tera en mains après le paiement des dettes au président Thériault.

Nous ne voyons pas qu'il y ait eu une ratification du billet.

Sur la 5ème question: Dans les circonstances de la cause, Brosseau bien que détenteur régulier avant échéance, n'a pas droit de recouvrer le montant du billet.

L'article 23 des lettres de change déclare que nul n'est responsable comme tireur, endosseur ou accepteur d'une lettre de change s'il ne l'a signée comme tel et l'article 24 ajoute "lorsqu'une signature sur une "lettre de change y est apposée sans l'autorisation de "la personne dont elle est supposée être la signature, "cette signature est sans effet". Ces dispositions s'appliquent aux billets promissoires (Art. 88). La Corporation est une personne aux yeux de la loi. L'intimé a cité l'article 29. Cet article ne s'applique pas aux lettres de change et billets promissoires qui sont inexistants vu l'absence de la signature de la personne que l'on veut rendre responsable.

L'appel est maintenu.

Jugement de la Cour d'Appel.

Jugement: La Cour... après avoir entendu les parties par leurs Avocats, sur le fond, examiné le dossier de la procédure en Cour de première instance, et sur le tout mûrement délibéré :—

Considérant, que l'Intimé poursuit l'Appelante en recouvrement du montant d'un billet promissoire, qui n'a été ni consenti, ni autorisé, ni ratifié par elle et dont en conséquence elle ne peut être tenue responsable;

Considérant, partant qu'il y a erreur dans le Jugement de la Cour Supérieure, à Montréal, dans le dis

trict de Montréal, en date du vingt-septième jour de décembre, mil neuf cent deux qui condamne l'appelante à payer le montant de ce billet, maintient l'Appel avec dépens;

Casse et annule le Jugement rendu par la dite Cour Supérieure, et procédant à rendre le jugement qui aurait du être rendu ;

Renvoie l'action du demandeur intimé avec dépens. Pelletier & Baillargeon, Avocats de l'Appelante. Bisaillon & Brossard, Conseils.

P. R. Goyet, Avocat de l'Intimé.

P. B. Mignault, C. R. Conseil.

(Ed. F. S.)

Servitude.

DISTRICT DE QUEBEC

Cours d'eau. — Code Civil, arts. 549 et 503.

COUR SUPERIEURE, QUEBEC 1904.

Coram: ANDREWS, J. C. S.

FILION vs. COTE

JE: L'usage de l'eau d'un cours d'eau par les habitants d'un hameau, de temps immémorial, ne crée aucune servitude active sur les eaux de ce ruisseau en leur faveur;

2. Un propriétaire non actuellement riverain d'un ruisseau ne peut invoquer aucun droit à l'usage des eaux de ce ruisseau, même si sa propriété a formé autrefois partie d'un lot riverain.

Per Curiam By the plaintiff's declaration dated 17 Sept., 1903, he alleges that he possessed the cadestral lot No. 223 of St. Joachim à titre de propriétaire and that on the previous day, 16th September, 1903, De Délima Rhéaume sold him the said lot by deed of sale

before Vezina, notary, and that he also has possessed lot No. 224 as proprietor since the 16th July, 1904, date of a deed of gift to him before G. L. Dick, Notary; and since the 19th September 1890, in virtue of a donation to him by Alf. Filion; the said deeds produced to qualify his possession that the defendant is proprietor in possession of lot 219 of said parish, bounded on one side by lots 223 and 224, that the plaintiff possesses a mill on said lot 223 worked by a water power furnished by a little river, which crosses first the said lot 219, and then passes to the plaintiff's propriety on said lots 223 and 224;

That the defendant has recently constructed an aqueduct whereby he conducts water from the river, starting from his said lot on to another lot, viz, 227, belonging to Elz. Filion thus diverting a portion of the water of the said river and not returning it to its natural course at its exit from his own land, and pretending to a right of servitude without title.

That the water of the said river hardly suffices for the needs of the plaintiff's mill and he is obliged to collect water (écluser) and frequently stop his mill for want of water; that defendant's aqueduct diminishes the water to plaintiff's damage of $100.00.

Wherefore plaintiff concludes for $100.00 and for an order on the defendant to remove said acqueduct which conducts the water on the said lot 227 of Elzéar Filion.

The defendant's plea admits that Plaintiff possesses said lot 223 by virtue of deed of sale thereof to him by De Delima Rhéaume of 16 September, 1903 and also possesses the mill thereon worked by the water of the said little river which enters said lot from defendant's lot 219; says that he is unaware of the nature of plaintiff's possession of lot 224 and that his alleged titles

have not been registered and are therefore inoperative. It alleges that defendant acquired by deed of purchase of 19th November, 1894, a flour mill and lot described; and also acquired another lot from said. Edouard Filion comprising the mill dam and sluice and water power appertaining to said mill defendents said two lots being now called Nos. 218-219 of said parish of St. Joachim.

That said Ed. Filion acquired from Abm. Filion by deed of 27 November, 1846, and Abm. Filion had acquired from the seminary of Quebec by deed of 4th January 1886, and the seminary owned as Seigneursof Beaupré ;

That, before entering on defendent's lot 219, said river crosses lot 226 belonging to Jean Gagnon; crosses then Defendants lots 218 and 219, on which is his mill; then crosses Plff's Lots 223 and 224 and returns on to Gagnon's lot 226; Defendent's plea admits having, in September, 1903, placed a 3-4 inch pipe to conduct water from his flour mill to his stable on his own land to the north of the public road, and says that Elz. Filion took upon himself (s'est permis) to connect with defendants, said 3-4 inch pipe, one of 1-2 an inch to conduct water to stable which he possesses but which is situate on Defendent's land, lot 219, and from said stable, the said Elz. Filion also conducts water by a pipe to his residence on his own lot 227; but denies that he has diverted any of said water without returning it to the river at its exit from his land. The plea then sets up that from time immemorial all the inhabitants of a hamlet in the vicinity of said river and specially said Elz. Filion and his "auteurs" have got their supply of water from the river and thus have acquired a right so to do that moreover Jean Gagnon's lot as also Elezear Filion's lot and Defendent's

:

lot are all portions of the same lot originally conceeded by the seminary as one lot, traversed by said river; and all retain the right to use the water thereof and the said Elz. Filion by using a pipe to take said water in no way aggravates said servitude; that moreover said Elz. Filion has thrown into the river the water of a spring' of larger volume than what he uses from the river and no dammage has been caused to the plaintiff.

The facts upon which this case has to be decided are clearly established: 1st. The possession as owner by the Plaintiff of the mill and the dependencies, as claimed by him in his declaration; 2nd. The ownership by the defendant of his mill and appurtenances situate higher up the same rivulet from which both look for their motive power, the placing by the defendant of an intake pipe conducting water from his own mill pond or reservoir, 1st to his own stable; 2nd to a stable occupied by Elzéar Filion and 3rd to the residence of Elz. Filion are undoubted facts. The question whether by a pipe from Elz. Filion's residence, water is thrown back into the rivulet has been the matter of a good deal of conflicting testimony; but I have come to the conclusion that the fact is not proved. I may add that the ditch, canal d'égout, by which it is pretended the water is thrown back to the rivulet, was made only after the service of this action. Upon these established facts has to be determined the position in law. It is governed by C. C. 503 “He whose land borders on a running stream, not forming Fart of the public domain, may take use of it as it rasses for the utility of his land, but in such manner as not to prevent the exercise of the same right by those to whom it belongs, saving the provisions contained in Cap. 51 of the Consolidated Statutes for