rant que la déclaration de transmission faite par la demanderesse, et produite à la défenderesse, afin d'être déclarée propriétaire, et demande pour quatre parts et un douzième d'une part, portion des dites quarente-neuf parts était insuffisante, et ne pouvait être reçue par la défenderesse, tant que le titre des dits Johnson, Papineau et Smallwood n'aurait pas été mis de côté et annulé par un jugement du tribunal compétent, ou par un partage de la succession de Julia Connolly: et considérant qu'il n'appert pas que tel partage ait jamais eu lieu, ou que le titre des dits Johnson, Papineau et Smallwood ait été mis de côté ou annulé, et considérant que les dits Johnson, Papineau et Smallwood, ès dite qualité, n'ont pas été appelés en cette cause, non plus que les autres légataires, appelés par le testament de Julia Woolrich à recueillir le reste des biens de cette dernière, et que la Cour ne peut, sans léser les droits des autres intéressés dans la dite succession, adjuger à la demanderesse les conclusions de sa demande; a débouté et déboute la dite action de la demanderesse, avec dépens." The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, as follows: "The Court considering that, instead of dismissing the action of plaintiff appellant, the Court below should have ordered the persons, to wit, Thomas R. Johnson, Casimir F. Papineau and Charles Smallwood, named in defendant's pleas, and in the judgment appealed from, as holding a title from defendant to the Bank shares, whereof appelant, by her action, has demanded the transmission, to be made parties in this cause. Considering, therefore, that there is error in the said judgment, the Court here doth reverse, annul, and set aside the same. And proceeding to pronounce that judgment which the Court below should have given, the Court doth order that the said Johnson, Papineau and Smallwood be brought into this cause, as parties thereto, at the diligence and cost of plaintiff, the whole with the costs of the appeal against defendant, respondent." (16 J., p. 329.) HENRY STUART, Q.C., for appellant. SAISIE-ARRET BEFORE JUDGMENT. COURT OF REVIEW, Montreal, 25th June, 1872. Coram MACKAY, J., TORRANCE, J., DRUMMOND, J. GRIFFITH vs MCGOVERN. Held :-That an affidavit for attachment before judgment, made before the passing of the Quebec Act 35 Vic. ch. 6, sec. 18, to the effect merely that the defendant is immediately about to secrete his property, is insufficient. : MACKAY, J. This is a hearing in Review of a judgment rendered by Mr. Assistant JUSTICE RAMSAY, in the Superior Court, at Sherbrooke, rejecting defendant's petition to set aside an attachment before judgment, on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient. The affidavit alleged that defendant was immediately about to secrete his property, whereas the 834th Art. of the Code of C. P. requires that the affidavit should state that he "is secreting.' is secreting." We are all of opinion that the affidavit is, under the circumstances, insufficient, and we are confirmed in this view by the provisions of the Act recently passed by the Quebec Legislature, 35 Vic. ch. 6, s. 18, which has amended the Art. 834, by adding, after the word "secreting," the words, "or is about to secrete," the Act being in no way declaratory but for the future. We are under the necessity, therefore, of reversing the judgment, and maintaining the defendant's petition. Judgment of S. C. reversed. (16 J., p. 336) G. H. BORLASE, for plaintiff. SANBORN & BROOKS, for defendant. ADMISSIONS IN REVIEW. COURT OF REVIEW, Montreal, 30th January, 1872. Coram MONDELET, J., BERTHELOT, J., MACKAY, J. CARDEN vs LENNEN. Held:-Admissions contained in a factum fyled in review are binding upon the party fyling the same. By this action, plaintiff claimed payment of the items of an account fyled by him, but, in his factum in review, inade this allegation: "Comme il peut s'élever quelques difficultés, quant aux items du compte nos 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 31, 32, formant $71.00, le demandeur préfère passer ces items sous silence, se contentant de demander judgment pour le surplus." The Court of Review, in rendering judgment for plaintiff, decided that the above items had been abandoned by plaintiff in his factum. Mr Justice MONDELET, dissented, declaring that, in his opinion, parties were not bound by the allegations of their factums, and that the Court could only give judgment according to the evidence, and that the factums did not form part of the record. Judgment reversed. MONDELET, J., dissenting in part. (16 J., p. 336; 2 R. C. p. 252) LEBLANC & CASSIDY, for plaintiff. M. DOHERTY, for defendant. CARRIERS.-RESPONSIBILITY. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Montreal, 23rd June, 1873. Coram DUVAL, CH. J., DRUMMOND, J., BADGLEY, J., MONK J., TASCHEREAU, J. THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendants in Court below, Appellants; and EDWIN ATWATER et al., Plaintiffs in Court below, Respondents. An Ocean Steamship Company, by its bill of lading, having undertaken to carry goods from Liverpool to Portland, and there deliver them to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to be, by them, carried to Montreal, and the latter Company having received and carried the goods: Held: 1st. The Grand Trunk Railway Company are responsible for damage to the goods caused by their negligence, and cannot invoke the conditions of the Ocean Steamship Company's bill of lading. 2nd To establish that goods were damaged when in a carrier's custody, it is sufficient to show that the Company received the goods in apparent good order and delivered them in bad order. 3rd. Negligence on the part of the carrier will be held proved, if it be established in evidence that the goods carried could not have been broken in the way that they were, by any ordinary handling in the usual course of transportation. The plaintiffs' action was at first dismissed by Mr. Justice Mondelet, which decision was reversed by the Court of Review. The facts of the case fully appear by the respective factums of plaintiffs and defendants. DORMAN, for plaintiffs: The action was brought to recover $575, value of a case of plate glass, received by defendants, in good order, at Portland, to be carried and delivered to plaintiffs, at Montreal, and which was delivered to plaintiffs in a broken and utterly worthless condition. The plaintiffs allege, in their declaration, that, in the month of January, 1871, at Liverpool, in England, they shipped, in good order and condition, by the Steamship Scandinavian, belonging to the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company, three cases of plate glass, which the said Steamship Company undertook to carry on board of said steamship, from Liverpool to Portland, in the State of Maine, and, there, to deliver the same, in good order and condition, to defendants, to be by defendants carried thence, by railway, to Montreal, and, there, delivered to plaintiffs, or their assigns, in consideration of the freights therein mentioned; that the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company, as they had agreed to do, conveyed the goods from Liverpool to Portland, where, on, or about the sixth of February of the same year, they delivered the same to defendants, to be carried and delivered to plaintiffs, at Montreal that defendants received the three cases of plate glass from the said Steamship Company, at Portland, in good order and condition, and undertook, and agreed; and were bound to carry the same thence to Montreal, and, there, deliver the same, in like good order and condition, to plaintiffs; that defendants failed to fulfil their obligations, but that, in the course of the transportation of said goods, and, while the same were in defendants' possession, by and through the want of care, negligence and fault of defendants, their agents and servants, one of said cases of plate glass, and all the plate glass contained in it, were broken, crushed and entirely destroyed. The plaintiffs were the owners of the said goods, and that the value of the case of plate glass so broken and destroyed was $575; and they prayed that defendants be condemned to pay that sum to plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded: 1. The general issue; 2. That defendants, about the date inentioned in plaintiffs' declaration, received from the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company, at Portland, three cases of plate glass, and undertook to carry the same to Montreal, and, there, to deliver them to plaintiffs; that defendants, according to their. · undertaking, carried the goods from Portland to Montreal, and delivered them to plaintiffs, in the same order and condition in which they had received them at Portland. That defendants used all possible care, and were not guilty of negligence in the transportation; that one of the principal conditions on which defendants carry merchandize like that in question, is, that defendants are not responsible for any damage that may happen to such merchandize; the defendants received said goods from the Steamship Company under that special condition, which is a usage of commerce, and was well-known to the Steamship Company, as well as to plain tiffs; that defendants, having never contracted with plaintiffs, are not responsible towards them, and, by reason of a special contract with the Ocean Steamship Company, defendants are not responsible towards that Company for any damage such as alleged in plaintiffs' declaration. The plaintiffs, in answer to this plea, deny that defendants' undertaking to carry the goods in question from Portland to Montreal were qualified by any condition or stipulation, which limited or could, by law, limit the responsibility of defendants, as common carriers, or which could relieve defendants from liability, or damage caused by their fault or negligence, and say that defendants contracted and undertook, and were bound to carry and deliver the goods, as alleged in plaintiffs' declaration. The plaintiffs proved that they shipped the goods, on board the Scandinavian at Liverpool, the 9th of January, 1871, under bill of lading, whereby the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company undertook to convey said goods to Portland, and, there, deliver them, in good order and condition, to defendants, to be, by them, forwarded thence to Montreal, and delivered to plaintiffs; that the Steamship Company did carry the goods to Portland, and deliver them to defendants, to be by them carried and delivered to plaintiffs, at Montreal, as appears by the Exhibit X, by which defendants acknowledge to have received, from the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company, the goods in question in apparent good order and condition; that, on their arrival at Montreal, one case of said plate glass was proved to be so crushed and broken as to totally destroy all the glass contained in it; that the glass was plaintiffs' property, and its value was $575. The only evidence adduced by defendants were the testimony of the conductors of the train which brought the goods from Portland to Montreal, and who say that no accident occurred on the way, which could account for the breakage; and that of the freight receiver at Montreal, who proves that he discovered that the case was broken on its arrival at Montreal. At the argument it was contended, on behalf of defendants: 1. That there was no contract between them and plaintiffs, in respect to the carrying of the goods in question, and, hence, no liability for the loss of the goods; 2. If there be a contract, it is subject to the conditions of the bill of lading given by the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company to plaintiffs, and that one of its conditions was that the carriers should not be responsible for breakage; 3. That defendants' liability was limited to damage resulting from their fault and negligence, and that no fault or negligence had been proved in this case. The judgment of the Superior Court, assigns, as reasons for dismissing plaintiffs' action: 1. "That it is not proved that there is or has |