Lower Canada.

C. Vic., etc..Dominion Statutes.
Ins. Act.....Insolvent Act.

L. J.........English Law Reports.

L. C. J.......Lower Canada Jurist.
L. N.........Legal News.
Mag. Ct.....Magistrates' Court.
M. C.........Municipal Code.

Q. Vic., &c..Quebec Statutes.
Rec. Ct......Recorder's Court.
R. L.......................Révue Legale.
S. C..........Superior Court.
S. C. R......Superior Court in Review.
S. C. Rep...Supreme Court Reports.
Su. Ct.......Supreme Court.
V. A. C..... Vice-Admiralty Court.

ABANDONMENT.

I. DECLARATION OF, IN CASES OF CAPIAS, see CAPIAS.

II. OF JUDGMENT, see PROCEDURE DE

SISTEMENT.

III. OF PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE HYPOTHECARY ACTION IS BROUGHT, see ACTION HYPOTHECARY, HYPOTHEC.

ABATEMENT.

I. OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, see NUISANCE.

ABDUCTION-See CRIMINAL

LAW.

ABSCONDING DEBTOR-See

CAPIAS.

ABSENCE.

ACCEPTANCE.

1. OF DELEGATION.

II. OF DELIVERY OF GOODS.
III. OF GUARANTEE.
IV. OF SUCCESSION.

V. OF TRANSFER TO MINOR.
I. OF DELEGATION.

3. Appellants were the mortgagees of a property purchased by respondent from the mortgagor, with undertaking by respondent to pay the mortgage. Respondent to an action on this undertaking pleaded want of acceptance. Appellant, on the other hand, pretended that tacit acceptance was sufficient, and that the registration of the undertaking, and above all that respondent had made payments on account of the mortgage to appellants-Held, in appealt that the registration was not evidence of acceptance, and that the receipts of payments did not imply an acceptance of the new debtor, but only of the money. La Société Permanente de Construction & Robinson,* 2 L. N. 148, S. C., & 4 L. N. 38, Q. B. 1880.

4. But where the creditor had accepted the

ABSENTEE.

I. ACTION AGAINST.

II. PRESCRIPTION AGAINST.

I. ACTION AGAINST.

1. Defendant being sued in Montreal declined the jurisdiction on the ground that the right of action did not originate there; that he had not been served personally there, and that he was not domiciled there, but in New York. The Superior Court maintained the exception; but in Review the judgment was reversed, on the ground that the defendant had property and money within the jurisdiction. Macdonald & MacKay & Routh, 2 L. N. 301, S. C. R. 1879, & Q. B., 1880.

II. PRESCRIPTION AGAINST.

2. In an action in declaration of hypothec the defendant pleaded inter alia prescription of ten years with title-Held, that as the plaintiff had been absent all the time, and the prescription invoked was prior to the Code that the plea must be dismissedt. Hebert & Menard, 10 R. L. 6, S. C. 1876.

*If the defendant has left or has never had his domicile in Lower Canada the court or judge, or the prothonotary, upon a return stating that he cannot be found in the district, may order him to appear within two months from the last publication of such order. The order must be published in the French and English languages, and be twice inserted in a newspaper published in each language respectively, in the district where the court is held; and in default of either of such newspapers in such district, then it is inserted in a similar newspaper of the nearest locality, and such newspapers are indicated in the order by the court or judge, or the prothonotary. 68 C. C. P.

† Prescription runs against absentees as against persons present, and by the same lapse of time, saving what is declared as to persons authorized to take provisional possession of the estate of an absentee. 2232 C. C.

Held, on a contestation of a collocation in favor of the creditor that novation had not taken place, and the release by the creditor of half the land applied only to his hypothec thereon, and did not affect the personal liability of the original debtor. Middlemiss & Jackson & Leduc, 2 L. N. 404, & 24 L. C. J. 33, S. C. R. 1879.

5. But in the Superior Court, under similar circumstances, the mortgage creditors having sued the delégué the latter demurred on the ground that it was not alleged that the delegation had been accepted prior to the institution of the action-Held, that the action was a sufficient acceptance of the delegation. O'Halloran & Boucher, 2 L. N. 285, S. C. R. 1879, & Drummond & Holland, Ib. & 23 L. C. J. 240, S. C. & Gadoury & Archambault, followed.

6. And in a later case-Held, that the acceptance was matter of consent merely between the creditor and the purchaser, and may be proved by shewing that both purchaser and creditor acknowledged and accepted the relation of debtor and creditor. Trust & Loan Co.& Guertin, 3 L. N. 382, S. C. R. 1880.

II. OF DELIVERY OF GOODS.

7. A person who takes delivery of goods ordered by another person in his name and shipped to his address, on the understanding that the sellers should draw on such party for the amount of invoice, cannot retain the goods and refuse to accept the draft, or pay the amount thereof. Poulin & Williams, 22 L. C. J. 18, Q. B.

1877.

*The simple indication by the debtor of a person who is to pay in his place, or the simple indication by the creditor of a person who is to receive in his place, or the transfer of a debt with or without the acceptance of the debtor does not affect novation, 1174, C. C.

And see Mallette & Hudon (22 L. C. J. 101) in which an indication of payment by the creditor in favorof another was held to be no bar to an action by such creditor so long as there was no express acceptance of the delegation.