Majority
judgment of the Superior Court, District of Kamouraska, which dismissed the plaintiff's action.
The action was instituted by the Honourable Evan John Price, and cor tinued by his executors. The conclusions were possessory as well as petitory, and the declaration set out that the plaintiff was proprietor, in possession, as such, of the lands in question under a conveyance by an instrument, which it was contended constituted an emphyteutic lease and conferred proprietary rights which had been transferred to and were held by the plaintiff under a deed of sale of the lands from the original grantee at the time of the action.
The original instrument so relied upon by the plaintiff was in authentic form, the clauses material to the issues raised on the appeal being as follows: " Lequel (bailleur) a, par ces pr6s, ntes, baill6 afferm6 pour 1'espace de seize ann~es cons6cutives,.
* avec garantie de tons. troubles.
Tous les droits de jouissance et de propri6thqu'il a on peut avoir sur la de Trois Pistoles, depuis le pont public 6rig6 sur la dite rivibre, au premier rang de la dite Paroisse de Trois Pistoles, en remontant jusqu'd l'ancienne chaussde qui s'y rencontre, pour y construire un moulin A scie ou toutes autres industries que le premier jugera A propos d'v construire en aucun temps pendant la dur~e du pr6sent bail, y compris tous travaux et ouvrages que le preneur y a d6ji pratiqu~s."
" Ce bail est fait avec droit an dit preneur, lo. de jouir de la riVe sud-ouest de la dite rivibre pour les fins du dit 6tablissement projet6, tout le long de la partie d'icelle sus-loude; 2o. de jouir en commun avec le bailleur, et ses ayants cause, d'un chemin, etc., de quatre & cinq pieds de largeur, sur la dite rive sudouest, vis-A-vis 1'6tendue sus-lou6e, lequel chemin sera fait par le bailleur d'hui au premier juillet prochain et ensuite entretenu par lui, pour y communiquer en voiture pendant 1'hiver et A pied pendant la saison de 1'6t6; 3o. avec droit encore au preneur de pratiquer L O dans le dite rivibre et sur la dite rive sud-ouest an dit endroit tous piliers, quais et autres constructions qui seront n~cessaires pour retenir ses booms et sachauss6e." " Fait enfin pour et moyennant une rente annuelle de douze piastres par ann6e, que le preneur s'oblige payer au bailleur, en sa demeure, le premier mai de chaque annie, *
*
*
* et ainsi ensuite A pareille 4poque chaque ann6e en suivant,.jusqu'A l'expiration du dit bail."
" Il est de plus convenu entre les parties qu'il sera loisible au preneur et ses ayants cause de continuer le present bail pour une nouvelle p&riode de dix A douze ann6es, en payant an bailleur, A la dite date du premier mai de chacune des annes de la continuation du present bail, en sa demeure, la somme de dix-huit piastres de prix de bail par ann~e, sous les m~mes conditions et obligation d'ailleur que ci-dessus mentionn6es aux pr~sentes; si non, le preneur sera tenu d'enlever toutes constructions qu'il aura faites sur la dite rivibre et sur la rive, de manire A laisser les pr6misses sus afferm&es en bon ordre.
Il en sera ainsi A 1'expiration de la continuation du bail, si elle a lieu."
"Au paiement du loyer et fermage ci-dessus stipul6s le dit moulin A scie, chaussie, booms et autres constructions, mouvement et travaillants, engins, outils et gndralement tous accessoires d'icelui demeurent sp6cialement affect~s et hypothequ6s."
" Le preneur promet en outre payer au bailleur dix piastres pour l'aider A le construction du dit chemin sus-mentionn6."
est convenu enfin que le present bail n'affectera en rien la teneur des actes faits antrieurement entre les parties."
"Cependant s'il arrivait quelques dommages caus6s a la propri6t6 du bailleur par suite de la construction de la dite chauss6e, le preneur en sera responsable, iceux seront fix6s -A dire d'experts, si les parties ne s'entendent pas entre elles.,'
" Au moyen des pr6sentes le bailleur dessaisit de ce que dessus lou6 et afferm6 et en saisit le premier qui d6clare en 6tre d4ja en possession."
The plaintiff's demand was that he should be declared proprietor in possession of the lands, that defendant had no rights therein, and for an injunction against the defendant to prevent him from entering thereon or disturbing the plaintiff in his possession, and further, for damages, and that the defendant should be condemned to restore the premises to the plaintiff in the condition in which they were before his trespass and ordered to discontinue works begun on the property in dispute. The pleas, in themselves also cumulative, alleged a title in the defendant, denied any title in the plaintiff, and, alleging that the plaintiff was merely a tenant, contended that he had no right to bring his action as proprietor of the lands.
The trial court, District of Kamouraska, decided that the plaintiff had failed in making out title as owner the lands, and, treating the action as petitory, dismissed it and vacated the interim injunction issued therein against the defendant.
On appeal the Court of Review, at Quebec, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, on the ground that the instrument on which the plaintiff based his title was not a conveyance of the lands which gave him the right to institute the action as owner, but merely an ordinary lease under which he held as tenant only and without having acquired any real rights therein.
Stuart Q.C. for the appellants. The terms of the original lease operate as a conveyance or alienation for rent (Art. 1593 C. C.); the parties intended thereby to convey ownership as well as possession during the term, and the instrument transferred tous les droits de jouissance of the lessor who was thereby " dessaisit " of all ownership and possession, and the lessee "saisit " with both; Aubry & Rau, nn. 363, 365 (3); 2 Aubry & Rau, n. 189; Pothier, " Louage," nn. 285; Bail A Rente," nn. 14, 35.
25 Demolombe, n. 36; Toullier, n. 320 ; City of Quebec v. North Shore Railway Co. (1) at page 123.
The immediate title to the plaintiff, executed in 1885, is not an assignment of a lease, but actually a deed sale of the property which constitutes separate title under this conveyance by the executors of the former lessee to him, " of all the dams built on both sides of the river."
At the time of this sale, the executors were in possession.
The respondent never had any possession, and is himself without title, while plaintiff has a title under which he has had bond fide possession and public enjoyment from 1885 till the trespass complained of in 1899, and has acquired prescriptive rights. See Pothier. " Domaine de Propri6th," nn. 292, 293, 322, 324, ; Lepdre v. Leprovost (1) ; Commune de Lally v. Commune de Prebois
The Court of Review held that the right to a special action even as tenants belonged to the plaintiff by reason of his dispossession by the defendant, and that such right could not be enforced because the plaintiff had sued as proprietor and not as a tenant. But the rule is that misdescription, either of the remedy or right claimed, cannot vitiate proceedings, provided no substantial injustice be done.
None could be done in this case, because the title was fully set out and the plaintiff was entitled to such remedy as the title disclosed.
The granting of the injunction and the order for restoration of possession were rights which belonged t0 the plaintiff, whichever way his title be interpreted. Art. 567 C. C.; Cossit v. Lemieux
The defence waived any objections to the cumulative form of the action by filing cumulative pleas; (Art. 177, (6) C.P.Q.) and we are entitled to have the possessory conclusions in case our petitory claim should be rejected.
Gerbeau v. Blais (2); McGee v. Larochelle
L. A. Taschereau for the appellant.
As to prescription, it has not been pleaded and cannot now be invoked, even if there was such a title in the plaintiff as might support such a contention.
Arts. 2208, 2244 C,; Gibson v. Wear (4).
The plaintiff's auteurs held only under an ordinary lease of lands for an extended term without any clause conveying real rights therein, and they could not transfer more than the rights they possessed as tenants. The plaintiff became merely a sub-tenant under the deed of 1885.
Although called a bail emphytdotique, this original instrument does not affect the land, it merely hypothecates improvements, and has none of the characteristics either of emphyteusis or of bail t rente or bail longues annies. 4Pothier (ed. Bug.) p. 171, n. 1; Arts. 567, 1593, 1601 C. C.; Nouveau Denisart, p. 49; vo. " Bail A Rente" par. 1, n. 1, par. n. 2; Duchesneau v. Bleau (5); Toplong " Louage " p. 169; Cridit Foncier Franco- Canadien v. Young (6); Guyot, Rep. de Jur. vo. " Bail" par. 4; Dufresne v. Lamontagne (7); 4 Aubry & Rau,. n. 364, par. 1, and n. 365 par. 3; Ferridre, Diet. de Dr. vo. " Bail fait pour plus de neuf ann6es "; Fournier v. Talabot (1); 8 Laurent, p. 433; Guillouard " Louage" n. par.
The plaintiff's action must be regarded as petitory; Bioche nn. 1131, 1132; Art. 1066 C. P. Q.; and until he proves prior title, which he has not done, the defendant can rest upon the fact that he is in actual possession under valid title deeds, which need not, however, be discussed in this case.
Judgment of the Court
; J.-Par sa d6claration, le demandeur appelant alliguant et titres et possession, et concluant et au p6titoire et au possessoire, r~clame la proprit6 et la possession d'un certain lopin de terre situ6 en la Paroisse des Trois-Pistoles.
Le d6fendeur intim6, loin de prendre objection au cumul 6vident de 1'action du demandeur, a lui-mime cumul6 par sa d6fense, et a plaid6 lui aussi et titres et possession.
Les parties out r6ciproquement produit leurs titres, et fait une longue enquite sur la question de possession.
L'appelant ne pent r~ussir.
D'abord, par ses propres titres, il n'appert 6tre que sous-locataire du terrain en question.
II ne pent donc en 6tre d6clar6 propri6taire, et le jugement qui le d6boute de ses conclusions au p6titoire est inattaquable.
I a 6mis devant cette cour la proposition que le bail originaire sur lequel il appuie ses pr6tensions est un bail A rente transmissible de propri~t6, mais cette proposition n'est pas fond6e. Ce bail n'est que pour seize ans, et il n'y a que le bail a perp6tuit6 et le bail emphytbotique qui soient 6quivalents A la vente. Arts. 567, 572, 1593 C.
L'appelant a all6gu6 un acte de vente du 17 novembre 1885 par lequel il appert avoir achet6 un terrain qui, d'apris lui, couvre la localit6 en litige, mais ce document ne peut supporter son action p6titoire, vi qu'd sa face mime, les vendeurs n'avaient d'autre titre A la possession de la propri6t6 que le bail originaire. Cet acte a constitu6 1'appelant sous-locataire, et voild tout. Ses vendeurs n'ont pu lui transf6rer un droit de propri~t6 qu'ils n'avaient pas. Et il s'est d'ailleurs reconna n'8tre que locataire en payant depuis le loyer annuel convenu par le bail.
Mais, nous a dit l'appelant, si je ne puis r6ussir au p6titoire, je dois du moins r6ussir au possessoire, et obtenir, mAine si je ne suis que locataire, un jugement en r6integrande, - sans adjuger sur le p6titoire. Art. 1064 C. P. C.; Pioche, actions poss. Nos. 91, 710; Bioche, proc. vol. 1, vo. " Action poss. " Nos. 45 et seq.; Aubry &.Rau, pp. 166, 167; 7 Boncenne proc~d. nos. 284, 292, 334, ; Gerbeau v. Blais (1); McGee v. Larochelle ; 13 Duranton, nf.
466, 468.
Inutile d'examiner cette pr6tension, car, dans 1'espice, en supposant qu'il serait possible d'61iminer de la declaration tout ce qui lui donne la nature d'une 'action p6titoire, l'appelant n'y gagnerait rien.
La preuve est tout A fait insuffisante pour justifier le maintien de ses conclusions en r6int6grande fussent-elles fond~es en droit. Il y a tellement de doutes et de contradictions sur le fait de la possession des parties que, sur une action possessoire pure et simple, la cour se serait trouv6e dans la n~cessite de les renvoyer au p6titoire.
L'appel est rejet6 avec d6pens.
The Chief Justice was prevented by illness from taking part in the judgment.
Appeal dismissed with costs.