Municipal Act, 1886, s. 656.. 28 Statute of Frauds, s. 4. . . . 73 Queen's Bench Act, 1885, s. 19, See VERDICT. 199 Queen's Bench Act, 1885, s. 34. 454 See FOREIGN JUDGMENT. Queen's Bench Act, 1885, s. 34.128 See MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. See FRAUDS, Statute of. - 1. Sale of land for taxes-Con- Railway Act of 1881, s. 31 .. 165 Real Property Act, 1889, s. 57. See TAX SALE, 2. Real Property Act, 1889, s. 118. 172 lay, assumed to tax certain parcels See REAL PROPERTY ACT, 2. Real Property Act, 1889, s. 130. 398 of the said lands, and afterwards of said lands before the sale was At the tax sale the Municipality held. Shortly before the time for became the purchaser under the redemption expired, the Railway provisions of section 656 of The Company paid the taxes to the Municipal Act, 1886. It subsemunicipality under protest to avoid quently assigned the tax certificate tax deeds being issued, and after- to N., to whom a tax deed was wards brought an action to recover issued. the money. Held, (1) (KILLAM, J. dissenting) That the plaintiff was entitled to recover. N. conveyed to A., who applied for a certificate of title under The Real Property Act, 1889, and contended that he was entitled to receive from the District-Registrar (under section 57 Real Property Act) notices to be served on all (3) (KILLAM, J. dissenting) That persons who except for the tax under the terms of the contract, deed, would be interested in said the lands were exempt from taxa-lands. (2) (KILLAM, J. dubitante) That the plaintiff had an interest in the lands prior to patent issuing. Registrar, tion from the date of the contract On a reference by the Districtuntil 20 years after the issue of the patent unless sooner sold or occupied. (4) (KILLAM, J. dissenting) That the money was not paid voluntarily and might be recovered back. Canadian Pacific Railway v. Burnett, 5 M. R. 395, followed and approved. Per KILLAM, J. (1) That the exemption from taxation was limited to a period of 20 years, running from the Crown grant, and did not apply to the interval between the date of contract and the issue of the patent. Held, that the tax sale deed was valid and A. was entitled to receive said notices for service. Re Allan, 28. 3. Half-breed lands - Liability to taxation before patent-Municipal Acts.]-The children of Halfbreed heads of families residing in Manitoba at the time of the transfer of this Province to Canada, to whom lands were allotted in pursuance of the statutes in that behalf, have, after the allotment and before patent, a property or interest in the lands which it is competent for the Provincial Legislature to make liable to taxation. (2) That if the plaintiff had an interest in the land prior to patent, that interest was taxable, and if These lands were made liable to not, the payment was voluntary; be assessed and taxed by the Muniin either event the money could not be recovered back. The Cana-cipal Acts of 1883 and 1884, and a sale of such lands in November, 1887, for arrears of taxes for the years 1884 and 1885 (the proceedings being regular) is valid, although the patent was not issued until 1886. Re Mathers, 434. dian Pacific Railway Company v. The Rural Municipality of Cornwallis, 1. 2. Assignment of tax certificate by Municipality.] The lands in question were sold for arrears of taxes by the Municipality of St. Laurent. 4. Redemption of whole by owner of part-Lien for redemption money.]-Where land has been sold for taxes in one parcel, different On a bill filed by the owner to parts of which were owned by set aside the sale, and for an inseparate owners, an owner may not junction restraining the issue of a redeem his part without redeeming tax deed, the whole unless the land was com- Held, (1) That as the proceedposed of more than one lot or par-ings were void upon their face, the cel according to a registered plan Court would not grant an injuncas provided for by section 668 of tion, or make a decree declaring The Municipal Act, 1886. the sale void. The provision in section 638, for the payment of the proportionate amount of taxes chargeable upon any sub-division, only applies to the payment of taxes before sale. (2) At all events, before he may resort to the extraordinary remedy of injunction, the owner must make an application to the Municipal Council to rescind the sale, under the provisions of 52 Vic., c. 27, F. and S. jointly owned certain This land they subsequently s. 39, (M. 1888.) sub-divided, each taking one-half, and the proper conveyances were made. The land was afterwards sold for taxes in one parcel. F. redeemed the whole. Held, that F. was entitled to a lien on S.'s land for the proportion of the redemption money chargeable to that land. Payne v. Goodyear, 26 U. C. R. 448, discussed and distinguished. Fonseca v. Schultz, 458. 5. Sale of land for taxes-Purchase by mortgagee-Right to overplus.]-Where a mortgagee purchases the mortgaged lands at a tax sale and receives a tax deed therefor, he is entitled to the surplus moneys realized by the Municipality from such sale in excess of the taxes and costs. Re Grant, 468. 6. Sale of land for taxes-Void proceedings-Injunction to restrain issue of tax deed.]—A Municipality assumed to sell certain lands for taxes, although no tax had ever been assessed and levied upon them, and none was in arrear. The lands were also exempt by statute. Under our Acts, a tax sale deed is conclusive evidence of the validity of the sale, and of all the prior proceedings in and about the sale, but it is not even prima facie evidence of the assessment, or of the imposition of the rate. Archibald v. Youville, 481. or 7. Order for payment of overCounty Court judges have jurisdicplus.] District registrars tion under section 158 of the Assess ment Act, to make orders for payment over to the owners by Municipalities of the overplus resulting from tax sales, only in cases where the land has been sold under the provisions of the Assessment Act. The overplus from prior tax sales must be dealt with under the provisions of sections 675 and 676 of The Municipal Act, 1886. Re John Henderson, 481. 8. Effect of tax deed-Onus of proof.] In an issue under The Real Property Act as to the ownership of certain lands, the plaintiff claimed title under a tax sale deed from the Mayor and Treasurer of the City of Winnipeg. Held, that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the assessment, the imposition of the rate, and the TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. taking of every step which it was See REAL PROPERTY ACT, 2 by statute necessary to take, for imposing the tax and making it a binding charge on the land. CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT. ULTRA VIRES. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1 Doe Dem: Bell v. Reaumore, 3 O. S. 243; McKay v. Crysler, 3 See S. C. R. 436; and O'Brien v. Cogswell, 17 S. C. R. 420, considered and commented on. Alloway v. Campbell, 506. TAX CERTIFICATE. UNSETTLED ACCOUNT. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Sale of land-Duty of vendor to prepare and execute conveyance at his own expense.]—In this Province, on a sale of land, unless it is otherwise provided in the agreement, it is the duty of the vendor to prepare and execute the conveyance at his own expense, and a purchaser may maintain his action for breach Assignment of tax certificate by of the contract without tendering Municipality. See TAX SALE, 2. TAX DEED, EFFECT OF. See TAX SALE, 8. TIME. a conveyance to the vendor for execution. Sweeney v. Godard, 4 Allen, (N. B.) 300, followed. Dysart v. Drummond, 68. VERDICT. New trial-Principles on which judge's findings of fact reversed.] Computation of]--See COMPANY, 1. The plaintiff sued the executors of S., deceased, to recover the amount of three promissory notes made by TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGMENT FROM S. for $400, $63.25 and $101.80 COUNTY COURT. TRIAL BY JURY. respectively, payable to, and endorsed by, the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the notes were endorsed for S.'s accommodation, that they were discounted by S., and that the plaintiff retired them after S.'s death. The cause was tried before TAYLOR, C.J., without a jury, who entered a verdict for defendant. The plaintiff moved to have the verdict set aside and one entered for him, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence and the weight of evidence. Held, that the finding of a judge on facts is entitled to as much weight as the finding of a jury, with this difference, that if the verdict should be set aside, or reduced, the Court has the power to enter the verdict that it thinks should have been entered, without sending the case to be tried over again. WAGES. Leave to sue Joint Stock Company without waiving right against directors. See COMPANY, 2. WAIVER. See PRACTICE, 2-FOREIGN JUDG- WARRANTY. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. WINDING UP. See COMPANY, 1, 2.-COSTS AND Per KILLAM, J. There is the one element of difference that usually the Court can ascertain the principle upon which the judge proceeded more accurately than in the case of a jury, and the further discussion may shew that principle to be so incorrect that the Court should" review the finding. Per KILLAM, J. The evidence touching the $400 note was insufficient, and the verdict on that count should be set aside. Chevrier v. Parmenter, 194. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT. WORDS. Feloniously did make an assault''] "Satisfactory answers"]-See Ex- |