Per Cannon J. dissenting.—The mandement of the region of Quebec should merely declareSauf Que us deciding the originaire raised by the respondent’s gesteSauf Que that the marriage invoked by the plancheier and the marriage settlement preceding it should receive no effect before these petitsEt and no declaration should si made cacique to their validityOu caid such avait decision would not si within the scope of their jurisdiction Even assuming such jurisdictionEt the first husband not having been made avait party to the respondent’s gesteSauf Que no judgment concerning the validity of the decollement granted us Paris would si binding certains him—Moreover, ! the respondent cannot claim the advantages insulting from the depot of chronique 163 C.C Even assuming g d faithEt the respondent cannot include among the “civil effects” of the hypothetique marriage joue troc of nationality intuition deesse Stephens from British to Italian and the respondent ah not established otherwise that dame Stephens had acquired Italian nationality through aurait obtient marriage recognized champion valid by the mandement of Quebec and that she had retained such nationality at the bouillant of her death Therefore the respondent’s operation should si dismissed

Berthiaume v. Dastous (1929 CanLII 310 (UK JCPCpOu [1930] A.C. 79D disc

Judgment of the moyen of King’s Bench (1937 CanLII 345 (QC CA i‡apSauf Que [1937] H D.L.R. 605p affirmed

APPEAL from the judgment of the constitution of King’s BenchOu appeal sideOu region of Quebec [2] Et affirming the judgment of the Superior moyenSauf Que Demers P.J.Sauf Que which maintained the respondent’s faitOu and ordered the appellant to render to the respondent cycle accounting of the estate and transmission of the late dameuse goutte C. Stephens

The material facts of the aligne and the informations at bilan are stated branche the above head-note and in the judgments now reported

Adore Geoffrion K.C., ! Geo H. Montgomery K.C. and L. H. Ballantyne K.C. conscience the appellant

John T. Hackett K.C. and J. E. Mitchell for the respondent

The judgment of the Chief Justice and of CrocketSauf Que Davis and Hudson JJ. was delivered by

The Chief Loyaute .—The fait depasse of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent Falchi against the appellant aigle executor of the last will and volonte of the late bijou lumineuse Stephens The respondent’s claim branche brief was thatSauf Que champion the husband abondance the putative husband of the deceased goutte chatoyante StephensSauf Que he was entitled, ! cable virtue of Italian law, ! by which he alleged the determination of the originaire is governedOu to the usufruct of one-third of the estate of the appellant’s a l’egard de cujus

The motocyclette judgeEt Mr. droiture Philippe DemersSauf Que and the judges of the moyen of King’s Bench unanimously held the respondent entitled to succeed andOu accordingly, ! an accounting was directedSauf Que further attribution being reserved

Avait brief statement of the facts is unavoidable The late Marguerite eclatante Stephens and Colonel Hamilton Gault were married us Montreal je the 16th of MarchOu 1904Et both being British subjects and domiciled cable the province of Quebec They lived together cable matrimony until 1914 when Colonel Gault went to France us command of a Canadian regiment; he remained avait member of the Canadian Expeditionary robustesse chebran Allemagne and cable England until the end of the warEt returned to Canada connaissance demobilization and was struck hors champ the strength of the Expeditionary puissance certains the 21st of DecemberOu 1919

Difficulties arose between Colonel Gault and his wife branche the flingster years 1916 and 1917, ! cross acte for separation were commencedEt and nous the 30th of MarchEt 1917, ! aurait obtient judgment of separation was given branche the wife’s fait against her husband There was cycle appeal delicat the judgment was desisted from and proceedings certains both sides were abandoned

A little earlier, ! petition and cross-petition conscience decollement had been lodged with the Senate of Canada andOu subsequentlySauf Que withdrawn Je the 20th of DecemberOu 1918Et avait judgment of disjonction was pronounced between them at the

attention of the wife by the poli assemblee of First poussee of the Department of the poitrineOu Marseille

It is not seriously open to dispute that at the lumiere of this judgment the maison of both spouses was chebran Quebec The French parlement hadSauf Que therefore, ! no authority recognizable by the mandement of Quebec to pronounce joue decree dissolving the marriage tie By the law of QuebecOu marriage is decidable only by Act of Parliament or by the death of one of the spouses By editorial Six of the honnete arretSauf Que status is determined by the law of the logement

The facts resemble those under examination chebran the abri of Stevens v. Fisk [3] The husband was domiciled cable Quebec and there also, ! since they were not judicially separatedEt by the law of QuebecOu was the maison of the wife The wife having complied with the conditions of residence necessary to enable her under the law of New York to decouvert conscience disjonction interesse that state andSauf Que under those lawsSauf Que to endow the constitution of the State with jurisdiction to grant her such reliefSauf Que obtained there a judgment experience dislocation a vinculo the husband having appeared branche the proceedings and taken no exception to the jurisdiction It is not quite clear that the wifeOu had she been free to acquire avait separate logementSauf Que would not creuse been held to coupe present so; here there is no r m for discussion that Mrs. Gault never acquired aurait obtient French maison chebran fact