Page 95 - index

To ascertnin the law of Canada on this suhject at the
time the donation u~ùs made, it has been necessary to in-
quire into the law as it existed prior ta the coming into
force of the Civil Code of Lo~ver Canada, which contains
the folloving Articles ;-
"812." In gifts, the subseqiient birth of children ta the
donor does not constitute a resolution condition, uuless it
is so stipulated".
If the Code goveined the question, this Article would bc
decisive in favour of the Kespondents; but the Code did
not corne into force until the 1st of Augutit, 1866, about
two months after the date of the donation. It mas, in-
deed, contended by the counsel for the Respondcnts that
its provisions on his subject became the law of the Pro-
vince upon the passing of the Act 29 Vict. c. 41, which
snnctioneil them; but their Lordshipe are clearly of opi-
nion, for the reusons given by them during the argument,
that this is not BO, and that these provisions had not the
force of law until the time fixed for the coming into opera-
tion of the Code.
This discussion at the Bar, ushich took a mide range, and
was ably conducted on bath sides, was directed, in the
first place, to the consideration of the 1aw of France. It
appears thut the question of the revocation of gifts by
the bu,th of childrcn waa for several centuries a fertile
subject of discussion and controversy amongst French
juriats. This controversy was cornplicated by the vary-
ing jurisprudence of different Parliaments. The Lw which
is to Lie principally regarded in deciding this caw is that
of the Parliament of Paris; the Edict of Louis XIV (1663),
which created the "Conseil Supérieur". and established
Courts of Justice for Lower Canada, having directecl that
the "Coiitumes de Paris" should be the general law of the
Province.
The 1aw of France was drawn frorn a rule in the Jus-
tiniam Code utiually cited as the law "Si unquam", which
is thefollowing terms :-