co., Ltd., 1301. Wilson & Sarnia, Re, 2217. Wilson v. Shaver, 61. Wilson v. Suburban Estate Co., 799, 2083. Wilson v. Taylor, 1364. Wilson v. Wardsville, 863. Windatt & Georgian Bay & Seaboard Rw. Co., Re, 132. Windsor Lumber Co. v. Rundle, 2207. Windsor, Ltd. v. Windsor, 362. Wing Fong v. Charlie You, 26, 1960. Winnifrith v. Finkleman, 1646. Winnipeg v. Brock, 1976, 2245. Winnipeg v. Toronto General Trusts Cor., 1414, Winnipeg v. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co., 571. Winnipeg Adv. Co. v. Hilson, 521. Winnipeg Electric Rw. Co. v. Hill, 1535. Winnipeg Electric Co. v. Schwartz, 1542. Winnipeg Granite & Marble Co. v. Ben- netto, 806. Winnipeg Hedge & Wire Fence Co., Re, 433. Winnipeg Light & Power Dept. & St. Boni- face, Re, 1401. Winnipeg Oil Co. v. Can. North. Rw. Co., 1506. Winnipeg Saturday Post v. Couzens, 543. Winnipeg Steel Granery & Culvert Co. v. Canada Ingot Iron Culvert Co., 787. Winter v. Gault Brothers, 334. Winterburn v. Boon, 67. Winterburn v. Edmonton, Yukon & Pac. Rw. Co., 958. Winters Estate, Re, 942. Wishart, Re, 2268. Wishart v. Bond, 2078. Witbeck v. Crankshaw, 1008. Witcher & Stewart, Re, 945. Withbeck v. Crankshaw, 1692. Witsoe v. Arnold, 198. Wafston v. Raymond, 207. Wolfe v. Croft, 317, 769. Wolfe v. Holland, 2195. Wolfenden & Grimsby, Re, 1386. Wolfson v. Oldfield, 94, 968. Wolfston v. Raymond, 1669. Woolenberg v. Merson, 1410, 1427. Wolseley Tool & Motor Car Co. v. Hum- phries, 1784, 1787. lviii Woltz v. Woltz, 1637, Wong Ling v. Montreal, 1511. Woo Chong Kee v. Fortier, 197. Wood v. Brodie, 932. Wood v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1556. Wood v. Grand Valley Rw. Co., 480, 488, 1841, 1849, Wood v. Hamilton, 1473. Wood .v. Newby, 1282. Wood v. Saunders, 1215. Wood v. Smart, 887, Wood & Winnipeg, Re, 1389. Wood v. Wood, 1008. Wood v. Worth, 1784. Woodburn Milling Co. v. Grand Trunk Rw., 1791. Woodford v. Henderson, 90, 905. Woodhouse & Christie, Brown & Co., Ltd., Re, 14, 1192. Woodley v. Harker & McRoberts, 975. Woodley v. Peloquin, 605. Woods, Brown v. Carter, Re, 939. Woodstock v. Woodstock Automobile Mfg. Co., 1886. Woodward v. Vancouver, 823. Woollek v. Bradley, 560. Woolman v. Cummer, 1616. Woolven v. Aird, 1046. Woosnam v. Merchants Bank, 257. Workman v. Vineberg, 37. World Publishing Co. v. Star Publishing Co., 903. Worsnop v. Wood, 834. Worth vy. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 1087. Wrenshall v. McCammon, 1742. Wright v. A. O. U. W., 1095. Wright v. Beatty, 88. Wright v. Bentley, 68. Wright v. Edwards, 557. Wright v. Elliott, 606. Wright v. Fitzpatrick, 1245. Wright v. MacLachlan, 1739. Wright v. Olmstead, 1261. Wright v. Pictou County Electric Co., 1549. Wright v. Smith, 73. Wyatt v. Atty.-Gen. for Que., 963, 2226. NAMES OF CASES DIGESTED. Wyers v. Winlow, 1590. Wynacht v. McGinty, 333. Wynne v. Dalby, 199. Y. Yackman v. Johnston, 1269. Yanofsky v. Vallee, 638. Yates v. Windsor, 1510. Yelland v. Oliver, 828. Yeo, Re, 1280. Yeo v. Ahearn, 834. Yiu v. Jack & Kin, 975. Yolles v. Cohen, 152. Yonge v. Vineberg, 1253. Yonhocus v. Canada Foundry Co., 816. York v. Edmonton, 171. York Publishing Co. v. Coulter & Way- side Publishers Ltd., 1059. Yorkton Butter & Cheese Mfg. Assoc., Re, 374, Yorkton Printing & Publishing Co. v. Ma- gee, 1692. Youell v. Toronto Rw. Co., 1696. Youlden v. London. Guarantee & Accident Co., 1070, 1071. Young v. Bruce, 36, 1512. Young v. Carter, 476, 538. Young v. Gravenhurst, 1477. Young v. Lambert, 925. Young v. Lewis, 594. Young v. Plotymeki, 2137. Young & Moose Jaw, Re, 1422. Young Hong v. Macdonald, 580. Yukon Gold Co. v. Boyle Concessions, Ltd., 1061. Z. Zdan v. Hruden, 484. Zdrahal v. Shatney, 1024. Zimmerman v. Canadian Pacific Rw. Co., 324, Zock v. Clayton, 733. Zorner v. Burger, 2144. Zuber & Hollinger, Re, 146. Zufelt v. Can. Pac. Rw. Co., 1525. Zwicker v. McKay, 1602, 2028. Digest Canadian Case Law January, 1911—Sept., 1914 (Omitting Cases included in Digest Canadian Case Law, 1900-1911) ABANDONMENT OF. Account. Action. See Account. See AcTION—DISCONTINUANCE. Appeal. See APPEAL. Cargo. See INSURANCE—MARINE. Chattels. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. Children. See CriminaL LAwW—INFANT. Contract. See ContTRActT, Crown Lands. See CrowN—CrowN LANDS. Distress. See ASSESSMENT AND TaxES — LANDLORD AND TENANT, Easement. See EASEMENT. Election Proceedings. See ELECTIONS. Excess of Claim. See JURISDICTION. Goods. See ASSESSMENT AND TAXES —- LANDLORD AND TENANT. Hole in Ice. See CriminaL Law. Homestead. See HOMESTEADS AND PRE- EMPTIONS. Husband. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. Infants. See CriminaL LAw—INFANTS. Judgment. See JUDGMENT. Land. See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Lease. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. Mechanics’ Liens, See MECHANICS’ LIENS. Mine. See CriminaL Law — MINES AND MINERALS, Plea. See CrImMInAL LAw—PLEADIN@. Pre-emption. See HOMESTEADS AND PRE- EMPTIONS. Proceedings. See ACcCTION—DISCONTINU- ANCE. Property by Insolvents. See BANK- RUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. Ship or Cargo. See INSURANCE—MARINE. Trade Name. See TRADE NAME. Vessel or Cargo. See INSURANCE—MARINE. Way. See Way. Wife. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, Work. See Contract. ABATEMENT OF. Action. See AcTION — LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, Legacies. See WILLS. Nuisances. See NUISANCE. See SALE oF Goons. See VENDORS AND PUR- Price of Goods. Price of Land. CHASERS. Rent. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. Taxes. See ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 4 o.c0.L—1 ABBREVIATIONS, EFFECT OF. See ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION. ABDUCTION. See CRIMINAL Law. ABORTION. See CrrminaL Law. ABORTIVE SALE. See Mortcacres — TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES— VENDOR AND PURCHASER. ABSCONDING DEBTOR. See ARRest— DEBTOR AND CREDITOR-- HWXECUTION. ABSENTEES. Witness absent from Canada—Adnis- sibility of evidence of. R. v. Pescaro, 1 B. Cc. R., pt. IL., 144. Witness absent from Canada—Right of grand jury to peruse depositions of. R. v. Howes, 1 B. C. R., pt. IL, Witness absent from Canada—Sufi- ciency of evidence of absence to permit ad- mission of ey depositions. WR. v. Morgan, 2 B.C. R 9. ACCEPTANCE. By parol—Of proposal in writing. Har- ris Vv. Dunsmuir, 6 B. C. R. 505. Of contract—By letter, terms of. Oppen- heimer v. Brackman & Ker Milling Co., 9 B. C. R. 343. 3 ACCEPTANCE—ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 4 or notes—Retention, and forwarding for Collection do not alone constitute a novation. Gurney v. Braden, 8 B. CO. R. 474. Of part of debt—After service of writ and giving receipt in full—No release under seal—_No consideration for agreement to ac- cept part in full discharge—Right of solici- tor to sign judgment for balance and costs. Soder v. Yorke, 5 B. G. BR. 183 ACCESSORY. Sce CRIMINAL Law. ACCIDENT. See MASTER AND SERVANT—NEGLIGENCE — Raiiway. ACCIDENT INSURANCE. See INSURANCE. ACCOMPLICE. See CrriminaL Law. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Accord and satisfaction.]—Is a con- tract and requires consideration to support it. De Salis v. Jones (1913), 24 W. L. R. 65; 11 D. L. R. 228; W. W. R. : Accord without satisfaction.] —- A document, made after the execution of an executory agreement for the sale of an engine, stating that it was mutually agreed between the seller and the purchaser that whereas the purchaser complained that the engine was defective in certain specified parts and.whereas the seller, while not admitting the alleged defects, adjust all differences, therefore, in consid- eration of the seller supplying the pur- chaser with certain specified new parts of the engine and crediting him with a _ spe- cified sum on his ,account, the purchaser admitted full satisfaction of his complaint as to defects and the complete fulfilment of all warranties made by the seller and thereby released and waived all liability on the part of the seller, arising out of the original transaction; such document, how- ever, not containing any promise on the part of the seller to supply the parts or to give the credit mentioned, will not op- erate as a Satisfaction of the purchaser’s right of action under the original contract in default of the actual delivery and ac- ceptance of the engine parts, but merely as an “accord” that if the seller did sup- ply the parts and give the credit then the document should operate as a release to the seller of the claims of the purchaser desited to: arising from any defects in the engine. Rumley vy. Gorham (1912), 21 W. L. R. 24;1D. L. R. 825. Negligence action — Settlement.] — Acceptance, before action, of $50 “in full of all claim re injuries.’—Court of Appeal held, settlement a bar to subsequent action, no fraud being proved. Per Garrow, J.A.: —There was nothing to shew that the wife was so ill as to be unable understandingly to accept or reject the offer of $50 made by the defendants. If the settlement was im- provident, or the consideration inadequate, that alone was not sufficient to justify setting aside the settlement—the inadequacy not being so gross as to prove fraud or im- position. If there was inequality or in- eapacity of some kind, it did_not appear that advantage was taken of the circum- stances. Per Meredith, J.A.:—There is no evidence of fraud in a claims agent dealing with a married woman, who has made a claim, even if she be in ill-health, and even if she has not a husband to help her. Gissing v. T. Haton Co., (1911), 20 O. W. R. 324; 3 O. W. N. 219; 25 O. L. R. 50. Digested under NEGLIGENCE. Promise alone as satisfaction.] — To constitute a bar to an action on an original claim or demand the accord must be fully executed, unless the agreement or promise, instead of the performance thereof, is accepted in satisfaction.Stewart v. Haw- son, 7 U. C. C. P. 168, and. Macfarlane v. Ryan, 24 U. C. Q. B. 474, specially refer- red to. Rumely v. Gorham (1912), 21 W. L. R. 24; 1 D. L. R. 825. Release—Action by widow and children of deceased under Families) Compensation Act, R. 8S. B. C. 1911 ch, 82—Money paid to deceased and release given by him—Release pleaded in bar of action—Reply of fraud— Trial as upon demurrer—Independent right of action—Absence of personal representa- tive—Right to attack release without repay- ment of money—Rescission—Necessity for.] —TIn an action, under the Families Compen- sation Act. R. S. B. C. 1911 ch. 82, brought by the widow and children of T., who, they alleged, died of injuries caused by the neg- ligence of the defendants, to recover damages for his death, the defendants set up that T. in his lifetime accepted $1,000 from them in full satisfaction of the injuries from which he afterwards died, and signed an agreement releasing the defendants from all present or future liability to himself or to his heirs; and the plaintiffs replied that the release had been obtained by fraud. The plaintiffs sued in the exercise of the right given by the statute, there being no executor or adminis- trator of the estate of T.:—Held, that the plaintiffs had not, under the statute, a right of action independent of the right which T. had for his injuries: the test of the right to sue under the statute is, whether an action could have been maintained by the deceased in respect of his injuries—At the trial, the only evidence taken was the proof of T.’s signature to the release; and the trial Judge dismissed the action, because the plaintiffs had not repaid the $1,000:—Held, on ap- peal, that the case must be considered as if before the Court on demurrer, and it must be assumed that the allegations in the state- ment of claim and the reply were true, and 5 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION—ACCOUNT. 6 that the release was obtained by the defend- ants by fraud.—And held, that the plaintiffs, though not the legal personal representa- tives of T., and not parties to the release, had the right to attack it when it was set up in bar of their claim under the statute; and that they had the right to do so without repaying or tendering the $1,000, and with- out directly asking to have the release set aside——Per MacDonald, C.J.A.: —_ Under the statute, the plaintiffs were in just as strong a position with respect to everything appertaining to the action as would be an executor or administrator. It was not neces- sary to ask rescission of the release. Those who, in the absence of fraud, would have been barred by it, had a right, independently of any representative capacity, to attack a fraudulent instrument set up against them. When the fraudulent nature of the release is admitted or proven, it is sufficient to say that the defendants shall not be allowed to defeat the plaintiffs’ right by means of an instrument so obtained.—Review of author- ities—Lee v. Lancashire Rw. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 527, 532, distinguished. Stewart v. Great Western Rw. Co. (1865), 2 DeG. J. & 8. 319, followed.—Judgment of Murphy, J., reversed. Trawford vy. B. C. Electric Rw. Co. (1918), 28 W. L. R.175; B.C. R. ; 2 W. W. R. 661; 8 D. L. R. 1026. Release—Setting aside — Fraud—Right to account—Estoppel — Evidence — Money paid—Return or payment into Court.J—In an action for an account of land transactions in which the plaintiff and defendant were jointly interested and for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff, the defendant set up payment in full and a release signed by the plaintiff:—Held, upon the evidence, that the plaintiff was overreached, and in- duced to sign the release and accept the pay- ment made to him in ignorance of the real state’ of the accounts, and in ignorance 2f the fact that the defendant had received a large sum from a certain source; that the defendant was guilty of fraudulent conceal- ment or non-disclosure; that the defendant had not accounted to the plaintiff for moneys collected or received by him as the plaintiff’s agent; that the plaintiff was not estopped, by reason of his acceptance of the money and signing the release, from requiring the defendant to account; and that the plaintiff should not be required to return or pay into Court the sum received by him as a condi- tion of an accounting being ordered. Corelli v. Smith (1918): 23 W. L. R. : Man. R. ; 10D. L. R. 382; 4 W. W. R. 114. ACCOUNT. Account stated—Yukon appeal — Final judgment — Right of appeal — Leave to ap- peal to Privy Council—Costs.]|—In an action by executors against the appellant to recover certain sums of money due to their estate, the Judge of the Territorial Court, at the re- quest of the plaintiffs, selected one of the items, and adjudicated on the evidence taken that the action in respect thereof be dis- missed: — Held, that this was, within the meaning of the Yukon Territorial Act, 1899, s. 8, a final judgment in respect thereof, not- withstanding that the remaining items in suit were referred, and the costs were reserved. No appeal therefrom to the British Columbia Court lay after the expiration of 20 days. Special leave having been granted to appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of Can- ada on a petition stating that the construction of the said statute was a matter of general public importance, without stating that it had been repealed.—Judgment in Belcher v. Me- Donald, 33 S. C. R. 321, reversed. McDonald v. Belcher, [1904] A. C. 429. ; Accountant and practitioner—Report incomplete — Supplementary report—C. P. 410.J)—If the report of an accountant is liable to be incomplete because the account- ant failed to take cognizance of all the documents filed, it will not be rejected on a motion to that effect, but it will be referred back to the accountant for a supplementary report. Gaudet v. Dupaul (1913), 14 Que. P. R. 385. Accounting — Should the accounting party supply a copy to the person accounted to?—C. P. 567, 572.]—The accounting party is not obliged to serve a copy of the state- ment upon the person accounted to, nor even to give him notice thereof; he is merely held to affirming it under oath within the delay fixed by the judgment ordering an account- ing and to file it, with any documents in support thereof, in the office of the clerk where the person accounted to must take communication of it. Girouard v. Durocher (1913), 14 Que. P. R. 368. Accounting — Defendant condemned to account in his official capacity—Who should pay the costs—C. P. 549, 570.) —When the defendant, in his official capacity, denies the plaintiff’s right to secure an accounting from him and prays for the dismissal of the ac- tion, he will be personally condemned to the payment of the costs if the judgment de- clares that he should account. Hawthorn v. O’Borne (1912), 18 Que. P. R. 200. Accumulation cf actions—Accounting sought for commissions paid and additional demand for determined sum—C. P. 87, 177, 566.]--The plaintiff, who prays that the de- fendant be ordered to account for goods sold and the price of which he has retained with- out paying him the commission to which plaintiff was entitled, cannot, by amend- ment, ask that the defendant be ordered to pay him $200 for commissions earned upon the sale of a certain quantity of merchan- dise for the benefit of the defendant; these two causes of action lead to different con- demnations and are subject to different modes of trial. Beaudoin v. Gagnon (1913), 15 Que. P. R. 343. Action for — Legal and equitable is- sues.]—O. 34, R. 8. is conclusive as to power of Judge, if he thinks it desirable to have all issues, both legal and equitable, questions of fact and law, tried before himself, to so order. Where notice was given of motion to set down for trial before a Judge at Chambers, a case involving matters of de- tailed account and requiring a prolonged ex- amination of documents, which could not be conveniently tried before a jury. and before the motion could be heard a jury notice was given by opposite party, and the Judge, after hearing the parties and with the jury notice before him, set the case down for trial before 7 ACCOUNT. 8 himself at Chambers:—Held, that he had jurisdiction to do so, and that there was no reason for interfering with his order. Clair- monte v. Prince, 30 N. 8. R. 258, questioned. Bolen v. Hiseler, 44 N. S. R. 287. 7 BE. L. Action to account—Liability to account —Res judicata — Alternative leave given to the plaintiff to file an account on failure of the defendant to do so—Issue to be decided on production of such an account.] — 1, A judgment that condemns a defendant to ac- count, with an alternative leave, in case of his failure to do so, for the plaintiff to estab- lish the account, is conclusive and res judicata as to liability to account. Hence, the de- fendant cannot, on grounds that he is not liable to account, contest subsequent proceed- ings by the plaintiff for a condemnation on an account made and produced by himself.— 2. When a defendant is condemned to render an account, and, upon his failure to do so, the plaintiff, under an alternative leave granted in the judgment, proceeds to estab- lish it, the only issue that remains to be pronounced upon is to the sufficiency of the account so established. The defendant’s only remedy is to show, by his own account, such errors or omissions as he may in that of the plaintiff. Frank v. Forman (1912), 41 Que. S. C. 511; 138 Que, P. R. 293. Action to account and to amend -account—Joinder of actions—Dilatory ex- ception—C. P. 87, 177, par. 6—Town of St. Ours; 29 & 80 Vict. (Q.), ¢. 60.]—The action to amend an account, presupposing an account having been rendered, is incom- patible with a suit to have an accounting, and the plaintiff will be held, upon dilatory exception, to elect between the action to account and the action to amend an account. Perodeau v. Richard (1913), 15 Que. P. R. 322. Action to account lies without action en partage, when a succession consists en- tirely of money. Brien v. Lancot (1900), 2 Que. P. R. 560. Agreement to return a thing upon reimbursement of the _ cost-price — Recourse in action to account — Judgment ordering an accounting, or, in default, that the amount fixed be paid.J—1. An agreement to deliver, within a certain delay, and in ¢onsideration of their cost price, a number of shares in a joint stock company, gives rise to an action to account in favour of the creditor for the purpose of determining the cost of the shares in order to deduct it from their value. 2. The Court, when ordering an accounting, may, at the same time, when the account is not rendered within the delay fixed, condemn the delinquent party to pay to the plaintiff the value of the things to be accounted for. Whitney v. Kerr (1910), 20 Que, K. B. 289. Between company and its agents. ] An account between an insurance company and one of its agents, wherein the agent is charged with each premium due by him on policies he has obtained and where credits are given him for specific premiums paid, is not a running account within the meaning of the law, even though extensions of time may have been afforded the agent to make his remittances. London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Hart (1912), 8 D. L. R. 3832; Northern Assce. Co. Vv. Hart (1912), 8 D. L. R. 805. Bill filed by director against com- pany and co-directors—Demurrer—Spe- cial circumstances.]—A director of a com- pany cannot file a bill for an accounting against the company and his co-directors un- less special circumstances are shewn. The report of a Royal Commission whose duties were inquisitorial and not judicial, finding that a sum of money received by the direc- tors was unaccounted for and the fact that the complaining director was the Attorney- General of the Province at the time the money was received and as such an ex-officio director of the company by the act of incor- poration, are not such special ‘circumstances as would support a bill for such an account- i Pugsley v. N. B. Coal & Rw. Co. ing. ] (1910), 4 N. B. Eq. 327; 8 E. L. R. 579, affirmed. Pugsley v. Bruce (1911), 40 N. B. R. 515. Breach of contract — Coal company— Employment of sales-agent — Substituted contract made by general manager—Informal acceptance by company—NMisrepresentations —Acquiescence — Ratification—Rescission— Breach—Nisconduct — Evidence—Counter- claim.]—The judgment of Stuart, J., 17 W. L. R. 702, was varied: — Held, that the plaintiff had no right of action for breach of the agreement represented by the letter of the Ist May, 1909; that was a merely tem- porary arrangement, terminable at _ will; though, for the period during which it re- mained in force, the account between the plaintiff and the defendant company ought to be taken on the basis of it—2. That the defendant company was justified in repudi- ating the agreement of the 27th June, 1908, on the ground of misrepresentation of the cost of production, and that that agreement was not afterwards ratified; and that, there- fore, in the account between the plaintiff and the defendant company, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his services during the term of that agreement only on the basis of a quantum meruit.—3. That the title to what was called “the Bush property” should remain in the plaintiff as security for any sums which might ultimately be found due to him in the account to be taken, and that the account should include the transac- tion relating to that property. Denman v. Clover Bar Coal Co. (1912), 22 W. L. R. 128; Alta. L. R. ; 7D. L. R. 96. Change of solicitors — Discontinuance of action—Motion by plaintiffs for order for account—ecosts, Land Owners Limited v. Boland & Paxton (1912), 23 O. W. R. 246, 4 0. W. N. 305; 6 D. L. R. 908. Chattel mortgage—Action for account of dealings with mortgaged property—Mort- gagee paid $200 to discharge distress for rent of farm on which the chattels were—Bailiff’s charges—Cost of renlevin arising out of seiz- ure—Other items—Question of fact.]—Court of Appeal held, that it was open to Divi- sional Court to form their own conclusions and to overrule an order of H, C. Judge who had affirmed the findings of the Master upon a reference. Pennington v. Honsinger (1902), 10. W. R. 270. See ib. 507 as to costs. 9 ACCOUNT. 10 Contract — Purchase of saw logs—Esti- mated number of feet—Price per M.—Ad- vances in connection with contract—Quan- tity of logs fell short of estimate.]—Held, that plaintiffs as assignees of vendor, could not recover for lumber sold and services and supplies furnished as the vendor would at the most only be entitled to an accounting. free Bank v. Schaffner (1909), 44 N. S. Debentures—Issued by municipality to aid a railway—Purchased by mayor and his co-partner — Re-sale at a profit.) — P. C. held him a trustee for the city and ordered him to account for the profit, It made no difference that the profit was made by the mayor and his partner jointly and not by the mayor alone. Bowes vy. Toronto (1858), Cc. R. 3 A, C..10, 11 Moo, P. C. 468. Di- gested under TRUSTS AND ‘TRUSTEES, col. 4302, Digest Can. Case Law 1900-1911. Deputy of a sheriff is not bound to account to his principal for monies received by him in his capacity. Perry v. Gugy (1840), C. R. 3 A. C, 8, 2 R. de J. 827, 2 R. J. R. Que. 245. Details—Action in damages—NSecretary- treasurer sued for an accounting—Averment that there was reasonable and probable cause to take suit—C. P. 123.]—If, to an action in damages against a municipal cor- poration by the secretary-treasurer, against whom it has instituted a suit for an ac- counting, the former pleads that it had reasonable and probable cause for taking suit, it will be held to giving the particulars thereof. Richard v. St. Ours (1913), 15 Que, P. R. 307. ' Filing account with plea.J—A defen- dant cannot plead to an accounting suit that he accounted after he had been put in default, and that his account had been re- fused, and file his account with his plea and pray for the dismissal of the action; the prayer of the plea will be struck off upon demurrer. Archambault v. Laurence (1911), 12 Que. P. R. 287. Holder of judgment cannot, by means of an attachment, obtain from a third party, and thereby discharge the debtor, the pay- ment of the probable balance of an account which is not yet settled; it is the duty of the defendant or of his representatives to ask for an accounting for the purpose of having such balance finally determined. ead v. Carbonneau (1910), 12 Que. P. . 47, Interest on accounts.]—In sales be- tween traders, when the accounts rendered bear a notice to the effect that a certain rate of interest will be charged, and the purchaser raises no objection, but even ad- mits that interest is payable according to a custom of trade, these facts are equivalent toa promise to pay such interest. Paquet Co. v. Paquin (1910), 39 Que. S. C, 58, Motion to reject items of the ac- count—Declaration of the non-existence of written documents—O, P, 572.)—In an ac- tion for accounting, a motion by plaintiff that. all the items of the account which are unsupported by written orders, contrary to a judgment to that effect, be rejected, will not be granted, if defendant declares the non- existence of written orders and produces vouchers for such items. Gagnon v. St. eo Lumber Oo, (1910), 15 Que. P. R. Municipal accounts — M. C. 156 to 172.)—-Without a previous action to account, certain items of the accounts kept by the secretary-treasurer of a municipal corpora- tion cannot form the basig of suit to recover payment.—Generally speaking, the accounts of the secretary-treasurer of a municipal cor- poration form one undivided whole, and suit cannot be taken by the corporation upon some only of such accounts.—An action to ac- count, or an action to amend an accounting, are the only legal steps which lie to estab- lish any balance due by or to the corpora- tion. Lamoraie v. Doucet (1909), 17 R. de J. 310. Not necessary to relief.J]—Riddell, J., dismissed with costs to defendants in any event, a motion by plaintiff for an account under C. R. 645, on the ground that there was no evidence to shew that the accounts sought were necessarily involved in the relief sought in the writ of summons. Re Gyhon Allen v. Taylor, 29 Ch. D. 834. Land Owners ¥. Boland (1912), 23 O. W. R. 265, 40. W. N. 242; 6D. L. R. 902. Open current account.]—The relation- ship of creditor and debtor does not exist so long as there is an open current account; such an account is indivisible and before it is closed payments made against it are not properly so. called but they are instal- ments. Baumer v. Carbonneau (1910), 12 Que. P. R. 47. Pledge of immovables — Obligations of pledgor — Moneys received from insurers after fire loss — Accounting therefor to the proprietor.|—The contract of the pledge of immovables is recognised by our law, and the creditor in possession administers it ag agent for the debtor, its proprietor. Hence, he must account to the latter for insurance moneys received after a fire loss. St. ae v. Desmariteau (1910), 20 Que. K. B. Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada janet for want of jurisdiction: 44 8. C. R. Powers of the Courts—Right to order an accounting by a defendant before adjudi- cating upon the merits of a suit.|—A Court when seized of a suit to recover a legacy or arising from succession rights directed against a person who was the mandatory and the curator of the property of the pre- decessors in title of the plaintiff and who, in his quality, is bound to render an account to such plaintiff or his representatives, may, before adjudicating upon the merits of the suit, order that an accounting be made by the defendant of his trusteeship. Durocher v. Girouard (1918), 22 Que. K. B. 225; 19 R.. i. 2.5, 223. Presumption of final payment of an account borne of the fact that the creditor has accepted from his debtor a cheque “in full payment of all claims,” may be rebutted ‘11 by positive evidence that the cheque was ac- cepted subject to the receipt of an addi- tional sum. Paquet Co, vy. Paquin (1910), 39 Que. S. C. 58. : Redemption — Trustee in possession — Profits.]—Divisional Court, 6 O. W. R. 961, ordered an account on basis of defendant being a trustee in possession.—Master to en- quire and allow a reasonable amount for waste in taking accounts. — Court of Ap- peal affirmed above order. Hull vy. Allen (1906), 8 O. W. R. 604. Reference—Appeal from Master—Auto- mobile company—NSale of assets—Mode of taking accounts — Appeal — Variation.]— Latchford, J. (23 O. W. R. 780), on an appeal from the report of the Local Master at Sandwich, upon the state of accounts be- tween the parties, reduced the amount found due plaintiff from $12,130.72 to $11,634.20, and gave judgment for plaintiff for latter amount, with costs of action and reference. —Sup. Ct. Ont. (1st App. Div.) varied above judgment, holding that upon the facts as disclosed upon the reference, the defend- ants did not owe plaintiff anything —Judg- ment declaring that neither party is in- debted to the other, no costs to either party. Richards v. Lambert (1913) 5 O. W. N. 388; 25 O. W. R. 352. Reference—Banking — Advances to rail- way—To complete line in foreign country— See TRIAL. Reference — Book-accounts—Credits — Absence of surcharge or falsification — Pay- “ment—Onus on defendants — Amounts re- ceived in excess of those for which credit given.]—Appeal by defendants from report of Local Master at Welland upon a reference to ascertain if plaintiffs were creditors of defendants, and if so, in what amount. On the reference, plaintiffs brought in accounts shewing amounts owing to them by’ defend- ants as well as certain credits verified by the affidavit of their bookkeeper. Defendants filed no surcharge or falsification and on ap- peal took exception to the statement of eredits furnished and verified by plaintiffs’ bookkeeper, claiming that onus was not on them to attack the account.—Middleton, J., held, 22 O. W. R. 203; 3 O. W. N. 1289; 4D L. R. 22, that onus was on them to at- tack the account, and that the onus was on defendants, and moreover no surcharge had been filed as required by Rules.—Appeal dis- missed with costs.—Divisional Court dis- missed appeal from above judgment, with costs. Ontario Asphalt Block Co. v. Cook (1913), 28 O. W. R. 744, 4 0. W. N. 591. Reference — Report—Appeal — Items properly disallowed—Promissory notes stat- ute barred—Interest allowed—Account to be adjusted without reference back—Judgment for balance found due with $150 costs. Rich- ardson v. Richardson (1911), 19 O. W. R. 74; 2 O. W. N. 989. Reference to take—Defendant’s dealings with certain properties transferred to him by plaintiff as security for an endorsement —Alleged trust—Reference had — Appeal— Death of defendant—Motion by present de- fendant (executrix of deceased) for order staying proceedings on the reference—Offer of ACCOUNT—ACTION. 12 settlement—Sutherland, J., ordered plaintiff to pay taxed costs of this motion within a month—Upon so doing may proceed with reference—lIf costs are not so paid defendant to have leave to renew motion—See 1 O. W. R. 150, 782, 6 O. W. R. 961, 7 O. W. R. 712, 8 O. W. R. 604, and 17 O. W. R. 487. Huli v. Allen (1911), 18 O. W. R. 609, 2 O. W. Release—Setting aside — Fraud—Right to account — Estoppel — Evidence—Money paid—Return or payment into Court.]—In an action for an account of land transac- tions in which the plaintiff and defendant were jointly interested and for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff, the defend- ant set up payment in full and a release signed by the plaintiff:—Held, upon the evidence, that the plaintiff was overreached, and induced to sign the release and accept the payment made to him in ignorance of the real state of the accounts, and in ignor- ance of the fact that the defendant had re- ceived a large sum from a certain source; that the defendant was guilty of fraudulent concealment or non-disclosure; that the de- fendant had not accounted to the plaintiff for moneys collected or received by him as the plaintiff’s agent; that the plaintiff was not estopped, by reason of his acceptance of the money and signing tha release, from re- quiring the defendant to account; and that the plaintiff should not be required to re- turn or pay into Court the sum received by him as a condition of an accounting being ordered. Corelli v. Smith (1913), 23 W. L. R. 381; Man, R. ; 10 D. L. R. 382; 4 W. W. R. 114. Tenants in common — Partition.] — Where plaintiff and defendant were tenants in common of a saw-mill and the facts shewed that plaintiff did not use the mill, but allowed defendant to use it, he paying all the expenses of putting it in order after plaintiff had refused ‘to contribute to such expense :—Held, that plaintiff was not en- titled to an order for an accounting by de- fendant. Harmony Pulp Co. v. Delong eee L, R. 99; 12 D. L. R. 409; ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF Indebtedness.]—When, with a view of trying to come to a settlement and avoid further proceedings, a defendant demands delay and the postponement of the return of writ, and in furtherance thereof signs a writ- ing embodying an acknowledgment of the indebtedness, he will be easily believed under oath when he states that he signed the writ- ing by error and without full knowledge of its contents. Jmbault v. Crevier (1911), 89 Que. 8S. C. 509. ¥ ACTION. 1. CAUSE ofr ACTION. ; 2. CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION. 3. DISCONTINUANCE OF ACTION. 4. DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 13 ACTION. 14 . Form or ACTION. . JOINDER OF CAUSES. . LIMITATION oF ACTION. TION OF ACTION. . NoTIcE or ACTION. 9. ParTIEs To ACTION. See PARTIES. 10. PARTNERSHIP ACTION. See PARTNER- SHIP, 11. Pena Action. See Prenat ACTION. 12. PEREMPTION OF ACTION. 13. Revivor or ACTION. 14, SETTLEMENT OF ACTION. 15. Summary ACTION. 16. Stay oF PROCEEDINGS. 17. MisceLLANEoUs CASES, TAO OW See LimMitTa- go 1. Cause or ACTION. Agreement — Construction — “ Sale” —Hzecutory contract for sale—Sale en bloc to company in which principal has con- trolling interest — Premature action—Com- mission not payable till first instalment of purchase-money received—Declaratory judg- ment—Pleading—Prayer for general relief —Claim for discovery as to sale—Failure to allege absence of knowledge—Counterclaim— Abandonment.] — By an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant appointed the plaintiff his sole and ex- clusive agent to sell certain lands. The agreement provided that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff as commission or compensation ten per cent. of the gross sell- ing price of ‘“‘all lands which are sold” dur- ing the continuance of the agreement, whether gold by the plaintiff or by the de- fendant or by any other person, and that such payment should be due and payable and should be made out of the first instal- ment of purchase-price, when and as re- ceived by the defendant. The plaintiff sold portions of the lands, and claimed commis- sion on a sale made by the defendant of the remainder of the lands to a company :— Held, that a mere executory contract would come within the meaning of the agreement in question, because the commission was de- clared to be payable out of the first instal- ment of the purchase-price.—Quaere, how- ever, whether the sale of the whole property, en bloc, to a purchasing company, in which the defendant acquired about four-fifths of the stock, was a “sale” within the meaning of the phrase ‘all lands which are sold.”— And held, that the plaintiff could not suc ceed upon his claim for a commission, be- cause the commission was to be paid “ out of the first instalment of ‘the purchase-price, when and as the same is received by the owner ;” and the evidence shewed that when this action was begun, no shares had been allotted to the defendant. and he had not yet received the sum of £15000 in cash, which he ultimately did receive, before the trial. — Burchell v. Gowrie and Blockhouse Collieries Limited, [1910] A. GC. 614, dis- tinguished.—Held, also. that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaratory judgment, because he had not asked for that relief in his statement of claim; and the prayer for such further and other relief as the plaintiff was entitled to was not sufficient to justify a separate kind of relief, different altogether from that suggested by the facts alleged, and especially claimed. The facts alleged must be such as to point to such a relief as being the proper one to give-—Cargill v. Bower, 10 Ch. D. 508, followed.—Held, also, that, while an action for discovery alone will still lie, in such an action it would be necessary for the plaintiff to allege some facts as to absence of knowledge on his -part, which would give a ground for such relief; and the plaintiff could not succeed upon his claim for discovery of the sale made by the de- fendant.— Held, also, that the plaintiff’s claim for an account and the defendant’s counterclaim for an account must both be treated as abandoned, neither having been mentioned in argument, and no evidence on the subject having been adduced by either party. Kennerley v. Hextall (1913), 23 W. L. R. 205; 5 Alta. L. R. 192; 10 D. L. R. 501; 3 W. W. R. 699. Appeal from decision of Master— Sec. 140 of Act—Application to register objection to issuance of certificate of title— Applicants barred from bringing action for possession — ‘“ Action”? — Meaning of.] — Latchford, J., held, 24 O. W. R. 619; 4 O. W. N. 1265; 10 D. L. R. 759, that an order debarring ‘the holders of the paper title to certain lands from bringing an action against the occupant for possession (see 23 O. W. R. 55) did not prevent them from filing an objection in the Land Titles office to the said occupant being registered as owner of such lands.—Sup. Ct. Ont. (1st App. Div.) reversed above judgment with costs, formal order objected to vacated and set aside. Re Woodhouse & Christie, Brown ‘€ Co. Ltd. (1913), 25 O. W. R. 117; 5 O. W. N. 148; 14 D. L. R. 285. _ Breach of trust—Settlement of matters in question in action.]—Where defendants were charged with a technical breach of trust only, held, that they were not entitled to go to trial merely to vindicate their characters. 21 W. L. R. 897. Elliott v. Hatzic Prairie Limited (1918), 24 W. L. R. 974; W. W. R. . D. L. R. : B. ©. R. : By public officer — Suing on behalf of public.}—By the law of Lower Canada, a Public Officer, suing on behalf of the public, has a right, at his own instance, or at the application of any person interested, to call for the demolition of any work erected with- out license on the public domain, and he is no more required to prove that the erec- tion has occasioned actual damage to the public than a private person who complains of a wrongful invasion of his property is obliged to prove that it has occasioned actual damage to him. Although such officer may, if he thinks proper, take proceedings to abate the nuisance, he is not obliged, nor is it, in all cases, his duty, to interfere. Brown v. Gugy (1864), C. R. [5] A. C. 40. Cause of action must be complete before an action upon it is commenced; and, therefore, an action cannot be maintained upon a contract where the offer was made 15 before, but was not accepted until after, the issue of the writ. Miller vy. Allen (1912), 7D. L. R, 488; 40. W. N. 346; Oo. WwW. R. 527. : Creditor for judicial expenses has a remedy by hypothecary action against the possessor of an immovable, subject to a privi- lege to secure such expenses from the date upon which they were incurred, although such privilege has not yet been registered. Fon- taine v. Maillet (1910), 38 Que. S. OC, 524. Appealed to King’s Bench. : Cutting down grade of street—De- priving land-owner of access to his property —Remedy—Tortious acts—Action or arbi- tration—Medicine Hat city charter, 6 Edw. VII. c. 68 (Alta.).]J—Upon application by F. for appointment of an arbitrator to fix the compensation to which F. was entitled from a city for cutting down the grade of a street upon which his property abutted, thereby depriving him of access to and from the street from and to his house :—Held, that what was complained of was done by the city, not in the exercise of any of its powers, but wrongfully, and that F.’s remedy was not by arbitration.—Provisions of the Medicine Hat city charter, 6 Edw. VII. c. 63 (Alta.), and especially s. 10 of title 27 and s. 26, of title 35, considered.—There is no provision of the charter under which a tortious interference by the city corporation with such a right as the applicant alleged could be dealt with otherwise than by action; and there is no provision which, either expressly or impliedly, gives the city corporation power to take away from an owner of lands his right of access to the same from the street on which they abut.— Review of English authorities. Re Forster é Medicine Hat (1913), 23) W. LL. R. 200; 3 W. W. R. 618; 9 D. L. R. 555; 5 Alta. I. R. 36. Detinue — Amendment at trial — Claim changed to conversion—Judgment for dam- ages for conversion.]—The plaintiff's claim was for damages for the alleged wrongful detention of five horses. He did not allege conversion of the horses. The evidence at the trial, however, in the opinion of the trial Judge, shewed a conversion of the horses by the defendants to their own use absolutely ; that the defendants were not taken by sur- prise; and that the amount for which the defendants could be found liable in detinue would exceed their liability for conversion: Held, that the plaintiff should have leave to make all proper amendments to the state- ment of claim, and should have judgment for the value of the five horses as in an action for conversion of them to his own use. McCutcheon v. Johnson (1913), 24 W. L. R. 868; WwW. W. R. 313 D. L. R. 41; 23 Man. R, 559. Grounds of relief against judgments —Ezercise of the right by direct action in- stead of by opposition, petition in revision, or petition in revocation—Neglect to file affidavit.|—-1. Anyone who finds himself within one of the conditions required for a petition in revision, a petition in revocation of judgment, or an opposition to judgment, may equally well exercise it by direct action. 2. Want of an affidavit in support of the action is a ground for preliminary exception ACTION. 16 and not for a plea to the merits. Stather v. Bennett (1912), 22 Que. K. B. 290. Guaranty—Goods supplied railway com- pany—Guarantee of two directors of com- pany—Alleged variation in amount of con- tract—Knowledge of defendants—Variation contemplated by contract—Appeal.]—Kelly, J.. 24 0. W. R. 850, gave judgment for plaintiffs against defendant company for the price of certain material supplied for rail- way construction and against the two in- dividual defendants, directors of defendant company, upon a guarantee executed by them, holding that the fact that the later figures of the plaintiffs for a complete job exceeded their earlier figures when the data upon which they were estimating was admit- tedly incomplete and subject to revision, did not release the guarantors.—Sup. Ct. Ont. (1st App. Div.) dismissed appeal with costs. Allen v. Grand Valley Rw. Co. (1913), 25 O. W. R. 222; 5 O. W. N. 197, 239. Judgment for damages sustained in consequence of any such injury against one of such joint tortfeasors is a bar to a sub- sequent action therefor against another. Longmore v. McArthur & Co. (1910), 43 8. C. R. 640, affirming 19 Man. L. R. 641. Motion to strike out statement of claim—Vewratious and frivolous.] — Mere- dith, C.J.C.P., held, that the bringing of a civil action, even maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, is not a foundation for an action to recover damages for the wrong done. Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Hyre, 11 Q. B. D. 674; Sevile v. Roberts, 1 Ld. Ray. 374, and Munster v. Lamb, 11 Q. B. D. 588, followed. Baater v. Young (1911), 20 O. W. R. 736; 8 O. W.N. 413. Evel v. Bank of Hamilton, 20 O. W. R. 776; 3 O. W. N. 415. Premature — Conditions precedent —- Arbitration before action, effect on right of action.]—Where a statute provides for in- demnity to be fixed by arbitration, such re- course does not deprive the injured party of his common law recourse, if he has any, and thus he may sue in damages without any reference to arbitration. [Williams v. Township of Raleigh, 21 S§. C. R. 108, 131, peered to.] Hull v. Bergeron, 9 D. L. R. Premature — Sale of lands — Agent's commission — Purchase price payable in stock — Writ issued before allotment.) — Where an agreement between an owner of real estate and an agent employed to sell the same provides that the agent’s commis- sion “shall be due and payable and shall be made out of the first instalment of the purchase price when and as the same is re- ceived by the owner,” an action against the owner who has sold the property for stock in a corporation to be formed, is premature- ly brought if, at the date of the writ no allotment of shares had been made to the owner, nor had he yet become entitled to demand the shares. Kennerley v. Heztall, og L. R. 609, 5 A. L. R. 192, 23 W. L. R. Release—Action by widow and children of deceased under Families’ Compensation 17 ACTION. 18 Act, R. 8S. B. CO. 1911, c. 82—Money paid to deceased and release given by him—Release pleaded in bar of action—Reply of fraud— Trial as upon demurrer — Independent right of action—Absence of personal representa- tive—Right to attack release without repay- ment of money—Rescission—Necessity for.] —In an action, under the Families Compen- sation Act, R. S. B. ©. 1911, ¢. 82, brought by widow and children of T., who, they alleged, died of injuries caused by negligence of the defendants, to recover damages for his death, the defendants set up that T. in his lifetime accepted $1,000 from them in full satisfaction of the injuries from which he afterwards died, and signed an agreement releasing defendants from all present or future liability to himself or to his heirs; and plaintiffs replied that the release had been obtained by fraud. Plaintiffs sued in the exercise of the right given by statute, there being no executor or administrator of the estate of T.:— Held, that the plaintiffs had not, under the statute, a right of action independent of the right which T. had for his injuries; the test of the right to sue under the statute is, whether an action could have been main- tained by the deceased in respect of his in- juries.—At tthe trial. the only evidence taken was the proof of T.’s signature to the re- lease; and the trial Judge dismissed the action, because the plaintiffs had not repaid the $1,000:—Held, on appeal, that the case must be considered as if before the Court on demurrer, and it must be assumed that the allegations in the statement of claim and the reply were true, and that the release was obtained by the defendants by fraud.— And held, that the plaintiffs, though not the legal personal representatives of T., and not parties to the release, had the right to attack it when it was set up in bar of their claim under the statute; and that they had the right to do so without repaying or tendering the $1,000, and without directly asking to have the release set aside—Per Macdonald, C.J.A.:— Under the statute, the plaintiffs were in just as strong a position with respect to everything appertaining to the action as would be an executor or administrator. It was not necessary to ask rescission of the release. Those who, in the absence of fraud, would have been barred by it, had a right, independently of any representative capacity, to attack a fraudulent instrument set up against them. When the fraudulent nature of the release is admitted or proven, it is sufficient to say that the defendants shall not be allowed to defeat the plaintiffs’ right by means of an instrument so_ob- tained.—Review of authorities—Lee v. Lan- cashire Rw, Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 527, 532, distinguished. Stewart v. Great Western Rw. Co. (1865), 2 DeG. J. & S. 319, fol- Jowed.—Judgment of Murphy, J., reversed. Trawford v. B OC. Electric Rw. Co. (1918), 23 W. L. R. 175; 18 B. C. R. 182; 2 W. W. R. 661; 8 D. L. R. 1026; 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 39. Removal of cause from Surrogate Court—Statement of claim—Parties—Who should be plaintiff..—The widow of a de- ceased person petitioned the Surrogate Court for the grant to her, as executrix, of letters probate of a supposed will of her husband. This was opposed by A. J., who set up an earlier will. The cause thus pending in the Surrogate Court was removed into the Court of King’s Bench by order of a Judge under sec. 63 of the Surrogate Courts Act :—Held, that the practice and procedure of the King’s Bench applied to the cause, and that it was necessary for the plaintiff to file a statement of claim in the King’s Bench before taking any other step. Doll v. Howard, 11 Man. L. R. 78, applied and followed.—Held, also, that the widow should be plaintiff in the cause. Re Jickling (1911), 17 W. L. R. 400, 20 Man. L. R. 436. Right to bring.] — By the old French law in force in Lower Canada, the action, de- nonciation de touvel oeuvre, can only be brought by a person to stop the progress of a work, which, if completed, would be injur- ious to him. Such action must be brought whilst the work is in progress, and the Court ean either interdict the further progress of the work, or require security for any injury the plaintiff may sustain; but such action cannot be brought after the work is com- Bae Brown v. Gugy (1864 C. R. [5] A. . 40. Right to bring—Ratepayer represent- ing all other ratepayers—Tenant not repre- sentative ratepayer — Action dismissed.J|— Boyd, C., held, that a tenant (who if called on to pay taxes may deduct them from his rent) cannot be regarded as representing the body of ratepayers who are primarily and ultimateiy liable to pay taxes, and dis- missed an action by such a ratepayer brought on behalf of himself and all other ratepayers. Rochford v. Brown (1911), 20 O. W. R. 591; 3 O. W. N. 348; 25 0. L. R. 206. Right to take separate actions for parts of same debt—Dilatory exrception— Unnecessary multiplication of appeals in- volving same question—Hffects as regards costs—O. P. 87.]—Buildings of one of the plaintiffs were destroyed by a fire alleged to have been caused by negligence of the com- pany defendant. Two actions were taken by insurance companies to recover sums paid by them under insurance policies for fire losses to the owner of the buildings, and a third action was taken against the owner of the buildings to recover damages caused by the fire in excess of the sums received from the insurers. By its dilatory exception, the defendant asked in each action that the suit be stayed until the plaintiff would have called in the plaintiff in the other two ac- tions :—Held, that the dilatory exceptions had been rightly dismissed by the Superior Court as it was not the case of a creditor having divided his debt for the purpose of suing for it by several actions notwithstand- ing that the insurers alleged conventional subrogation in the rights of the owner of the buildings.—Held further that as it was not shewn that the question (which was identical in all the actions) could not have been decided in a single appeal as a test case, a single full bill of costs on an interlo- cutory appeal would be allowed to the at- torneys of the successful respondents, but disbursements only on the other two appeals. Quebec, etc. Co. v. Vandry (1913), 19° R. de J. 279. Statutory enactment that gives the right to litigants in certain cases, to evoke a suit from an inferior to a superior Court 19 ACTION. of jurisdiction, is not a law concerning pro- cedure, but deals with and confers a sub- stantive right. It is not, therefore, retro- active and can only apply tto cases that arise after it has come into force. Montreal v. DeLisle (1918), 44 Que. 8. G. 412, Style of cause—Individual carrying on business under firm name — Amendment ordered — Terms — Oosts.] — Master-in- Chambers ordered that where an action was brought in the name of Samuel Lloyd & Co. as plaintiffs and it appeared that the Sole member of the firm was Theresa Lloyd, the style of cause should be amended accordingly. Lang v. Thompson, 16 P. R 16, and Mason v. Mogridge, 8 T. L. RB. 805, followed. Lloyd & Co. v. Scully (1918), 24 2: W. R. 685; 4 O. W. N. 1404; D. University of Toronto — Liability of Governors to action—Legal position as body corporate—Not Crown officers—Fiat of At- torney-General—Effect of—Action for negli- gence — Workmen's Compensation for In- juries Act—Evidence — Damages.]—Mere- dith, C.J.C.P., held, that the Governors of the University of Toronto were a body cor- porate, liable to be sued as such and were in no sense Crown officers, even though ap- pointed by ithe Lieutenant-Governor in Coun- cil, and that therefore the maxim that “ the King can do no wrong” had no application to them. Scott v. University of Toronto (1913), 24 D. W. R. 325; 4 O. W. N. 994; 10 D. L. R. 154. ’ 2. CONSOLIDATION oF ACTION. Application for consolidation of actions—Directions that actions be tried together—Mechanics’ liens.]—The contractor for construction of a building sued the owner, claiming a mechanic’s lien, damages for breach of contract, and a personal judgment for the price of the work and material. Three sub-contractors each brought an ac- tion against the contractor and the owner claiming against the contractor for work and material and against the property a lien. Two other sub-contractors each brought an action against the contractor only, one claiming for work and material, the other for work and material and for damages for breach of contract. In all five actions by the sub-contractors, the contractor made the owner a third party and claimed indemnity. The contractor applied to consolidate the actions. The owner consented; the sub- contractors opposed.— The application for consolidation was refused without costs, but the contractor was allowed, provided he acted promptly, to have all the actions set down for trial together.” Olson & Johnson Co. v. McLeod (1918), 25 W. L. R. 472; ‘Ww. W. R. 313 D. L. R. 640; Alta. LR. Common defendant — Distinct claims by different plaintiffs — Action for damages for negligently setting out fire.|—Applica- tion by defendants for an order consolidating four actions or staying proceedings in all but the first pending its trial] and directing further that only one of the pending exam- inations for discovery be allowed to proceed. _tion. 20 The actions were all brought by the same solicitor in respect of alleged negligence of defendants on 10th July, 1911, in negligently setting out a fire and allowing it to escape to the respective lands of defendants. — Master in ‘Chambers 22 O. W. R. 64; 3 O. W. N. 1085; 2 D L. R. 900, dismissed the motion, costs in cause to plaintiffs, and de- fendants appealed.—Middleton, J. dismissed appeal; costs to plaintiffs in any event.— Westbrook v. Australian Mail, 23 L, J. C. P. 42, and Williams v. Raleigh, 14 P. R. 50, followed.—History of and principles govern- ing consolidation of actions discussed. Kuula v. Moose Mountain (1912), 22 O. W. R. 64; 3 0. W. N. 1208; 26 O. L. R. 332; 5 D. L. R. 814. : Convenience—Practice—Stay of one ac- Pullan y. Jones (1910), 1 O. W. N. Eight actions to be tried all at once.] —Master in Chambers granted order for eight actions to be all tried at once. They con- cerned claims in connection with the liquida- tion of the Sovereign: Bank. They arose out of dealings with the stock of the Penman Co. Campbell v. Sovereign Bank (1911), 20 O. W. R. 521, 3 O. W. N. 334. See 22 0. W. R. 105; 3 O. W. N. 1283; 3D. L. R. 865. New action brought and consoli- dated with premature action—Amend- ments.]—An order may be made consolidat- ing two actions brought by the same plain- tiffs to recover the loss under a fire insur- ance policy, where the second action was brought within the statutory period of lim- itation to prevent the lapse of the claim in case it should be held that the first action was premature. Martin v. Martin (1897), 1 Q. B. 429, applied. Strong v. Crown Fire Ins. Co. (1912), 20 O. W. R. 901; 3 O, W. N. 481; 1D. L. R. 111. See 22 O. W. RK. 309; 3 O. W. N. 1877. Several actions by different plain- 4“iffs against same defendant, alleging that plaintiffs were induced to purchase shares by fraudulent misrepresentations, consisting of oral statements made at different inter- views, not covered by any common pros- pectus or other representation made gener- ally to all of such plaintiffs as distinguished from the separate representations made to each of them, should not be consolidated. Carter v. Foley-O’Brien Co., 5 D. L. R. 28, 3 0. W. N. 888. 8. DISCONTINUANCE OF ACTION. After issue joined on merits.] — A discontinuance filed, after issue has been joined on the merits, by the plaintiff hus- band, in a suit to annul a marriage, ig no hindrance to the hearing and decision of the case upon the merits, when the defendant, whose interests are clearly defined, asks for it, and, particularly, when the child born of the marriage has intervened for the purpose of establishing the legitimacy of its birth and also insists upon a similar judgment.— The discontinuance of a suit, to be valid, should be free from any reserve which would have the effect of reviving it. A plaintiff, therefore, cannot discontinue his action “ un- 21 ACTION. 22 der reserve.” Herbert Vv. 41 Que. 8. C. 249; 18 R. B. L. R. 336. Against two defendants—Proceedings against only one.) — A_ suit. commenced against two defendants to set aside fraudulent acts entered into between them, to the pre- judice of plaintiff, cannot be proceeded with as one only, if, for reasons of public order, it is illegal and cannot be entertained as to the other, Ruffer v. Rattray & Sons (1910), 39 Que. S. C. 245. Attorney ad litem cannot, without a special power of attorney, discontinue any proceedings had in the name of his client. But acquiescence by the latter will estop him from raising the issue. It is too late ‘to raise the point before the Court of Ap- Clouatre (1912), L. n. s. 97; 10 peal. Picotte v. Vigeant (1914), 20 R. L. N. S. 145. Conditions required therefor — Ac- ceptance by the other litigant—Inscription in review—C. P. 275, 276, 277.]—A discon- tinuance is of legal effect when it is signed by the party to the suit or by his attorney, filed in the office of the Court and signified upon the other litigant. The latter’s accept- ance of it is not required to give it its legal effect. Simard v. Poulin. (1912), 14 Que. P. R. 150; 48 Que. S. C. 193. Consent) by the defendant—WNullity of proceedings and subsequent judgments.) —The defendant condemned by default, who, after formulating an opposition to judgment, in his own name as well as tutrix to her minor child, acquiesces in the discontinu- ance of the plaintiff, made under reserve, by praying acte thereof and by inscribing the case for judgment by the prothonotary. Hence, she is barred from subsequently in- scribing for judgment upon her opposition, and judgment rendered thereon is null and void and should be set aside as being such. arenes v. Clowatre (1914), 45 Que. S. C. Costs — Action for sum exceeding $1,000 — Plaintiff withdraws proceedings upon re- turn day—Has defendant right to additional fee provided by s. 5 of the tariff?—Tariff of . C., ss. 5, 21.]—When a plaintiff discon- tinues an action for an amount exceeding $1,000 upon ithe return day, the defendant who has appeared has a right to the fees upon his appearance, but not to the addi- tional fee allowed by s. 5 of the tariff of the Superior Court. — Shapiro v. Rosenburg (1923), 15 Q. P. R. 486. Costs.]—In a case in which the plaintiff sues to recover damages for slander and libel and discontinues his action with costs after he has commenced his proof, he will be obliged to pay only the taxed costs of the action, and he will not be condemned, in an action subsequently taken, to pay the dis- bursements which the plaintiff incurred for interviews with his lawyer, his witnesses and experts. Presseau v. Mathews (1910), 17 R. L. n. s. 36. Costs — Depriving defendant of — Dis- cretion — Good cause — Rule 480 (4)— Appeal.J—Plaintiff, a widow, claimed insur- ance under policies on her late husband’s life, in favour of his mother, which by his dying declaration and attempted disposition she was to receive $1,500, and that if these policies were not altered by Mr. A. through illness and reliance on the assurance that hig wishes would be carried out, it would be a fraud upon her. The solicitor for the plaintiff wrote Joseph Armstrong, the de- ceased husband’s brother, requesting a set- tlement, He replied that the policies were always in favour of the mother and refused settlement. Action was commenced against mother of her husband. After it was dis- covered that the policies had been assigned by mother to her son Joseph. Motion was then made under Rule 4380 (4) to discon- tinue action without costs. Motion granted owing to the letters written to the plain- tiff’s solicitor, which deceived him by lead- ing him to believe the policies were in the mother’s name, which was not true. Arm- strong v. Armstrong, 9 O. L. R. 14; 4 O. W. R. 223, 301. Costs—Inscription for judgment — C. P. 275.]—Where an action or other proceeding is discontinued on payment of costs, the adverse party may inscribe for judgment on such discontinuance, Blake v. Goyette (1904), 18 Que. P. R. 412. Judgment creditor—Fraudulent insol- vent—Settlement with contesting creditor— O. P. 220, 885, 888.]—If a creditor who has obtained against an insolvent a judgment condemning him to imprisonment for fraudu- lent statement, settles with said insolvent, and there is a discontinuance of the inscrip- tion in Review (but no judgment yet on that discontinuance), another creditor may ask to intervene to continue the proceedings against the insolvent. But as any further action on said intervention should be taken before the Superior Court, the record should be transmitted there. Superior v. Hutchins (1910), 12 Que. P. R. 174. Mistake in parties.]—Where plaintiff made a mistake in making himself plaintiff instead of himself and other members of a partnership, M.-in-C. held, he should be at liberty to discontinue his action and bring a new action properly framed or proceed with the present action as he might be advised. McNabb v. Toronto Construction Co. (1911), 19 O. W. R. 15, 2 O. W. N. 992. ‘ Motion by assignee to continue the action—Statute of Limitations — Waiver of delay—Scope of Mercantile Law Amend- ment Act, s. 3—Leave granted to carry on proceedings in vacation. Bank of Hamilton v. Kramer Irwin Co. (1911), 19 O. W. R. 745; 2 O. W. N. 1432. See 20 O, W. R. 46, 999; 3 O. W. N. 73, 603; 1D. L. R. 475. Notice of discontinuance that is mere- ly filed but not served is a nullity—A de- fendant before appearance has no locus standi to make any motion to the Court ex- cept the motions specified in Rule 87 of the Judicature Ordinance, C. O. 1898, ¢. 21. Beeerso vy. Eastman (1904), 7 Terr. L. R. Plaintiff in the original proceed- ings, after discontinuing his action with costs, becomes the debtor under attachment 23 ACTION. 24 proceedings by garnishment, and has the same right as a defendant to contest the declaration of the garnishee. Drainville v. Savoie (1910), 17 R. de J. 108. Taking of any other proceeding— C. R. 480 (1) — Leave to discontinue.J— Master in Chambers held, that the issuance of an order to produce and the taking out of an appointment for examination for discovery by a plaintiff after the delivery of the state- ment of defence constituted “a taking of any other proceeding save an interlocutory ap- plication” within the meaning of C. R. 430 (1), and that therefore plaintiff was not entitled to discontinue without leave. Schlund v. Foster, 10 O. W. - 1005, followed. Spincer v. Watts, 23 Q. B. D. 352, 358, and Vickers v. Coventry, [1908] W. N. 12, referred to. Christie Brown v. Wood- hows (1912), 23 O. W. R. 55, 4 O. W. Two seizures and two oppositions.] —When there are two separate and distinct seizures and two oppositions fyled, the oppo- sant, on discontinuation by plaintiff of his proceedings, cannot have a judgment main- ‘taining one or both of his oppositions on one inscription, said inscription not stating which opposition is inscribed for judgment. Be- ores vy. McKinnan (1910), 12 Que. P. R. Unconditional—Reserve of rights by plaintiff—O. P. 277.)—-A discontinuance is valid even though the plaintiff gives the rea- son upon which it is based, namely, that the property for which he sued tto secure a deed can no longer be delivered under the conditions provided in the promise of sale, and under reserve of future damages due to defendant’s failure to comply with the con- ditions embodied in such- promise of sale. These reasons are but empty words and can- not prevent the parties to the suit from being reconstituted in the relationship they occupied before action was taken. Robert v. Girard (1918), 15 Que. P. R. 241. 4. DISMISSAL OF ACTION. Action at law against unassisted minor — Dismissal of same — C. P. 78, 174; OC. C. 246, 804.] — An action at law against a minor who is not assisted by his tutor, will be dismissed on an exception to the form, even though the minor attained the age of a majority before judgment was given. Paquette vy. Auclair (1911), 12 Que. P. R. 402. And a motion praying that the minor be authorised to continue the proceedings, will be refused, the Court being without power to oblige defendant to ratify the nullity of the writ of summons arising from his minor- ity. Paquette v. Auclair (1911), 12 Que. P. R. 403. Action brought before termination of agreement—To take sewer pipe clay from land — Right of, action had not ac- crued.|—An action claiming an injunction restraining defendants from removing any more top soil from plaintiff’s land, or any clay other than that referred to in the agree- ment, for a mandatory order requiring de- fendants to restore top soil for damages, re- formation of the deed and agreement in question. — Teetzel, J.. dismissed the ac- tion without costs and without prejudice to any action which plaintiff might bring after 1st April, 1913, in respect of any claim for breach of agreement respecting top soil, at which time defendants’ right under the agree- ment would expire. Gallagher v. Ontario Sewer Pipe Co. (1912), 21 O. W._R. 550, au 8 0. W. N. 742, 1240; 3 D. L. R. Action by tutor for damages caused by a dog.]—It appeared in evidence that the doctor’s and chemist’s bills, which con- stituted the actual damage sued for, had, in fact, been partly paid by the father, and that the tutor had disbursed nothing. It was con- tended on behalf of defendant, that the ac- tion should be dismissed on ground that it was not in evidence that the tutor (i.e. plaintiff) had disbursed anything or had actually suf- fered any loss:—Held, that, as the father, if the tutor recovered damages, would have a elaim against him for any sums he had disbursed for the minor as a result of the accident, it was immaterial whether anything had in fact already been paid by the tutor. Hades v. Edmundson (1901), 21 C, L. T. 444, Que. 8. C. Action to set aside an order of a counvil for illegality will be dismissed in the absence of any injustice on the part of the council which would support the prayer of such action. Soucy v. St. Antoine (1911), 17 R. de J. 298, Default to return writ—Motion made after plaintiff's discontinuance of suit—C. P. 154, 275.)—A motion to dismiss the action for failure to return the writ will not lie after defendant is served: with a discontinu- ance of suit—By praying for an order to eonfirm the discontinuance, the defendant will obtain costs without having to move for the dismissal of the action. Meunier v. Billet (1911), 12 Que. P. R. 310. Dilatoriness on part of opposant, wife separate as to property of defendant, to file her contract of marriage, is not sufficient reason to dismiss the opposition on pretext that it is frivolous. Noel v. Poulin &d Houde (1910), 12 Que, P. R. 18. Election case — Dismissal — Action in nature of quo warranto proceedings—Death of relator—Proceedings at an end — Could not be revived—Nor new proceedings taken after lapse of six weeks from election— Master-in-Chambers granted order. dismissing action. See 18 O. W. R. 534; 23 O. L. R. 182. Rex ex rel. Warner v. Skelton (1911), 20 O. W. R. 240; 3 O. W. N. lia. Filing account with plea.J]—A defend- ant cannot plead to an accounting suit that he accounted after he had been put in de- fault and that his account had been refused, and file his account with his plea and pray for the dismissal of the action; the prayer of the plea will be struck off upon demurrer. a oranrooale v. Laurence (1911), 12 Que. P, R. s Inscription in law (demurrer) — Action in repossession of property—Aver- ments of violent possession and irregular 25 ACTION. 26 titles—Proof before hearing on law issue— . P. 191; C. C. 2197, 2198.|—In an action for the possession of real property resting on titles dating three centuries back, the parties will be ordered to go ‘to proof before the Court decides a demurrer asking for the dismissal'of the action because plaintiff does not claim to be the heir of the de cujus, nor because the taking possession of the property, by the defendant, was effected more than two centuries ago. aren V. Seminary of Quebec (1913), 15 Que. P, R. 302. : Jurisdiction — Hypothecary suit for school tawes — Competency of the Superior Court—C. P. 54.J—If the Circuit Court has final jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the Su- perior Court, in all suits to recover school taxes or school fees, whatever the amount, it has no jurisdiction in the chef-lieu of the district of Montreal to hear and determine an appealable hypothecary suit. An excep- tion declining the jurisdiction of the Super- ior Court must be dismissed. Westmount School Comrs. v. Galarneau (1912), 14 Que. P. R. 194. Lack of legal authority—Any proceed- jngs had before the Courts by any person who lacks the required legal capacity should stand dismissed without costs. Adams v. Doyle (1912), 14 Que, P. R. 181. Motion by defendant to dismiss ac- tion for want of prosecution — Plain- tiffs asked leave to amend writ by adding an- other defendant—Defendant’s motion dismis- sed as being too late — Plaintiffs’ motion granted as they were placed in difficulty by the evidence on discovery—Costs. McNabb vy. Toronto Construction Co., 19 O. W. R. 191, 2 O. W. N. 1086, followed. Northern Crown Bank v. Molson (1911), 19 O. W. R. 487, 2 O. W. N. 1246. Motion to dismiss—Want of prosecu- tion—Admissions of plaintiff — Con. Rules 616, 217—Plaintiff suffering from senile de- mentia—Jurisdiction of Master-in-Chambers —Lis pendens.]—Master-in-Chambers, held, that he had no jurisdiction under Con. Rule 616 to dismiss an action upon the admis- sions of a plaintiff and that in any case as the plaintiff was mentally incompetent he would not have exercised his discretion to dismiss the action.—Jasperson v. Romney, 12 0. W. R. 115, followed. Angevine v. Goold (1913), 24 O. W. R. 376; 4 O. W. N. 1041; D. L. R. Motion to dismiss an action-at-law because the costs due upon a former suit have not been previously paid, is of the nature of a preliminary exception. and should be accompanied with a deposit. Chagnon v. Auclaire (1910), 12 Que. P. R. 132. Opposition to withdraw—LHzamination of opposant — Motion that seizure be main- tained in part—C. P. 651.]—Article 651 C. P. is applicable only when the opposition is wholly useless. The plaintiff cannot, with- out abandoning the seizure as to those effects as to which he does not ask for the dismissal of the opposition, pray for the dismissal of the Opposition in part and resist it as to its merits for the balance of the effects seized. ae v. Lalonde (1913), 15 Que. P. R. Possessory action — Seizure in revendi- cation—Insufficiency of statement of claim —Demurrer — C. P. 946, 1064.]—The plain- tiff in a possessory action should allege pos- session of a year and a day previous to the date of suit. In default of that statement, the action will be dismissed upon demurrer. Henry v. Hodge (1911), 18 R. de J. 47.. Prayer for dismissal of a suit includes the prayer for the quashing of the capias, and the title given thereto; exception to the form is no ground for its rejection. a ce v. Charlie You (1911), 13 Que. Restoration—Jurisdiction.]—-The action having been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of an order for pay- ment of certain costs :—Held, that the action was at an end, and there was no jurisdic- tion to make an order restoring it to the list for trial. Script Phonography Co. v. Gregg, 59 L. J. Ch. 406, Whistler v. Hancock, 3 Q. B. D. 83, King v. Davenport, 4 Q. B. D. 402, and Farden v. Richter, 23 Q. B. D. 124, followed. Smith v. Yukon Gold Co. (Yuk. 1912), 21 W. L. R. 902. Signature of one partner — Pariner- ship bound—Final adjustment not made — Action premature.]|—Britton, J., held, in an action by sub-contractors for a balance due upon a contract for railway construction that the evidence established that ‘the contract had provided that the settlement of balances was to await the settlement made by the con- tractors with the commissioners building the railway, and this not being made the action was premature and should be dismissed with- out costs. Finlayson v. O’Brien (1918), 24 = ae 727; 4 O. W. N. 1440; 11 D. L. Simple contract creditor suing on be- half of himself and all other creditors of his debtor to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the latter may join the debt- or as a defendant and recover judgment against him for the amount of his claim. oa Matejka, 1 D. L. R. 887, 19 W. L. Third party, holder of immovable pro- perty, and sued by different creditors there- of, may make an abandonment of the pro- perty in each separate case. Upon the sec- ond and each subsequent suit, his abandon- ment only attains his right of re-possession, which is dependent upon the dismissal of the first suit—2. In such event, it is the duty of the first seizing creditor to have the pro- perty sold, subject to the right of the other creditors to have their writs noted. Picotts v. Vigeant (1914), 20 R. L. n. s. 145. Want of power of attorney—Reasons for delay — Petition in revocation of judg- ment—C. J. 177, 1177.)—A judgment dis- missing a foreign plaintiff’s action for fail- ure to file a power of attorney, when secur- ity for costs has been given, will be recalled upon petition in revocation of judgment, if it is established that the delay was caused by the distance and the difficulty of com- municating with the plaintiff or to consular correspondence; this latter fact properly creates vis major. Galloro v. Malcolm (1911), 18 Que. P, R. 107. Appealed to Court of King’s Bench. 27 ACTION. 28 Want of prosecution — Motion to dis- miss action for—Con. Rule 4384. Brown v. Gilbreath (1910), 1 O. W. N. 783. Want of prosecution — Application whether final or interlocutory.|—An order dismissing an action for want of prosecution is a final order, but the application to dis- miss is itself interlocutory. Gibson v. Stevenson (1905), 7 Terr. L. R. 88; 1 W.L. R. 577, sub nom, Gibson v. Drennan. Want of prosecution—King’s Bench Act, Rule 540 (now 562)—Delay in pro- ceeding with new trial. ordered by Court of Annet 1 wer of law and equity practice.] —Rule 540 of the King’s Bench Act (now Rule 562), which provides that, if an action is at issue two months before the commence- ment of any sittings of the Court for which the plaintiff might give notice of trial, and he does not give notice of trial therefor, the action may be dismissed for want of prose- cution, applies even in a case where the plaintiff had previously given notice of trial, but the verdict had been set aside and a new trial ordered: Annual Practice, 1914, pp. 595, 596.—Diamond Harrow Co. v. Stone, 7 O, W. R. 685, not followed.—It was form- erly the practice in equity to dismiss a bill for want of prosecution, even after a rehear- ing had been ordered, if there was no reason- able excuse for the delay: Spawn v. Nelles, 1 Ch, Chrs. 270; and, under Rule 998 and clause (s) of sec. 39 (now 26) of the King’s Bench Act, the old equity practice should be followed, if there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and those of com- mon law, even in relation to a matter of | practice: Kearsley v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D. 36.——Order of Curran, J., 26 W. L. R. 517, affirmed, but on other grounds. Davis _v. Wright (1914), 27 W. L. R. 772; Ww. W. R. e DLR. 3 Man. R. Want of prosecution — Not plainly frivolous.}—In this case there was no evidence upon which to found the as- sertion that the action was frivolous and an abuse of the process of the Court.—There was ground for dismissing the action for want of prosecution, the state- ment of defence having been delivered on the 9th February, 1911, and no other step having been taken until the 20th April, 1912, when the plaintiff issued a subpena and appoint- ment for the examination of the defendant for discovery. But the Court will not dis- miss for want of prosecution an action which is not plainly frivolous if any reasonable ex- cuse for the delay in getting to trial is shewn, and the plaintiff evidences a desire to proceed with it; and an order was made allowing the plaintiff to proceed to trial at the next sittings, with a penalty of dis- missal upon default. Hvans v. Evans (1912), 21 WL. R. 925. Alta L. R. 6. JOINDER OF CAUSES. Action for alimony against husband —Action against husband and his father for custody of children —- Habeas corpus.] — Master in Chambers held, that two separate causes of action in one of which one of the defendants has no concern cannot be joined. —Hinds v. Barrie, 6 O. L. R. 656, followed. ing as against the father and continui the action for alimony against the husband. In that action she could claim the custody of the children. Quere, if a mother seeks pos- session of her children from any one except her husband, should she not proceed to get out a writ of habeas corpus? Is not this the appropriate remedy, Ney v. Ney (No. ae (1912), 21 O. W. R. 524; 3 O. W. N. —The plaintiff should amend by contiaug Action for conspiracy—former em- ployees—Breach of contracts of employment —Right of plaintiff to present his case in most effective manner—Separate trials re- fused.]—Master-in-Ohambers refused to order separate trials of actions against eight former employees of plaintiff for breach of contracts of service and conspiracy, holding that the conspiracy charge necessitated a joint trial, and that plaintiff was entitled to ‘plead such overt acts in pursuance ‘thereof as it chose. Walters v. Green, [1899] 2 Ch. 696, followed. Grip Limited v. Drake (1918), 24 O. W. R. 883; 4 O. W. N. 1000; 10 D. L. R. 803. ; Against municipal corporation and landowners — Corporation passed by-law —Landowners acted under it—One relief only sought—Unity of matters—M. in C. dismissed a motion requiring time to plead. Crowther ye coreg (1911), 19 O. W. R. 399, 2 O. W. ‘See 20 O. W. BR. 844; 3 O. W. N. 490; 1 D. L. R. 40. Alimentary pension and life rent— Due under a deed of donation—Demurrer— C. P. 87, 191; C. C. 166.]—An action claim- ing a certain amount of money due as a life rent by virtue of a deed of gift, and a fur- ther sum as alimentary pension, does not contain contradictory grounds of action; the plaintiff’s right, under both heads, is essentially personal, movable and alimentary. Lebeau v. Lapierre (1910), 12 Que. P. R. 209; 17 R. L. n. s. 191. . Breach of contract—Procuring breach.1 —Where the plaintiffs sued the defendant company for a breach of contract and the other two defendants for inducing and pro- curing the breach:—Held, that the whole arose out of the breach, and there was such a unity in the matters complained of as en- titled the plaintiffs to join rne three defend- ants,—Gas Power Agency Limited v. Central .. Garage Co., 19 W. L. R. 198, affirmed 19 W. L. R. 442, Man. R. ‘ Claim as shareholder of company on behalf of company — Personal claim against company — Inconsistency — Order made.]—Master-in-Chambers held, that a plaintiff suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders of a company could not join a claim for his personal benefit against the company and another. Stroud v. Law- son, 1898, 2 Q. B. 44, followed. Jackman v weer Gee 24 O. W. R. 252; 4 O. W, Claims for purchase price of ma-= chinery sold and delivered to one defend- ant and claims against defendant company on promissory notes given by it to secure part payment of such machinery and also 29 , ACTION. 80 a small claim against defendant company for the price of goods are separate and distinct causes of action and cannot be joined. Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Howland € Sask. Mutual Devel. Co. (1907), 7 Terr, L. R. 44; 6 W. L. R. 541. Claim for rent under a lease be- tween plaintiff and another not party to action as lessors and defendant as lessee—Motion for non-suit on count for rent—Refusal of motion by trial Judge— Appeal.}] — A plaintiff, in an action for work and labour, and goods sold and de- livered, joined a claim for money alleged to be due him by the defendant as lessee under a lease made by the plaintiff and another not party to the action:—Held, that the claim for rent under the lease could not be joined to the plaintiff's claim under the common counts. Plaintiff could not in the same ac- tion recover a debt due to himself personally and one due to himself and another person jointly. Knowles v. McLaughlin (1918), 12 BH. L. R. 508; DLR ; NBR. District Court—“ Small debt procedure” —District Court Rule 4—Two claims com- bined in one action — Plaintiff allowed to proceed upon one — Waiver of tort. —The plaintiff sued in a District Court, under the “small debt procedure,” for (7), $41.25, for hire of horses and draying, and (2) for $9.75, the price of goods wrongfully taken and con- verted by the defendant—the plaintiff ex- pressly waiving the tort:—Held, that the doctrine that the injured person may waive the tort and sue in assumpsit is limited to the case where the wrongdoer has sold the property and received the price of it:—Held, however, that the claim for $41.25 was ap- propriately made under Rule 4 of the District Court Rules; and the entire small debt sum- mons should not have been set aside. The plaintiff was under no legal obligation to sue on all the causes of action at the same time or in the same action.—Paradis v. Hotton, 3 W. L. R. 317, and Cosgrave v Duchek, 3 W. L. R. 320, considered. Fitzsimmons v. Mc- Intyre, 5 P. R, 119, followed. Whitchelo v. Colvin (1918), 23 W. L. R. 542, Sask. L. R. . 83 W. W. R. 971, 1185; 10 D. L. R. 6365. Effect on subsequent proceedings— Stay of proceedings in a case to effect join- der with another—Absence of similarity be- tween two cases—Permission sought by at- torney of one of the parties to be relieved of his mandate.]—1. The motion for joinder of actions does not stay the proceedings and the party demanding it cannot have the pro- ceedings adjourned on the ground that no order has yet been given upon the motion.— 2. If, during the course of a suit upon a note to which the defendant has filed a cross incidental demand, the plaintiff takes suit upon another note, the defendant will not be permitted to ask for a stay of proceedings upon the first suit on the ground that the two actions should be united for proof. The element of similarity between the two suits and between the cross-demand in the first one with the second suit is lacking.—3. The foregoing conditions are not sufficient reason for the Court granting permission to the attorneys of the defendant to withdrawn from the suit, under Rule of Practice, 43. Rousseau v. Cliche (1918), 44 Que. S. C. 179. Fraud—Breach of trust—Principal and agent—Agent of agent—Equitable relief— Rescission of assignment of agreement—Re- turn of two separate sums of money.J]—It is not necessary to use the word “fraud” in order to make sufficient allegations of fraud. —Marshall vy. Staden, 68 Eng. Rep. 177, fol- lowed.—And held, that by the statement of claim (set out below) in this action, which was brought against two defendants, a com- pany and D., vice-president of the company, the plaintiff in effect charged that the defend- ant company, through its agent D., and the defendant D, himself were guilty of the per- petration of a fraud upon the plaintiff, from which both defendants derived benefit—The plaintiff asked for a rescission of an assign- ment made by him to the defendant D. of an agreement for the purchase of land, and also a return of two different sums of money :-— Held, that it was impossible to call each particular item of specific relief to which the plaintiff might be found entitled a distinct cause of action.—Distinction between cases of tort and actions for equitable relief such as this, when the improper joinder of causes of action is alleged, pointed out.—In this case ‘there was only one cause of action— the breach of trust, the fraud alleged to have been committed.—Thomas v. Day, 21 W. L. R. 245, distinguished.—The retention by the defendants of a commission and the retention of $400 represented as having been paid for a bonus might be separate items of wrongful advantage, but they did not constitute two separate cases of action.—Order of Harvey. C.J., reversed. Pringle v. Dwyer (1912). 33 WwW. L. R. 158; 6 D. L. R. 446; Alta. L. R. ; 2 W. W. R. 1049. Improper joinder of several causes ef action—Parties — Landlord and tenant —Subtenants — Election — Practice.]—The plaintiff sued his landlords for breach of lessors’ covenants in omitting to supply cer- tain improvements and additions to and for faulty construction in the building on the de- mised lands, and in the same action sued two alleged subtenants of the plaintiff, occu- pants of the same building, who claimed the right to use part of the premises in common with the plaintiff, their right to do so de- pending upon the construction of the plain- tiffs lease from the landlords:—Held, that the plaintiff could not join the two claims in one action, and must elect between them.— Should the plaintiff elect to abandon as against the landlords, the plaintiff would not be required to elect as between the two sub- tenants, as it was proper that the question be decided at the same time against both; and, should the plaintiff abandon as to one, and bring a new action, the actions would be consolidated. Allen v. Johnston (1913), 25 W. L. R. 397; W.W.R. 313 D. L. R. 640; Alta. L. R. Joinder of cases can only be ordered when both are ready for trial: the adjudica- tion of neither action can be delayed by the other. Queen City Realty Co. v. Massicotte (1913), 15 Que. P. R. 289. Joint plaintiffs — Husband and. wife separate as to property—Eaception to the form—C. P. 87, 174.)—-A husband and wife, 31 ACTION. 32 Separated as to property, suing their land- lord for the damage caused them respectively by 2B fire, cannot join in one and the same action, in view of the fact that the right of action of each, though having the same origin, is distinct and separate; each plain- tiff claims what is his own right, the proof cannot be the same for both and the plain- tiffs have no common interest in the conclu- sions of the action. Masson y. Clavette (1911), 18 Que. P. R. 125. Joint plaintiffs—Separate pleas filed by defendant — Motion to reject — OC. P. 87, 196.]—When a defendant is sued by several plaintiffs in one and the same action, and he has different grounds of defence against each of them, he may file_a separate plea against each of the plaintiffs, leaving thd question of cost to the discretion of the trial Judge. Dominion Light, Heat & Power Co. y. Colonial Engineering Co. (1912), 18 Que. P. R. 184. Misjoinder of plaintiffs — Separate causes of action.]J—There were four. plain- tiffs in this action, a company and three individuals; and three defendants, two com- panies and an individual. The plaintiff W. was described as suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders of the plaintiff company; and his claim was to have it de- clared that an alleged agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendants was not valid or had expired; he was one of the shareholders of the plaintiff com- pany who did not sign the agreement, and he affected to represent those of the share- holders who were in the same interest. He also alleged that the defendant M. induced the signing of the agreement, and charged that the signatures were not binding :—Held, that W. could not maintain his alleged causes of action; and the action, so far as it was his, was summarily dismissed, with- out prejudice to his right ‘to bring any ac- tion against the defendants, or any of them. The other claims were: (1) the claim of the plaintiff company, (a) to set aside the agreement and all other agreements be- tween the companies, and (b) for a declara- tion of the plaintiff company’s title to cer- tain lands as against the defendants, an injunction, etc.;” (2) the claim of the plaintiff P to set aside his signature to the agreement and all that depended upon this; and (8) the like claim od the part of the plaintiff M.:—Held, that these three claims were wholly distinct, none depending on any other; and the plaintiffs must elect upon which of the ‘three they would proceed.— Harris-Mazxwell Larder Lake Mining Oo. Vv. Gold Fields Limited, 23 O. L. R. 625, 19 O. W. R. 248; 2 0. W. N. 1087. [On an appeal from this judgment, a Divisional Court varied the order by con- sent in some details, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, 23 O. L. R. 629n.] Delete 8S. C. Dig. Can. Case Law, 1900- 1911, col. 3443. Plaintiffs joining in action—Px- change of shares—Separate causes of actions —Election—Transfer—Registration. McKay v. Mason, 4 O, W. N. 354, 23 O. W. R. 872. Reasons to support an action—Peti- tion for possession of movable property and reimbursement of the cost of improvements —C. P. 87.]—The plaintiff may, by the same suit incidentally ask that he be replaced in possession, as owner, of movable property and be re-imbursed the cost of improvements, with a lien therefor upon such property. aa v. Jacob (1913), 15 Que. P. Separate causes of action—ObDjection first raised on motion for new trial—Grounds for refusing motion.]—Plaintiff set out in his statement of claim two separate and dis- tinct causes of action against different de- fendants :—Held, that, while under the pro- visions of Order XVI., rule 4, of the New Brunswick Judicature Rules, two separate and distinct causes of action, not arising out of one transaction, and against different parties cannot be joined, inasmuch as the objection was not raised until after verdict by one of the defendants only, and then raised in the form of a motion for a new trial which if granted would not give any advantage to the defendant complaining, while it would put the other defendant not complaining to considerable disadvantage, the motion should be refused. Wathen v. Ferguson, 12 B. L. R. 427; 10 D. L. R. 330; N. B. R. Three separate causes of action — Ont. Rule 185.]—Middleton, J., held, that an action to recover damaegs for assault upon one plaintiff, and an action by her mother for loss of services of her daughter and another action for trespass to land could well be joined, as they arose out of the same occurrence.—Judgment of Master-in- Chambers, 17 O. W. R. 748, 2 0. W. N. 881, reversed. Laister v. Crawford (1910), 18 O. W. R. 308; 2 O. W. N. 547. Delete S. C., col. 31, Digest Can. Case Law, 1900-1911. Two judgments — C. P. 1197.]—When by interlocutory judgment upon a motion to that end, two cases are joined for the pur- poses of inscription, proof, hearing and judg- ment, one inscription in Review and one de- posit therewith is sufficient even though the Court of first instance has delivered two se- parate judgments, more particularly when the questions in issue in the two cases are identical. Peloquin v. Woodley (1911), 12 Que. P. R. 219, Will—Hzecutrin — Maintenance—State- ment of claim—Con. Rule 235.]—Master in Chambers held, that claims, (1) to have plaintiff restored as an executrix; (2) to have proposed sale of the residue set aside, and (3) to have will interpreted by the Court, were not improperly joined.—Britton, J., affirmed above decision, Fowwell y. Ken- nedy (1911), 18 O. W. R. 272; 2 0. W. N. 565, 642. See 18 O. W. R. 782, 2 0. W. N. 821, Oo. L. R. 4 8. NoTIcE oF ACTION, Action in damages — Arrest made by constable—Good faith—Justice of the peace— OC. P. 88.]—1. A constable placing a person under arrest, without a warrant, but in pur- suance of orders received from his superior 33 ACTION. officer, a chief of police, no doubt acts unlaw- fully, but he is discharging the duties of a keeper of the peace, and is a person exercising “the functions of a public officer (88 C. P.) and may demand one month’s notice, prior to suit, as provided for by that article. 2. This privi- lege, however, should be claimed by excep- tion to the form. If it is pleaded to the mer- its of the suit, the plaintiff will be non-suited, but the costs will merely be those of an ex- ception to the form.—3. A justice of the peace signing a warrant of commitment without thereon inscribing the name of the person for whom it is intended, is not liable in dam- ages for that if he was not cognizant of the subsequent use made of the order, and he has no right to notice of suit (88 C, P.), but an action directed against him will stand dis- missed without costs.—4. A chief of police effecting, by one of his subordinates, the arrest of a person without a warrant, and having him incarcerated in the common gaol of the district and there having him detained under a warrant of commitment which had been pre- viously signed, in blank, by a justice of the peace, but which is filled out by the chief of police without the justice of the peace hav- ing any knowledge of the case, does not, under such circumstances, in good faith dis- charge any of the prerogatives of his official position, and he igs without right in object- ing that he did not receive one month’s prior notice (88 C. P.) of the suit which has been taken against him as a consequence of his acts. Asselin v. Davidson (1912), 18 Que. P. R. 423. (Pending in Review.) Amendment — Service thereof—Solicitor —Bailiffs.}—Where a preliminary notice to suit is required, it may be signed by the plaintiff’s solicitor and served by a bailiff.— An irregularity based on the failure to have an amendment served after leave from the Court is not irremediable when the proposed amendment is set out at length in the motion seekirg permission to amend and when such motion has been signified to the other party to the suit. Westmount v. Hicks (1912), 19 R. L. os. 119; 8 D. L. R. 488. Commissioner of police—Informal con- viction for bringing intoxicating liquor into proclaimed district—Imposition of fine and costs. ]—Plaintiff, who lived at C., a place within a district specified in a proclamation under Part III. of the Criminal Code, had intoxicating liquors shipped to him at C., which were seized at the railway station at C.; plaintiff was brought by a constable be- fore defendant, a Commissioner of Police, appointed under authority of R. 8. C. 1906, ce. 92, and was told by defendant that he (plaintiff) would have to pay a fine, or go to gaol, as this was a second offence. There was no information, no summons, no charge Jaid or read, no formal conviction, no record of any kind, except an entry in defendant’s returns-book. A fine of $100 and $10 costs - were demanded by defendant and paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff served notice of motion to quash the supposed conviction; defendant stated that there were no papers; and no order was made upon the motion. Plaintiff claimed a return of money paid and damages. He did not allege in his statement of claim that defendant’s act was done maliciously 4 0.0.L.—2 34 and without reasonable and probable cause. No notice of action was served on defendant. The trial Judge found that the action was not commenced within 6 months after the act complained of was committed; and, on that ground, and because no notice of action was given, he withdrew the case from the jury and dismissed the action :—Divisional Court held, that the action was properly dismissed on the latter ground; but (per Riddell, J.) as to the former, that the trial Judge should have left it to the jury to say whether the action was brought:within 6 months after the act committed, the evidence being con- flicting as to the day on which plaintiff ap- peared before defendant. Geller v. Loughrin (1911), 24 O. L. R. 18; 19 O. W. R. 318; 2 O. W. N. 1159; 18 Can. Cr. Cas. 461, Court without jurisdiction.]—When a defendant has been summoned before Court without jurisdiction ratione personae and he fails to appear and the suit is referred to the Court having jurisdiction, he has the right to be notified thereof and to be put in default to plead to the action, before further proceedings can be had upon the suit. Cle- ment v. Dodier (1911), 41 Que, S. C. 289. Inscription ex parte—Delay—Interven- tion which is not contested—Can the plain- tiff inscribe thereon?—Attachment _ after judgment—C. P. 222, 234.)—1. The plaintiff may inscribe a case for hearing after only one day’s notice to the defendant, since the latter has no evidence to offer; but the de- fendant cannot do as much, othérwise the plaintiff would not have sufficient time to subpoena his witnesses and prepare his case. —2. Since the defendant cannot inscribe the case ea-parte, no more can the plaintiff in- scribe ea-parte upon an intervention not con- tested by him, since he is the defendant upon the proceedings. But if he has issued an at- tachment after judgment, he may proceed with that issue. Tremblay & Desbiens Co. ¥ oR Shore, etc. Co. (1914), 15 Que. P. Inscription for proof and hearing does not require formal notice upon the opposite party. Picotte v. Vigeant (1914), 20 R. L. ns. 145. 5 Militia Act—Sections 189-140—Civilian rifle association—Action brought against members—For damages arising from acci- dent while shooting at range—Notice of ao- tion—Failure to give same—Effect of.J— Defendants, members of the Civilian Rifle Association, were shooting at their range in a competition for a prize then offered on be- half of the Government of Canada.—The plaintiff was sailing, at the time, on a boat on the harbour near the range, when she was struck by a bullet fired from the range, which caused her serious injury. The range was defective in not having an artificial stop- butt on its harbour front, but it was ap- proved by the District Officer Commanding, who gave his consent to the competition being held at the time of the accident. No notice was given by the plaintiff of her intention to bring action, as required by the Militia Act :—Held, that the defendants were en- titled to notice before action brought. and that failure to give same was a good defence 35 to the action—2. A thing is considered as done “in pursuance of the Act” when the person who does it is acting honestly and bond fide, either under the powers which the Act gives, or in discharge of the duties it imposes, and is entitled to the protection conferred by the Act upon persons whilst so acting. Webster v. Leard (P.E.I. 1912), 11 E. L. R. 208; 7D. L. R. 429. _Montreal — Defective sidewalk—Preju- dice—Sufficiency of notice—C. P. 88; 62 Vict. c. 58, s. 586; 7 Edw. VII. c. 68, 8, 45.)|— (Reversing Dunlop, J.)—If in the no- tice required to be given to the city of Mon- treal in an action in damages for a defective sidewalk there is a slight variance with the real place where the accident occurred, there is not prejudice to the defendant, especially when the latter had the fullest opportunity to make its defence and to call in its war- rantor. West v. Montreal (1912), 14 Que. _P. R. 238; 9 D. L. R. 9. Public officer—Notice—Notary public— Principal and agent—Mandate—Pleadings—- Practice--New objections on appeal — Case on appeal—Notes of reasons by Judges — Findings of fact—Art. 88 C. P. Q.J—If a defendant has not, in the Courts below, taken exception to want of notice of action, as re quired by article 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec, it is doubtful whethe- the objection can be urged on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Devine v. Holloway (14 Moo. P. C. 290), referred to. —wWhere the defendant has not been sued in an action for damages by reason of an act done in the exercise of a public function of duty, the provision of article 88 C. P. Q., as to notice of action against a public officer, has no application.— The Supreme Court of Canada ought not, in ordinary cases, to take into consideration the notes of reasons for judgments in the Courts be- low which have not been delivered before the settling of the case on the appeal: Mayhew v, Stone (26 Can. S. C. R. 58), followed. In a proper case, however, when the non- delivery of such notes is satisfactorily ac- counted for, the Court may permit them to be filed and made use of as part of the record on the appeal: Canadian Fire Ins. Co. v. Robinson (Cout. -Dig. 1105), referred to.—The Court refused to reverse the con- current findings of fact by the Courts be- low. Dufresne v. Desforges (1912), 47 S. O. R. 383; 12 E. L. R. 210; 10 D. L. R. 289. Responsibility of public officers in authorizing or making arrests—WNotice —Art. 88, OC. P.J—1. The chief of police of . a city is a public officer within the meaning of 88 C. P.—2. Under the terms of that article, no public officer or other person ful- filling any public function or duty can be sued for damages by reason of any act done by him in his official capacity unless he has received one month’s prior notice of suit.— 8. A public officer, acting in good faith but irregularly, is entitled to the same notice. Asselin v. Davidson (1913), 19 R. de J. 248. Appeal to Court of King’s Bench pending. Sufficiency of—Time and place of acci- dent in negligence action — What statute requires.| — An action by a commercial traveller to recover $500 damages for in- ACTION. 86 juries received by being thrown with his conveyance down a steep embankment on the Goderich and Saugeen road on December 8th, 1909, which was alleged to be owing to negligence of defendants in not having a railing on either side of said road. County Court Judge of Bruce county dismissed the action with costs.. Divisional Court held, that what the statute requires is “notice of the accident and the cause thereof ;” that the Court should refrain from attempting to add anything to that which is required by the statute. The statute does not require time nor place in so many words, while it would be no doubt wise in framing a notice to mention both:—Held, upon the evidence given, that the notice was sufficient and the case should be remitted for -trial on the merits. Costs in the cause. Young v. Bruce (1911), 20 O. W. R. 87; 3 O. W. N. 89. See 21 O. W. R. 404. While a notice of action, under sec. 84 of 49 Vict. (N. B.) 1886, ch. 25, in a false imprisonment case brought jointly against the officers who issued the warrant and the constable who executed it may be objectionable on the ground that the notice does not set forth the grounds of each offi- cer’s liability, yet, if it clearly states the part which each took in the commission of the wrong, the joint notice is sufficient, be- cause the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were in law the joint act of both officers.—McGilvery v. Gault, 17 N. B. R. 641; 19 N. B. R. 217, referred to.—The notice of action required under s. 84, of 49 Vict (1886), ch. 25 (N. B.) in respect of a claim for damages for false imprison- ment is to be construed liberally, and it is sufficient if the notice substantially in- forms the defendant of the ground of com- plaint.—Jones v. Bird, 5 B. & Ald. 887; Howard v. Remer, 2 El. & Bi. 915, 23 L. J. Q. B. 60, referred to—Under s. 84 of 49 Vict. (1886), ch. 25 (N. B.), prescribing that the name and place of abode of the attorney shall be endorsed on the notice of action, it is sufficient if they appear any- where in the notice.—Baster v. Hallett, 10 N. B. R. (5 All.) 544;. UcGilvery v. Gault, 17 N. B. R. 641, 19 N. B. R. 217, referred to. Markey v. Sloat (1912), 11 East. L. R. , . L. R. 827. 12. PEREMPTION OF ACTION. Delay — Answer to plea — OC. P. 279, 293.]—Until the expiry of 2 years from the date at which plaintiff should have answered the plea, defendant cannot move for peremp- tion. McDermott v. Terminal Development Co. (1911), 13 Que. P. R. 47. Determining the period — Interpreta- tion of the words “incidental” or “ use- ful” proceedings—C. P. 279, 280, 283.)— Peremption is acquired by days and not de momento ad momentum; it is essential that the last juridical day in the 2 years should have expired to justify moving for peremp- tion—To the words “incidental” in the third paragraph of Art. 280 C. P., and “ use- ful proceeding” in Art. 283 C. P., the wid- est possible meaning should be given and it should be applied to any steps taken to arrest the progress of a case, whether they 37 ACTION. 88 be a disputatious postponement for a hear- ing later on, or a suspension of proceedings with the consent of both parties. Telfer v. Grose (1911), 18 Que. P. R. 45. Discontinuance of former motion— CO. C. 2225; C. P. 279, 283.J—A motion for peremption which has been discontinued by contract, which would “continue” until all the defendant is not a useful proceeding in- terrupting prescription. Workman v. Vine- berg (1912), 18 Q. P. R. 225. Enrolling case for trial — Filing the inscription — Proof — @. P. 279, 280, 294.|—Peremption is interrupted when the prothonotary enters a case on the roll for trial. It commences to run only when the case is stricken off. Smith v. Harbour Comrs. of Montreal (1911), 18 Que, P. R. 126. Former motion not adjudicated upon—C. P. 283.]—A motion for peremp- tion will not be granted if a prior motion of the same nature has not been disposed of. Stuart v. Martel (1912), 18 Que. P. R. 435. Incidental demand — C. P. 279. — During the life of the principal action, an incidental demand arising from it cannot be declared to be perempted. Beck v. Trudel (1911), 138 Que. P. R. 40. Inscription — Interruption — C. P. 279, 280.]—Peremption only commences to run against a suit from the date of its inscrip- tion for trial upon the list of cases, Car- ane v. Lindsay Ltd. (1911), 12 Que. P. R. Inscription is a useful proceeding, inasmuch as itt places the case upon the roll, and, therefore, it interrupts (peremption) of the suits. Picotte v. Vigeant (1914), 20 R. L. us. 145. : Interruption of — Promissory note — Partial payment — Evidence — Inscription in law—C. P. 191; C. C. 1285, 2185, 2227.] —In a commercial matter, partial payments ‘constitute a tacit acknowledgment which will operate to interrupt prescription and may be proved by oral testimony. Henderson v. Armstrong (1911), 13 Que. P. R. 140, Appealed to Court of Review. Jury trial—Stay of proceedings—C. P. 280, 442.)—A suit is stayed for 30 days to allow of the party who has asked for a jury trial to proceed with the case, and peremp- tion cannot be demanded until the expiry of 2 years from the last of the 30 days. Bel- anger v. Herald Publishing Co. (1911), 13 ‘Que. P. R, 123. Affirmed on appeal. Motion for rule — C. P. 279.] — A motion for rule nisi is not an instance and cannot be perempted. LeHuray v. Abraham- son (1911), 13 Que. P. R. 68. Opposition to judgment — (C. P. 279, 1163.J)—A defendant who files an opposition to judgment has the right to demand per- emption of suit. Haensgen v. Demers (1912), 13 Que. P. R. 189. Opposition to judgment — C. P. 279, 1163.]—-When once it has been entered, an opposition to judgment is a plea to the ac- tion and its effect is to set aside the judg- ment. The defendant opposant has the right to demand the peremption of the suit if no useful proceeding has been had upon the action during two years since the filing of his opposition. Montreal Baseball, Etc., Co. v. Berthiauwme (1912), 13 Que. P. R. 178 Parol testimony—Date of service of documents—Answer unlawfully filed—C. P. 205, 299; O. C. 1233.]—1. Parol testimony is admisisble to prove priority of date be- tween the service of a motion for peremp- tion and the service of a proceeding inter- rupting peremption. That is a fact of which it is presumable one could never obtain written evidence.—2. A reply to a pleading, filed after the delays for so doing have ex- pired and without the consent of the other party or the permission of the Judge, is an unlawful proceeding which does not inter- rupt peremption. Can. Amer. Linotype Corp. v. pa Pac, Rw. Co. (1914), 15 Que. P. R. . Petition in revision of a judgment —Petition not containing grounds of de- fence—C. P. 279, 11738 1175.]—A petition in revision of a judgment given by default against a party only forms part of the orig- inal record and is only a plea to the original action when it is accompanied by an order of a Judge allowing it to be filed and when it contains the grounds of defence the de- fendant intends to set up against the plain- tiff’s action—The filing of a petition in re- vision which does not contain the grounds of defence does not recall the judgment which continues to subsist notwithstanding the order to stay proceedings upon the ex- ecution—In view of these circumstances, the petitioner cannot demand peremption of suit, the judgment remaining still in effect. Taylor vy. Grant (1911), 18 Que. P. R. 110. Qui tam action—Can its dismissal be demanded by motion for peremption—C. P. 281.]—As prescription does not lie against the Crown, peremption will be refused in a pena] action when the plaintiff sues in his own name as well as in that of the Crown, the demand being indivisible—It would ap- pear that at the hearing upon the motion for peremption of a qui tam action the dismis- sal of the suit cannot be demanded under the pretext that the plaintiff could not sue jointly with the Crown. Mason v. Ledoux (1912), 13 Que. P. R. 386. Striking of a case from the hearing roll—C. P. 279.)—The striking by the Court of a case from the roll is not a proceeding which interrupts peremption. Munro Vv. Montreal (1910), 12 Que. P. R. 14. Suit taken by the town of Notre Dame de Graces—