ST.
LAWRENCE
METAL
AND
MARINE WORKS INC. (Defend- APPELLANT* *Mar. 14 '*Jun.
J.:-The contract upon which the respondent's claim is founded provided for the sale by respondent to appellant of the propulsive equipment to be installed in four ships constructed by appellant, the various items equipment for each ship being described in the contract as a "ship set".
The sale price of all the machinery and equipment, at various unit prices specified in the contract, was $415,276.49 payable in five instalments of 20% each. In its action respondent claimed $48,611.18 as the balance owing under the contract. Prior to the institution of the action, two of the ships constructed by appellant had been completed and delivered to the mise-en-cause, and the claim for $48,611.18 was accompanied by a conservatory a.ttachment on the two remaining ships to protect the privilege claimed by respondent.
This claim was maintained to the extent of $44,832.16.
While the amount of appellant's claim and certain other questions were in issue in the Courts below I understand that there is now no controversy except as to whether, and to what extent, respondent's claim for $44,832.16 is privileged and as such entitled to be paid out of moneys set aside for that purpose. In the event that I am mistaken as to the appellant's concurrence in the views of the Court of Appeal upon the other matters, I should say that I am in agreement with those views.
The determination of this question involves the consideration of two points, (1) whether the contract referred to provided for a single sale with one sale price, or for four COTD separate sales, one for each ship set, at four separate prices and (2) to what extent, if any, the respondent is entitled to be paid its claim by privilege.
As to the first of these points, I am satisfied there was no error in the decision of the Court below that there was one contract of sale for a single price, not four separate sales for four separate prices. This being so, no question of the apportionment or imputation of payments can arise. Respondent's claim to be paid by privilege is based upon the provisions of the last paragraph of article 2383 of the Quebec Civil Code, which reads as follows:- The privilege provided for under this article, in common with other privileges created under the Code, gives to the creditor a right to be preferred to other creditors according to the origin of his claim and is indivisible of its nature (C.C. 1983).
Article 2383 of the Civil Code is similar to article 191 of the Code de Commerce as that article stood prior to the substantial amendments made in 1949 and both articles had their source to a very large extent in the provisions of l'Ordonnance de la Marine of 1681. Each of these provided, among other things, for a privilege to secure payment of the price of materials furnished for the construction of a ship and to secure payment of insurance upon the ship for the last voyage.
Moreover, the civil law of France concerning privileges upon moveable property was substantially the same as that of the Province of Quebec.
S.C.R. 4
1 956 ] Decisions of the French Courts and the works of the French commentators may therefore usefully be considered in determining the effect of article 2383 of the Quebec Code. In France, where insurance on a ship had been effected for a single premium but for a fixed period of time during which the ship made more than one voyage, the Cour de Cassation has held that the insurer's privilege must be limited to that portion of the premium assignable to the period covered by the last voyage, his claim for the balance of the premium being an unsecured one. Civ. rej. 20 juillet 1898, et le rapport de M. le Conseiller Durand: Dalloz, Jurisprudence G6n6rale, 1900, 1. 231.
'See also Baudry- Lacantinerie, Priviliges, Vol. 1. No. 696.
The last paragraph of article 2383 refers in terms to a single ship, and where, as in the case at bar, materials are sold for a single price and used by the purchaser in the construction of more than one ship, it may well be, as suggested by the learned Chief Justice of Quebec in the Court below, that the privilege of the seller can only be exercised upon each ship to the extent of that portion of the price assignable to the materials used in that ship. Under certain circumstances this might present some difficulty as to proof but this 'does not arise in the present case as it was established that the portion of the price represented by machinery and equipment installed in each ship was $103,819.12. It is clear therefore that the respondent's claim for the much smaller amount of $44,832.16 is secured by privilege upon each of the ships seized under the conservatory attachment.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
J.:-J'ai eu 1'avantage de lire le jugement de mon collegue M. le Juge Abbott, et je m'accorde avec sa d6cision.
Je ne veux ajouter que quelques notes pour appuyer la conclusion & laquelle je suis arrive.
Il est 6videmment inutile de r6citer de nouveau les faits qui ont donn6 naissance h ce litige. Il me sera suffisant de rappeler que l'intimbe r6clame $48,611.18, 6tant la balance due en vertu d'un unique contrat de vente au montant de $415,276.49, pour marchandises vendues et livr6es h 1'appelante, payable en cinq versements 6gaux de 20% chacun.
Ce montant reprisente le prix de quatre machines h propulsion et accessoires, h 6tre install6es h bord de quatre navires qui ont td baptis6s sous les noms de "CARTAXO",
"COLARES", "COVILHA" et "CORUCHE".
Deux navires compl6t6s ont quitt6 le port de Qu6bec, alors qu'il restait d& le montant r6clam6 dans l'action, quiTasch u 6tait accompagn6e d'une saisie-conservatoire pour garantir par privilige le paiement de la balance impaybe.
C'est la pr6tention de l'appelante que cette dette n'est pas entibrement priviligi6e, car deux navires avaient d6jh quitt6 le port et entrepris leur premier voyage.
L'intim6e se base sur les dispositions suivantes du Code Civil de Qu6bec
(article 2383):- Les paragraphes 1 et 2 sont h 1'effet que les frais de saisie et de vente, les droits de pilotage, de quaiage et de havre, et les p6nalitis encourues pour infractions aux r6glements l6gaux du havre, ont pr6firence sur la cr6ance de ceux qui ont fourni les matiriaux pour compl6ter les navires.
II est certain que Particle 2383 (C.C.) ne semble couvrir que le cas d'un seul navire, et que lorsqu'il n'y a qu'une seule cr6ance due h un fournisseur de mat6riaux, employ6s
A la construction de ce navire, elle ne peut 6tre garantie par privilige sur un navire diff6rent. L'intimbe admet ce principe, qu'il serait d'ailleurs oiseux de contester sdrieusement.
Mais dans le cas qui nous est soumis, la cr6ance de l'intim6e rivble en effet un caract&re qui 'doit la soustraire h la rigidit& de cette r~gle. Car le contrat est en effet r6dig6 dans les termes qui suivent et qui veulent que les "shipsets"
devaient 6tre livr6s "le premier, le ou avant le 2 f6vrier
1948, et les trois autres, a raison d'un par mois pour chaque mois subs6quent".
S.C.R.
Les paiements devaient s'effectuer de la fagon suivante: On voit done qu'il n'y a qu'un seul contrat affectant les J-quatre navires, une seule cr6ance comme une seule dette, et qu'il n'y a aucune imputation faite quant h ces paiements. Le privil~ge de sa nature est indivisible. On sait que c'est le droit qu'a un cr6ancier d'6tre pr6f6r6 h d'autres cr~anciers suivant la cause de sa cr6ance (1983 C.C.). Cet article correspond h 1'article 2095 du Code Frangais, sauf qu'en France on n'a pas jug6 n~cessaire de proclamer cette indivisibilit6, vu 'vidence de ce caractbre qui s'applique au privilige.
(Planiol et Ripert "Droit Civil" vol. 12, 2e 6d. p. 276)
(Rodibre "Solidarit6 et Indivisibilit"
p. 379) (Beudant "Droit Civil Frangais" vol. 13, p. 318).
Il en r6sulte donc que si la chose que le privilige frappe vient h 6tre fractionn6e, chacune des parties de cette mime chose r6pond de la dette, et le d~tenteur peut 6tre poursuivi pour le recouvrement.
Dans le cas qui nous est soumis, il n'y a eu aucune pr6cision quant aux fournitures faites respectivement A chacun des navires composant cette flotte. Il n'y a qu'un seul contrat, qu'une seule cr6ance, qu'une seule dette, et en cons6quence, le privilige A cause de son caractbre d'indivisibilit6, porte sur I'ensemble de la flotte. (Cour de Cassation, Dalloz "Jurisprudence G6n6rale" 1913, p. 302.).
Comme dans le cas qui se pr6sente, la r6clamation a 6t6 riduite h $44,832.16, il s'ensuit done qu'elle est couverte par privilige sur les deux navires saisis, et qu'il n'est pas n6cessaire, vu que la question ne se pr6sente pas, de determiner si un seul ou deux navires pourraient garantir par privilige, la totalit6 de la dette de $415,276.49, si elle 6tait demeur6e impay6e. L'appel doit 6tre rejet6 avec d6pens.