Supreme Court of Canada
Dorion v Dorion, (1886) 13 SCR 193
Date: 1886-03-08
PIERRE ACHILLE ADELARD DORION, (Plaintiff és-qualité and Intervenant in the Superior Court)
Appellant;
And
JEAN-BAPTISTE THEOPHILE DORION, (Defendant and contesting party in the Superior Court)
Respondent.
1885: Oct 31; 1886: March 8
PRESENT.—Sir W. J. Ritchie C.J. and Fournier, Henry, agreed and Gwynne JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE) DISTRICT OF MONTREAL.
Substitution, Curator to—Rights of action— Intervention by a, plaintiff in another capacity, when irregular—Art 154 C.C.P. Cross-Appeal.
Held, affirming the judgment of the court below, that a curator to
[Page 194]
a substitution has no right of action to recover from a curator in whese stead he has been appointed any moneys due by the latter and belonging to institutes.
Also, on cross-appeal, reversing the judgment of the court below, that inasmuch as no final judgment could have been obtained in the suit brought by the appellant, as curator, against the respondent which could impair the legal rights of the institutes the said curator's intervention in said suit brought in his capacity of assignee of the institutes should have been dismissed. Art 154 C.C.P.
Appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side)()
One Moreau, as curator to the substitution created by the will of the late Jacques Dorion, brought an action •against the respondent, who had ceased to be curator to the substitution created by the said will alleging that the respondent retained in his possession large sums of money belonging to the estate, and prayed for an account, and that, should the respondent fail to render the account, he be condemned personally to pay to the said plaintiff in his said capacity the sum of $120000 and interest.
The respondent by his pleas acknowledged his indebtedness to the estate in a certain sum which he declared he was willing to pay to plaintiff if he had authority to receive it.
On 4th January, 1865, débats de compte were filed by Moreau and subsequently the present appellant took Moreau's place as curator to the substitution, and took up the instance as curator to the substitution. On the 14th September, 1881, he moved that the respondent should be compelled to constitute new attornies
On the 11th september, 1881, the appellant in his quality of curator produced the following declaration :
" Le dit Demandeur ès-quahité par reprise d'instance " demandant acte de la déclaration faite par le dit J. B. " T. Dorion, en sa reddition de compte qu'il eat débiteur
[Page 195]
" de la succession de la somme de huit mille quatre c cent vingt-sept piastres et soixante-treize centins d declare qu'il accepte la reddition de compte telle que " produite par le dit défendeur ainsi que les conclusions de sa defense, et en demande acte."
This was preparatory to an inscription for final hearing on the merits for the 13th December, 1881. On the 12th a motion was presented to ask delay to plead—(a) that defendant was not obliged to account (b) new facts. The court granted defendant leave to plead new facts, and refused leave to replead as to the right of plaintiff to demand an account inasmuch as defendant " ne peut revenir sur cette admission et reconnaissance de sa part" i.e., contained in his first plea. The present respondent then asked for leave to appeal from this judgment because of the limitation as to the re-pleader but leave was refused.
The defendant then filed a plea containing a variety of allegations. To this, a special answer was made and the case was inscribed for hearing and was heard.
When the record was en délibéré, the appellant filed an intervention as the representative of all the grévés, setting up a right to the balance of the money in the hands of the respondent as representative by cession and otherwise of all the grévés.
The respondent pleaded to this intervention and prayed for its dismissal
Judgment was rendered on this intervention by the Superior Court inter alia condemning the respondent to pay the appellant a sum of $14,282.72. On appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) brought by the present respondent, that court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court and condemned the respondent to pay to the appellant, as representing C. Dorion, E. Dorion, F. Dorion and J. B. T. Dorion, the grévés, the said sum of $525.37 with interest thereon from the
[Page 196]
27th June, 1882, and to pay costs to appellant upon the intervention and the contestation thereon. The said court condemning the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.
The Court of Queen's Bench ordered also the record to be sent down to the Superior Court to invest in the name of the said substitution the sum that the respondent acknowledged he had in his possession, and as it may be ordered by the court of the first instance; reserving to the appellant whatever rights he may have to claim the money paid for the respondent; reserving likewise to respondent the right to claim the sum that he is condemned to pay to the appellant by this judgment in the event the respondent gets the deed of transfer of the 25th April 1882, annulled; reserving also to the appelés of the said substitution whatever right they may have to contest the account rendered by the said respondent or to ask another account; reserving also to the superior court to decide about the costs other then the costs of intervention and contestation thereof
Madore for appellant and respondent on cross-appeal.
The judgment of the Superior Court should be confirmed in full and the amount increased according to the conclusions of the intervention. [TASCHEREAU J.-You did not appeal from the judgment of the superior court and how can you ask this court to allow you more than the amount granted by the superior court ?] I submit the whole case is open on the appeal to this court.
The first question on this appeal is whether the appellant, as curator, had a right in law to have the defendant who was a debtor of the substitution, condemned to pay the capital sum he had in his possession, belonging to the substitution, without any security, particularly when the appellant represents as cessionaries all the greves of the substitution,
[Page 197]
The article 945 C. C. and the amendment of the same by 38 Victoria chap. 13 which amendment makes no change as far as the power of the curator is concerned, say that the curator " attends to the substitute's interest, i in all inventories and partitions and other circumstances in which his intervention is requisite or " proper."
The article 947, C. C. says:
The institute performs all the acts that are necessary for the preservation of the property.
He makes all payments, he receives moneys due and reimbursements, invests " capital sums and exercise before the court all powers necessary for these purposes.
The court below having confirmed the right of the appellant as cessionnaire of all the grevés de substitution, as well as the Superior Court on that point it follows that under that above articles 947 and 945 C. C. the appellant, as intervenant, had full power to receive the capital the respondent had in his possession.
But, moreover, in the present case, the appellant as curator to the said substitution, had also the legal capacity under the said article 945 C. C. to sue the respondent on behalf of the substitutes, for the money the respondent had in his possession unsecured, as being the legal representative of the substitutes.
See Thevenot d'Essaule on Substitution (); Pothier Substitution () * Guyot Vo. Substitution (); Dorioti v. Jones ().
On the question of prescription the learned counsel relied on Philipp v. Joseph (), McKenzie v. Taylor (). Arts. 1043 1714, 295, 296, 0. C.
The learned counsel also contended that the appellant was entitled to the interest the respondent had offered.
[Page 198]
to pay on $8,427.63, from the 14th of August, 1858, which he has not paid or was not prescribed by law.
Pagnuelo Q.C. for respondent and appellant on cross appeal.
The curator to a substitution has no right of action to claim the capital or the interest belonging to the substitutes. His duty is to watch the acts of the •institutes, Arts. 945, 946, 959 C. C. The. respondent in this case can only be asked to render an account as a negotiorum gestor, and this he has been willing to do. He could not be sued in the capacity of curator, for as such he had no right to administer the estate. Had the intervention not been allowed there can be no doubt the appellant's action would have been dismissed. I contend that the intervention should not have been admitted,' but that judgment should have been given on the merits. Arts 413 435 200, 1119, C. C. P.; Dalloz, Rep. (); Carter v. Molson (). 0n' the question of interest the learned counsel referred to art. 295 1714 C.C. Denizart (); Troplong (); Aubry & Rau (); Pothier (); Dalloz (); Sirey ().
Madore, in reply, contended that. the pleadings • admitted the right of the appellant to iutervene. Art. 1245 C. C.
Sir W. J. RItchie C. J. and Henry and Gwynne JJ. concurred in the conclusion arrived at by Fournier and Taschereau JJ.
Fournier J.—Dans ses notes sur cette cause qu'il a eu l'obligeance de me communiquer, l'honorable Juge Taschereau ayant déjà fait un expose complet non seulement des faits qui ont donné lieu au présent litige, mais
[Page 199]
aussi des questions do droit a résoudre, je crois devoir me borner à quelques observations pour exprimer mon concours dans ses conclusions
Deux questions principales s' élévett en cette cause: la première est de savoir si un curateur a la substitution a droit do porter une action pour se faire rendre compte par le possesseur des biens substitutes; Ia deuxième, Si une telle action ne lui appartient pas, était-il en son pouvoir, par une intervention fondée sur des cessions des droits des grevés obtenues pendant Pinstance de l'action en reddition de compte d'améliorer sa position en changeant la cause d'action pour empêcher le renvoi de sa demande.
Les conclusions de l'action sont à l'effet d'obtenir un compte de la gestion et administration que l'intimé a ene en sa qualité de curateur à la substitution creee par le testament de feu Jacques Dorion et des biens d'icelui, avec les intérêts et les intérêts des épargnes, a compter du jour du paiement des différent s sommes d'argent reçues par le dit intimé, en sa dite qualité, en outre a produire avec le dit compte et à son soutien toutes les pieces justificatives d'icelui, comme aussi et à mettre le dit demandeur (present appelant) en sa dite qualité, (curateur à la même substitution) en possession de tons les titres, papiers, pieces et renseignements qui regardent Ia dite succession, etc., etc, etc. que le dit demandeur a en sa dite qualité, droit d'avoir du défendeur, sinon et à défaut par le dit défendeur (intimé) de satisfaire immédiatement a tout ce que dessus, pour se voir condamne personnellement à payer au dit demandeur, en sa dite qualité, une somme de douze mille livres du cours actuel, pour tenir lieu du dit compte, do Ia remise des titres, pièces et renseignements, etc
L'appelant avait été nommé lui-même curateur à cette substitution en remplacement do l'intimé, et c'est
[Page 200]
en cette qualité qu'il a repris l'instance introduite par M. Pierre Moreau qui avait aussi été nommé curateur à la même substitution en 1859.
Comme curateur à une substitution l'intimé avait-il le droit de porter une action de la nature de celle dont les conclusions sont rapportées ci-haut ? Il est certain que non. Tine telle action n'a jamais été donnée au curateur à une substitution, ni dans l'ancien droit, ni sous le Code Civil de la province de Québec.
L'art. 945 C. C. qui n'a rien changé à l'ancien droit sous ce rapport ne donne an curateur à la substitution que des fonctions très limitées. Elles se bornent à représenter les appelés non nés lors de la mort du substituant à veiller à. leur intérêt en tons inventaires et partages et dans les autres cas où son intervention est requise on peut avoir lieu. L'amendement fait plus tard à cet article par le 38me Vie ch. 13, n'affecte aucunement la question en cette cause.
Les appelés nés et incapables sont représentés comme dans les cas ordinaires. Ce curateur n'ayant aucun droit ni à la possession ni à l'administration des biens de la substitution ne peut en consequence avoir droit d'action pour s'en faire rendre compte on s'en faire mettre en possession.
Il en était de même sous l'ancien droit. "L'ordonnance, dit Merlin (), n'exige la nomination d'un tuteur "ou curateur à la substitution que dans deux cas savoir: " Pour assister à l'inventaire des biens du substituant "quand le premier substitué n'est pas né; et pour assister dans le même cas, à l'emploi des deniers. Voilà donne, "conclut Thevenot. toute la charge du tuteur suivant l'ordonnance."
Lors de la nomination de l'appelant comme curateur tous les grevés de substitution étaient nés et capables de se représenter eux-mêmes, de sorte
[Page 201]
que l'appelant n'avait aucun droit do s'immiscer dans les affaires de la substitution. Son action n'ayant d'autre but quo de s'en faire rendre compte, elle doit nécessairement être renvoyée. 11 est vrai que 1 intime a reconnu, par une reddition de compte qu'il a présentée en réponde à l'action, devoir la somme de £2,106.18.2, mais ce n'est pas envers l'appelant qu'il s'est reconnu débiteur, c'est envers ceux qui sont avec lui les grevés do substitution. Cette reconnaissance ne peut donc lui servir pour obtenir ses conclusions, car la cour no peut rien statuer sur les conclusions d'une action quo la loi ne reconnait pas.
L'intervention est-elle mieux fondée que l'action principale ? 11 est évident d'après los faits de la cause quo ce n'est que dans l'espoir de soutenir l'action dans laquelle ii devait nécessairement succomber, que i’ intimé a eu recours à l'expédient do cette intervention qui, d'ailleurs, a été produite très irrégulièrement. 11 n'est pas nécessaire d'insister sur les irrégularités quoiqu'elles soient certainement suffisantes pour faire déclarer l'intervention inadmissible, mais ii y a encore une raison plus forte pour la faire rejeter. C'est quo l'on ne peut pas avoir droit d'intervenir dans une action dont Ia loi ne reconnaît pas l'existence. Aucune partie no peut avoir d'intérêt à intervenir dans un semblable cas. Pour exercer ce droit ii faut suivant l'art 154 C. P. C., avoir dos intérêts à faire valoir L'intervenant telle quo l'a fait clairement voir i'hon. Jugo Taschereau dans ses notes sur cette cause, manque do l'élément essentiel pour avoir droit d'intervenir, c'est-à-dire d'un intérêt qui aurait Pu souffrir quelque préudice résultant do l'adjudication sur ce qui faisait l'objet do la demanda principale.
La définition do cet intérêt vient d'être donnée dans la cause do Carter v. Molson () citée par l'intimé, dans
[Page 202]
laiquelle le Conseil Privé de Sa Maiesté s'est exprimé comme suit:
The event of the suit can only refer to the operative decree which may ultimately be given in favour of one or other of the parties to it, and not to the views of fact or law which may influence the court in giving decree. Section 154 appears to have been framed for the very purpose of limiting the right of intervention to the persons who can show that a final judgment may possibly be obtained n the suit which will enable the party who obtains it to possess himself of the estate, or otherwise to impair their legal rights.
Cette autorité qui est d'une évidenee application aux faits de la cause doit suffire pour faire decider que l'in-tervention doit subir le même sort que l'action principale.
TASCHEREAU J.—In March, 1821, Jacques Dorion by his will, bequeathed his estate to his brother Charles with substitution in favor of the said Charles' children and the children of his children, so long as there would be any of the name
Jacques Dorion died, Charles then came into possession of the estate. He sometime after also died J. B. J. Dorion, the present respondent, appears then to have been named curator to the substitution created by the will of Jacques Dorion, and to have been in that quality, as alleged by the appellant in his declaration, in possession of the said estate from the 20th of August 1840 to the 14th of August, 1858. It is evident that, as curator, the respondent had no right whatever to the possession of this estate However, he was allowed to take and hold it.
In August, 1858, one Pierre Moreau was appointed to replace the said respondent as curator to the said substitution and, as such, in June, 1839, brought the present action against the respondent. The present appellant having subsequently replaced the said Moreau as curator, the action now stands in his name.
The declaration. alleging that the said respondent
[Page 203]
had in his hands large sums of money belonging to the said estate claims an account of his administration of the said estate from August, 1840, to August, 1858, and concludes as follows :—
" That the defendant (now respondent) be condemned to render an exact and faithful account under " oath of his gestion and administration in his capacity " of curator to the said substitution and of all the property thereof with the interests and the interest of the "savings from the day the said sums of money were " paid to the said defendant in his said quality, and " moreover to produce with the said account all v vouchers in support thereof, and that, should the said d defendant fail to do so, he be condemned personally "to pay to the said plaintiff in his said capacity the " sum of twelve thousand pounds."
The respondent, in answer to this action, appears to have rendered an account in which he acknowledged his indebtedness to the said estate in certain amounts which he declared himself ready and willing to pay to the said plaintiff provided the said plaintiff had authority to receive them.
The appellant's first contention is that by such a plea, the respondent has acknowledged his indebtedness to him and is now debarred from questioning his right. This objection cannot be sustained. The respondent acknowledged his indebtedness to the estate, not to the plaintiff, and has declared himself ready to pay the plaintiff if the plaintiff can establish his right to these moneys, and in that case only.
So that the first question submitted for our determination is as to the authority of the plaintiff, in his said quality of curator to this substitution, to receive and the right to claim the payment into his hands of what the respondent may owe to this estate.
The solution of this question presents no difficulty.
[Page 204]
The plaintiff, as curator, has no such right. At the death of Charles Dorion the whole of this estate reverted to his sons as institutes under Jacques Dorion's will, the revenues thereof to be used or abused of at their will and pleasure, the capital sums to be held by them subject to transmission to their children. The curator as such, has no right whatever either to one or the other. This action is consequently unfounded in law, and must be dismissed.
Now as to the intervention. This intervention was filed under the following circumstances. The case had been argued on the merits, and was standing for judgment. The appellant then, evidently to prevent a judgment being given and, it may fairly be assumed. not expecting a favorable one, went to another judge of the same court and obtained leave to file an intervention in his own personal name as assignee of the institutes, Charles Dorion's children, in virtue of certain deeds of assignment or transfer by which the said institutes had assigned to him all the rights accruing to them under the will of Jacques Dorion. The intervention’s conclusions are :—
"Therefore the said intervening party prays that he " may be allowed to intervene in this case, to agree as " the only representative of the grevés de substitution a and to unite with the plaintiff, is qualité, inasmuch, "as it might be useful, to accept defendant's account a and his confession of judgment, and give to the said " plaintiff, és qualité, all authorization and the approbation wanted from the grevés de substitution; that the " said petitioner may be received as intervening party, " and the said defendant condemned to pay to the said " Achille Adelard Dorion, as well in his capacity of c curator and administrator of the said estate as the " only representative of all the grevés de substitution, " the amount he has confessed to owe in his account
[Page 205]
and plea, with interest as alleged, amounting this day " to $26,403088, the whole according to the conclusions "of the declaration and costs."
A more irregular proceeding I have never heard of. Here is a party who, it is evident, to prevent his adversary from getting a judgment to which he has an acquired right from the judge before whom the case has been argued, goes to another judge and obtains leave to file an intervention in which he virtually says, " Well, " my original action is unfounded in law and must be " dismissed, but I personally have rights against the " defendant under other titles, as assignee of certain " third parties, and I claim the right to intervene in " this case not only to prevent the defendant from obtaining the dismissal of my action, unfounded though i it be, but also to get for myself personally, as such a assignee, a judgment against the defendant."
Had the appellant the right to so intervene in this case ? I pass over to the question of procedure raised before us, as to the period of the case and the way in which this intervention was filed. Though the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ramsay in the Court of Queen's Bench were of opinion, and I fully agree with them, that the filing of it was totally irregular, yet the court did not feel authorized to dismiss it on that ground
The right in law of the appellant so to intervene is however, denied by the respondent, and has to be determined.
It appears to me that, under the circumstances of this case, the appellant had no right to this intervention
That it was nothing else but a new action against the defendant is undeniable. That it was filed to prevent the dismissal of the principal action and so snatch away from his adversary a judgment he had an acquired right to is plain. For this purpose, and for this purpose alone, does Mr, P, A. A. Dorion, the assignee, come
[Page 206]
to the rescue of Mr. P. A. A. Dorion the curator Could this be done? Article 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts the rule on the subject : " Every person," says this article " interested in the event of a pending " suit is entitled to be admitted a party thereto in order " to maintain his rights."
These are clear terms To be allowed to intervene a party must be interested in the event of the suit and it can only be to maintain his rights, not anybody else's rights, that he can be allowed to intervene. Or to put it on the highest possible authority:
The event of the suit can only refer to the operative decree which may ultimately be given in favour of one or other of the parties to it, and not to the views of fact or law which may influence the court in giving decree Section 154 appears to have been framed for the very purpose of limiting the right of intervention to persons who can show that a final judgment may possibly be obtained in the suit which will enable the party who obtains it to possess himself of their estate or otherwise to impair their legal rights ().
Now, here, it appears on the very face of the proceedings that no final judgment could possibly be obtained in this suit which could have enabled the plaintiff to possess himself of this estate or would otherwise impair the legal rights of the institutes or of their assignee. Where, then, is the assignee's interest in the event of the suit and it is his own suit it must not be lost sight of ? The only interest, it is plain, is the curator's, the principal plaintiff's interest, not the assignee's, the intervening interest. The very allegation of the intervention shows that the principal action must be dismissed, and that it is to prevent such judgment that the intervention is filed. That is to say the institute, or in their name Dorion, their assignee, intervene, not to protect their rights, which the dismissal of the action would leave intact and unimpaired, but to protect Dorion's, the curator's rights.
[Page 207].
The intervening party has, then, no interest in the event of the action, his rights are not endangered, he did not intervene in order to maintain his rights This intervention should then be dismissed.
The judgment appealed from maintained the intervention, and though apparently admitting that the action was unfounded, failed to dismiss it. I think there is error in this, and that the cross appeal should be allowed with costs.
Appeal to be dismissed with costs Cross appeal allowed with costs. Action. and intervention dismissed with costs in the two courts below against the appellant, P. A. A, Dorion, personally. Distraits to Messrs. Pagnuelo & St. Jean.
Solicitors for appellant : Madore & Bruchésé.
Solicitors for respondent: Pagnuelo, Taillon & Gouin.
Email this Content