Robertson, le demandeur n'avait nullement établi, par son affidavit, qu'il eut aucun privilège ou lien sur le vaisseau; il en est de même du jugement dans la cause de Jasmin vs Lafantaisie, sur lequel s'est appuyé M. le juge BERTHELOT. "Saisie-gagerie du voiturier qui a le droit de s'opposer à l'enlèvement des meubles affectés à son privilège, peut être validée, n'ayant que l'effet d'une simple opposition." 6 Bioche, Dic. de la Procédure, vo. Saisie-Gagerie, n° 2. Arrêt de la Cour de Cassation, 13 avril 1840. Enfin, la saisie pratiquée en la présente cause ne pouvait être attaquée par requête. mais le défendeur aurait dû y opposer une exception, suivant le cours ordinaire de la Procédure. Voir motivé du jugement in re Torrance vs Thomas, 2 L. C. J., p. 99. Jugement pour le demandeur. La Cour de Révision avait déclaré, par son jugement rendu, à Montréal, le 30 mars 1871, MONDELET, J., BERTHELOT, J., et TORRANCE, J., que cet ouvrier avait non seulement un privilège, mais encore le droit de rétention pour le paiement de ses gages par voie de saisie du bois par lui confectionné. La Cour d'Appel a jugé qu'il peut avoir un privilège, mais qu'il n'a pas le droit de rétention; par suite d'un casus omissus de la loi, qui ne pourvoit pas au moyen légal de lui permettre d'exercer ce droit. Le jugement prononcé par la Cour d'Appel, infirmant le jugement de la Cour de Révision, a été rendu comme suit: DRUMMOND, J.: This is a seizure before judgment, called a 'saisie-arrêt conservatoire." It is for wages due on a raft; but, in my opinion, no such seizure is known to the law. There is nothing of the kind provided for in the Code, as it is neither a "sais e revendication," a "saisie-arrêt" for absconding or secretion, nor a "saisie on behalf of the dernier équipeur," which, besides "saisie gagerie," are the only seizures before judgment recognized by our law. The judgment of the Court of Review, maintaining the seizure, must be reversed. MONK, J. Côté was engaged to go to Quebec with a raft, but quarrelled with his employer. If he had gone to Quebec, and been refused his wages, I am not prepared to say that he would not have been entitled to a conservatory process, to make good his lien on the raft, but, under the present circumstances, I do not think he has any such right. Le jugement est comine suit: "La Cour, considérant que "la saisie conservatoire, la saisie avant jugement est de droit "positif, étroit et exceptionnel; considérant qu'elle ne peut "s'exercer que dans les cas spécialement prévus par la loi; "considérant que le bref de saisie-arrêt conservatoire dont il s'agit en cette cause, a émané dans des circonstances qui n'entrent pas dans aucune des catégories prévues par la loi, pour l'exercice de ce procédé rigoureux; considérant que la "requête du défendeur, en cour de première instance, appe"lant, en demandant l'annulation dudit bref de saisie-arrêt, "est bien fondée en droit; considérant, partant, que dans le "jugement de la Cour de première instance, ainsi que dans le jugement de la Cour de Révision qui le confirme, il y a "erreur, infirme, casse et annule lesdits jugements." (16 J., p. 307; 3 R. L., p. 571; 4 R. L., p. 3; 2 R. C., p. 230) DORION, DORION & GEOFFRION, avocats de l'appelant. SALE. PROMISE OF SALE.-REGISTRATION. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Montreal, 21st March, 1872. Coram DUVAL, C. J., CARON, J., BADGLEY, J., STUART, J., ad hoc, POLETTE, J., ad hoc. THOMAS et al.. (Opposants in Court below,) Appellants; and AYLEN (Plaintiff in Court below), Respondent. Held-In the case of an agreement (before Our Civil Code) by A B to purchase from C D a lot of land for a specified sum, to be paid by instalments, followed by a bond from C D in a penal sum, to the effect that, on the purchase money being fully paid, C D would execute a deed of sale in due form, and followed also by actual and uninterrupted possession by A B, that the right of property of C D in the lot of land was unaffected, so long as any portion of the purchase money remained unpaid, and, therefore, that C D had a right to be collocated for such unpaid purchase money, in the distribution of the proceeds of a sale of the lot by the sheriff, in preference to duly registered judgments obtained by creditors of A B'against him while in possession of the lot,and this, without any registration either of the agreement or the bond. This was an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, sitting in Review, at Montreal, confirming a judgment of the Superior Court, at Aylmer, rendered on the 30th of November, 1868, by which the opposition of the opposants, representing the estate of John Egan, and claiming the proceeds of a lot of land, which they alleged to belong to that estate, and which had been sold by sheriff's sale, at the suit of respondent, was dismissed. The facts appear to be as follows: On the 31st of October, 1851, a memorandum was made, at Quebec, between John Newman, of Buckingham, and the firm of John Egan & Co., in the following words: John Newman, of Buckingham, hereby purchases from John Egan and Co., of Aylmer, that property, in the Township of Hull, known as the Stubbs Farm, as well as the Kedder 66 "lot, making in all, about two hundred acres, or what may "be contained in the patent from the Government, the whole for the sum of one thousand and fifty pounds, payable, "as follows: Note for one hundred, payable 3 mos.: cash "down, the sum of one hundred pounds, the balance in four yearly payments with the legal interest thereon. Bond to "be given for the land when required." Quebec, 31st October, 1851. (Signed,) John Newman, "John Egan & Co." On the third day of November, of the same year, the bond mentioned in the foregoing memorandum was executed by Egan and delivered to Newman, and it was in the following words: "Know all men by these presents, that I, John Egan, of the "Town of Aylmer, in the County of Ottawa, in that part of the province called Lower Canada, merchant, am holden "and firmly bound unto John Newman, of the Township of "Buckingham, in the said County, land surveyor, in the " penal sum of two thousand one hundred pounds, to be paid "to Newman, his heirs, executors, curators, administrators " and assigns, or his or their lawful attorney or attorneys, "for which payment well and truly to be made, I do hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors, curators and administra"tors firmly, by these presents; dated the third day of "November, in the year of our Lord 1851. Whereas it has "been agreed, by and between Egan and Newman, his heirs or assigns, that as soon as Newman shall have paid certain "notes granted this day to Egan, signed and endorsed by "Newman bearing date the 31st of October last, payable to "his own order, at the office of John Egan & Co., viz. : one "for £100 at three months after date, one for £250 at one year after date, one for £200 at two years after date, one for £200 at three years after date, and one for £200 at four years after date, all bearing interest, Egan, his heirs "and assigns, shall and will execute, in due form of law, deed of sale or conveyance of the lot of land and premises "known as the Stubbs Farm and the Kedder lot, being lot "No. 24, in the second range of the Township of Hull, in the а County of Ottawa, containing about two hundred acres, "or what may be contained in the patent from the Crown, "with appurtenances and dependencies; now, the condition of the above written obligation is such that if Egan, his "heirs and assigns, do and shall as soon after the aforesaid "promissory notes shall be paid, as shall be required by "Newman, his heirs or assigns, or any of them, or by his or "their attorney or attorneys well and sufficiently execute "and grant to Newman, his heirs or assigns, or as he or they "shall direct, by such deed of conveyance, or other acts and assurances, in the law, as his or their counsel shall advise, "all and every the premises hereinbefore described, with the "appurtenances, free and clear of all charges and incumbrances whatsoever; and that, without any further consideration to be paid by Newman, his heirs or assigns, than the here"inbefore mentioned promissory notes, and the sum of £100 paid this day by Newman to Egan; then, this obligation to "be void, or else to be and remain in full force and virtue." (Signed,) John Egan, L. S." The property sold in this cause is the north half of the lot so bounded, containing one hundred acres, more or less, and bounded as in the advertisement of sale mentioned, and was so sold, by the sheriff of Aylmer, at the suit of respondent, on the 28th day of January, 1868, on a judgment obtained by him against Newman. By the return of the privileges and hypothecs registered against the land, filed by the sheriff, there appear only certain judgments, obtained against defendant, the first of which is in favor of Anthony Walsh; the next, for £234 18s. 8d., is in favor of respondent, as is also the third, for £32 8s. 4d.; while the fourth, for £83.5s. 1d. and costs, appears to have been registered in favor of Peter Aylen. On the return of the sheriff being made, appellants filed an opposition afin de conserver, by which they claimed to be paid, by privilege, the sum of £732 15s. 2d. and interest, as being the balance remaining due to thein as representatives of Egan, under the agreement or bond, a copy of which is hereinbefore inserted, that sum being in fact the amount of three of the notes mentioned in that bond. The opposants and appellants allege, in effect, after setting up the instruments above copied, that opposants, as representing Egan, have always been, and still are, ready and willing to execute a deed of sale of the said lot to Newman, as he agreed to do by the said bond, upon payment by him of the balance of money and interest represented by the said notes. But that Newman had never paid these sums of money, and that, until they were so paid, he had no title to the property in question; that the right of property in it never ceased to be in Egan, and in his estate, and in them as representing his estate, and that, as proprietors of the land itself, they were entitled to receive its proceeds. When they came before the Court, they alleged, as anticipating the objections that would probably be made to their claim, that they, as representing Egan, had always a right to eject Newman from the land in question, so long as he failed to pay the notes he had given them; that his possession of the land was only conditional upon his payment of these notes; that he had no absolute or indefeasible title to the land and that they, having the right of property in the land itself, of which they had never divested themselves, were entitled to convert that right of property into a claim upon the proceeds of the land, as they did by their opposition. And that as they had the undoubted right to treat the agreement of sale at any time as being at an end, in default of performance of the condition of payment, and regain possession of the property, they had the same right to obtain possession of its proceeds, if those proceeds came before a Court of Justice. The opposants were collocated in conformity with their conclusion. To this opposition, respondent pleaded first, a demurrer to the opposition, on the ground, first, that it did not appear that the instruments under which opposants claimed to be collocated, by special privilege, upon the proceeds of the sale of the land in question, had ever been registered, and, for want of that registration, the privilege of the unpaid vendor ceased; and, secondly, because the opposition itself was contradictory, inasmuch as it alleged that the opposants had sold the land in question to Newman, and also alleged that, in doing so, they had retained a right of property in the land itself. And he further pleaded specially that, on the 18th day of November, 1862, he obtained judgment against Newman, for £234 18s. 8d., and registered his judgment, on the fifth of December, of the same year; and that, on the 12th of November, 1862, he obtained another judgment for £32 8s. 4d.. and, on the 11th April, duly registered that judgment; that the memorandum of agreement which he styles, in his exception, a "deed of sale," and the bond subsequently given by Egan, had never been registered; that the lot sold was the property of, and had been in the possession of, defendant since 1851; and, therefore, that the opposition of appellants, in so far as it affected respondent, should be dismissed, with costs. Thereupon, these pleas being fyled, on the 22nd March, 1868, respondent, on the same day, contested the project of the report of distribution, fyled on the 24th of February previous, in which the opposants had been collocated for the proceeds of the property sold. In support of that contestation, he set forth the same facts as are contained in his previous special plea to the opposition of plaintiffs, and, by his conclusions, he prayed that the report of distribution, in so far as it related to opposants' claim, should be amended, and respondent collocated for the amount of his judgment, as registered before, and having preference over appellants. On the 30th of November, 1868, Mr. Justice Lafontaine rendered the following judgment: "The Court considering that opposants have failed to allege, and establish their rights of bailleurs de fonds, by them claimed in and by their opposition, by a sufficient title. duly enregistered, according |