1886. Stephen & and also that when sold it shall be sold as a railway, a creature of the law, with rights and duties, and not as a La Banque tenement house, which may be converted into a church or a mill, at the will of the purchaser. d'Hochelaga. J. C. Hatton, Q. C., and F. L. Beïque, Q. C., for respondents: Under article 664, Code de Procédure," the execution "of a writ of venditioni exponas cannot be stopped by oppo"sition, unless for reasons subsequent to the proceedings 'by which the sale was stopped in the first instance." Here, moreover, the opposants specifically alleged that the grounds of the present opposition are subsequent to the proceedings by which the sale was stopped in the first instance. The said opposition is therefore based exclusively on the fact of extensions having been made to the line of railway in question, subsequent to the seizure. The fact of such extensions having been made subsequently to the seizure herein might possibly have justified a demand for a special order of the Court authorizing the sale of said extensions concurrently with the portion of the line of said railway seized, but could in no way be a ground for an opposition afin d'annuler. It seems to be manifest that a seizure which was regular at the time it was made, cannot become void through any subsequent action on the part of a defendant. RAMSAY, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an opposition afin d'annuler, on the ground that it was not founded in law. Before examining that question, it is necessary to dispose of another question which was urged before us, namely, that the opposition came too late. Strictly speaking, this is true; but the opposition was allowed to be filed by the court below, and we think under the circumstances it was rightly admitted into the record. The seizure was of a part of a railway, and the question was as to whether a portion of a railway could be taken in execution in this way. On the merits, we are with 1886 Stephen & La Bar que appellant. In the case of Drummond & South Eastern Railway company (') the question was whether a railway could be sold at the suit of the holder of mortgage bonds made in d'Hochelaga. conformity with a statute allowing the railway to be mortgaged to secure the payment of these bonds; and we held that it could be sold. In England, under a statute somewhat similar to ours, the courts have always held that it was the railway as a railway that was mortgaged, and that the sale could not operate the destruction of the corporation. We fully recognized that this is what the statute should have said; but we felt that under the terms of our statute, such an interpretation would destroy the security given to the bondholder by the statute, and therefore we held that the railway could be seized in execution of a judgment obtained by a bondholder. In this case, we have to decide whether a railway can be seized as a strip of land. We think not. It is an indivisible thing, and can only be sold as a whole. Since our judgment in the case referred to, Parliament, evidently seeing the difficulty as to the form of words in use here, recognizes the power to take in execution of a judgment obtained at the suit of a bondholder, the whole or a section of a railway specially mortgaged for the payment of the bonds, and provides what the effect of this sale shall be: 46 Vic., c. 24, sections 14, 15 and 16. We think, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed and the seizure declared null; but as the opposition is filed too late, thus putting the respondent to considerable costs, the judgment will be reversed without costs. The judgment is in the following terms: "The Court, etc. 66 Considering that the opposition afin d'annuler in this case made by appellants, has been allowed to be filed by the court below; and considering that the said opposition is well founded in law, and that a railway cannot be seized and sold in part, even on a judgment by bondholders, except in accordance with the dispositions of the (1) 24 L. C. J. 276. 1881. Stephen & La Banque d'Hochelaga. special statute authorizing the creation of such mortgage or hypothec; "And considering there is error in the judgment of the Superior Court, to wit, in the judgment of the 29th December, 1884, doth reverse the same, and proceeding to render the judgment which ought to have been rendered, doth maintain the said opposition, and doth grant main levée of the seizure in the said opposition mentioned. But considering that the said opposition was filed after the expiration of the usual and legal delays, to the cost and inconvenience of the party respondent, the said opposition is dismissed, each party paying his own costs, as well in the court below as in this Court." Judgment reversed. INDEX. ACCOUNT CURRENT. Accounts rendered yearly-Acquiescence.] Where an account cur- ACQUIESCENCE. ACTION. AGENT. See ACCOUNT CURRENT, 458; ARBITRATION, 238; PRINCIPAL AND Damages for unauthorized sale of shares.] An action of damages See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT; INSURANCE (FIRE), 22. Construction of-As to waiver of interest. Cross & Windsor Hotel ANIMAL. Damage caused by.] See RESPONSIBILITY, 133. APPEAL. See PROCEDURE, 1. To Supreme Court.] See PROCEDURE, 159. Irregularities-Acquiescence.] Where the parties agreed to submit 32 ASSAULT. See DAMAGES. Measure of, 107. BANK. Notes received by Bank for collection.] See COMPENSATION, 476. BANK IN LIQUIDATION. See INSOLVENT BANK, 409. BENEFIT SOCIETY. See ELECTION, 483. BREWER'S LICENSE. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 381. BROKER. See GAMING CONTRACT, 170. CAPIAS. Special bail under C. C. P. 824-Statement and declaration under CARRIER. Injury to Passenger.] A company engaged in the conveyance of CASHIER OF BANK. Acquiescence in Act of.] See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 64. Deviation from course of voyage.] See SHIPPING, 420. Privilege of.] See PRIVILEGES AND HYPOTHECS, 466. Damages suffered by tenant.] Where a tenant was entitled by a Notes received by Bank for collection.] Where drafts and notes |