Nova the Municipality of Pictou v. Geldert (a), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council laid down a very plain rule which must govern us. Lord Hobhouse said: 'It must now be taken as settled law that a transfer to a public corporation of the obligation to repair does not of itself render such corporation liable to an action in respect of mere nonfeasance. In order to establish such liability it must be shown that the Legislature has used language indicating an intention that this liability shall be imposed.' The common law and statutory liability of the corporation were very fully discussed in Walker v. City of Halifax (b). On an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada it was held that it was the duty of the corporation to keep its streets in repair and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, having proved special injury (c). The statutory liability in this case was founded on 27 Vict. c. 81 (N. S.), s. 264 (d), and 35 Vict. c. 34 (N. S.), peculiar to the city of Halifax. See R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 71 (The Towns Incorporation Act), s. 170, public streets and bridges vested in town in so far as consistent with use by public. N. S. Laws, 1902, c. 21, s. 1. As to Bridges, see N. S. Laws, 1903-4, c. 5 (The Bridge Act), s. 9: "The moneys annually required for the repair of longer bridges and the construction and repair of smaller bridges shall be appropriated out of the revenue of the Province." An action ex delicto (e) against a municipality must be brought within a fixed period and after one month's notice (f). See Messenger v. Town of Bridgetown (g), contributory negligence in plaintiff driving over obstruction at night without due care. Ontario. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF SEWERS There is a provision in s. 554 of the Consolidated Municipal Act, 1903 (Ontario), giving municipalities powers as to construction, &c., of drains, sewers, or watercourses, "but subject always to the payment of compensation to persons who may suffer Bathurst v. McPherson, 4 App. Cas. 256, (c) Cas. Digest 175, Feb. 16th, 1885; cipitous embankment on highway. (f) R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 70, s. 147 (The (h) P. 36, supra. injury therefrom and to any restrictions and liabilities imposed Ontario. by this Act in that respect or otherwise " (a). See C. O. N. W. T. c. 70, s. 87, p. 39k, supra. Alberta and wan. See R. S. B. C. 1897, c. 144, s. 50 (112-118), powers as to British sewers: ss. 264, 265, provisions (as to reclamation works) for Columbia. arbitration as to damages. See R. S. M. 1902, c. 50 (The Land Drainage Act): s. 40 puts Manitoba. the duty of keeping in repair on the municipality; s. 42 gives the Minister of Public Works power to award damages occasioned by the performance of any work under the Act. Cf. c. 144, s. 723 (arbitration as to lands damaged). Actions for Tort or Arbitration?-An action will lie against a municipality for doing negligently what it is authorised to do by the Legislature, the remedy by arbitration (s. 723 of Municipal Act) being confined to any damage necessarily resulting from the exercise of such powers (b). In Lirette v. City of Moncton (c) it was held that the city New having the statutory authority to construct a sewer, and having Brunswick. built it after plans made by a competent engineer and adopted by the council, was not guilty of actionable negligence on account of the insufficiency of the sewer to answer its purpose, and a person thereby injured has no remedy by action at law; and it makes no difference in this particular whether the use of the sewer is voluntary or under compulsion. R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 66 (The Marsh Act), s. 26, provides com- Nova pensation for damages by works for drainage. Scotia. Where plaintiff's horse was injured by falling into a deep uncovered drain by the side of a road in the suburbs of the city:Held, that the drain being proved to be well constructed and of a kind (uncovered) usual in the suburbs, the city was not liable (d). SHERIFF, NEGLIGENT EXECUTION BY (e). What is due diligence in the execution of a fi. fu. is a question Ontario. for the jury; the sheriff is not bound to keep sentinel day and (a) See Biggar's Municipal Manual, 1900, pp. 648-651, for a collection of cases. See also The Municipal Drainage Act, R. S. O. 1897, c. 226; The Ditches and Watercourses Act, R. S. O. 1897. c. 285; and Clarke & Scully's Drainage Cases, vols. 1 and 2. (b) Foster v. Municipality of Lans downe, 12 Man. L. R. 41 (1897), Killam, J., wrongful construction of ditch; flooding of plaintiff's lands; careful selection of corporation's servants immaterial. See also Atcheson v. . Portage la Prairie, 9 Man. L. R. 192 (c) 36 N. B. R. 475 (1904). See (d) McKinley v. City of Halifax, Ontario. Alberta and night at a defendant's house for several days or weeks in succession (a). A jury may find that there is unnecessary delay, but that the plaintiff has not been prejudiced thereby (b). A sheriff executing a fi. fa. is now an officer fulfilling a public duty under R. S. O. 1897, c. 88 and c. 89 (c). Where the advocate for an execution creditor directs certain Saskatche- lands to be seized, a promise to indemnify the sheriff is implied (d). wan. British Manitoba. New A sheriff is required to keep a person arrested on a capias safely, and as there is no common gaol in Vancouver the sheriff was entitled to lodge his prisoner in New Westminster Gaol and charge mileage therefor (e). A sheriff is not responsible for loss arising from a mistake in registering committed in the Land Registry Office (ƒ). It is clearly the sheriffs' duty to seize and sell the equity of redemption in mortgaged chattels when such equity is valuable (g). See C. S. N. B. c. 60 (Office of Sheriff), s. 3, action on bonds. See C. S. N. B. c. 131 (Conveyance of Person under Arrest), s. 2, liability of sheriff for escape. See C. S. N. B. c. 132 (Gaol Limits), s. 3, sheriff's liability. Action against sheriff for escape-measure of damages (h). Sheriff not liable for neglecting to arrest, unless plaintiff has suffered damage by his neglect (i). Escape after delivery to new sheriff (k). (a) Finnegan v. Jarvis, 8 U. C. R. 210 (1851), Robinson, C.J. (b) Markle v Thomas, 13 U. C. R. 321 (1856). See further Ross v. Grange, 25 U. C. R. 396 (1866), destruction of goods by fire; McGivern v. McCausland, 19 U. C. C. P. 460 (1869). exorbitant verdict. Gwynne, J.; Nerlich v. Malloy, 4 A. R. 430 (1879), Moss, C.J. A., measure of damages for delay; Jones v. Paxton, 27 C. L. J. 596. See (c) 62 Vict. c. 7 (Ont.), s. 3. Creighton v. Sweetland, 18 P. R. 180, for previous state of law. (d) Robertson v. Taylor, 4 Terr. L. R. 474 (1901), court in banc, per McGuire, J. (e) Carson v. Carson, 10 B. C. R. 83 (1903), Hunter, C.J. (f) Byrnes v. McMillan, 2 B. C. R. 163 (1892), Drake, J. (g) Massey Manufacturing Co. 7. Clement, 9 Man. L. R. 359 (1893), held liable for full amount of claim against debtor. Duty to inquire amount due on mortgages. Duty as to grain seized in stacks. For procedure to compel sheriff to execute writ see Black v. Kennedy, T. W. 144. (h) McManus v. Wells, 29 N. B. E. 449 (1890), irregularities in procedure as a defence by sheriff. See also Robinson v. Sherriff, 25 N. B. R. 68 (1885), false return; actual damages. (i) Curran v. Beckwith, 3 Allen (8 N. B. R), 365 (1856), Statutes of Limi tation. Cf. Atkinson v. Mitchell, 6 All. (11 N. B. R.) 345; Kelly v. Jones, 2 All. (7 N. B. R.) 465. (k) Power v. Johnson, 2 Kerr. (4 N. B. R.), 43. Order by county court judge as justification for escape (a). Neglect to advertise (b). Form of proceedings against sheriff (c). New The sureties of a sheriff as well as the sheriff are liable to Nova indemnify any person against damage "in consequence of any Scotia. neglect, default, misconduct or misfeasance committed by such sheriff in his office (d). The measure of damages in an action against sheriff for escape is affected by R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 28, s. 33. Imprisonment for debt abolished in 1894 subject to the provisions of R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 182 (The Collection Act) (e). Sheriff not liable for depreciation resulting from delay by act of court (ƒ). Older Cases.-Verdict against sheriff: "The sheriff had received the usual instructions to levy on the goods and, for want of them, to take the body. There were no goods to take, but his (Desbarres, J.'s) only difficulty was that the body was there in the bailiwick, and that part of the instructions the sheriff had failed to comply with " (g). (a) Clementson v. Combes, Stevens' Digest, 3rd ed. 320. (b) Jarris v. Miller, Ber. 191 (2 N. B. R.) (c) See Henry v. Murphy, 1 Kerr. (3 N. B. R.) 207; Phillips v. Dickinson, Stevens' Digest, 3rd. ed. p. 713; Wilson v. Jones, 1 Allen (6 N. B. R.), 658; Hardy v. Prince, 3 All. (8 N. B. R.) 264; Miller v. Weldon, 2 Pug. (15 N. B. R.) 227. (d) R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 28, ss. 13-18. (e) Amended 1901, c. 15, s. 9. See also R. S. N. S. c. 183 (The Indigent Debtors Act). (f) Crowe v. Buchanan, 36 N. S. R.1 (1903), measure of damages. (g) Thorpe v. McLean, 2 R. & C. 203 (1876). Cf. Jackson v. Campbell, 1 Thom. 18 (1855), sheriff taking insufficient bail. See further McRae v. Dunlop, 3 R. & G. 315 (1882), damages against sheriff for escape; Cochrane v. Bell, 3 N. S. D. 448, appointment of deputy by plaintiff; Bank of B. N. A. v. Bell, 4 R. & G. 121, subsequent levy; Kenney, Assignee v. Dudman, 2 R. & C. 19, improper sale of goods; Creighton v. Daniels, James, 304, remedy for negligence is action against sheriff. The Crown cannot be sued for a tort, but its agents can. As a general rule all persons are entitled to sue and liable to be sued in actions of tort; but this rule is subject to certain exceptions. The sovereign cannot be sued. A petition of right will not lie for a tort (a), for "the king can do no wrong" (b). But this exemption of the sovereign from liability is personal; it does not extend to public officers of state acting on behalf of the Crown; for the maxim that the king can do no wrong involves the proposition that he cannot authorise a wrong, and, "as the sovereign cannot authorise a wrong to be done, the authority of the Crown would afford no defence to an action brought for an illegal act committed by an officer of the Crown" (c). The agent is responsible, even though the act be directly ordered by the Crown (d). Whether the case of a soldier acting under the orders of his superior officer forms any exception to the general rule has never been decided, but presumably it does not (e). An action of tort when brought against an officer of state must be (a) Tobin v. Queen, (1864) 16 C. B. N. S. 310; Feather v. Queen, (1865) 6 B. & S. 257; Viscount Canterbury v. Attorney-General, (1842) 1 Phillips, 306. (b) Hale, P. C., Vol. 1, p. 43. (c) Per Cockburn, C.J., (1865) 6 B. & S. p. 296. (d) Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt, (1860 13 Moore, P. C. p. 236. (e) See Keighly v. Bell, (1866) 4 F. & F. 763, Willes, J., pp. 790 and 805. With respect to the responsibility of |