verbal made by one Joseph G-eoffrion, otherwise defining who were to be liable for the building and maintenance of the said bridge. Thereupon the respondent municipality instituted before the Superior Court for Lower Canada, a common law action to have the proces verbal homologated by the appellant municipality, set aside and quashed.
The Superior Court dismissed the respondent's action but the Court of Review reversed the decision of the Superior Court, and set aside the procds verbal, and on appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) that court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Review.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Archambault Q.C. for respondent moved to quash the appeal on the ground that the judgment appealed from was in an action to set aside a procds verbal and not a by-law, from which no appeal lay, and that there was no question of future rights within the meaning of sec. 29 of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, Allan for appellant relied on sec. 30 and sec. 24 "g" of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act.
The judgment of the court was deliverd by
J.-This case comes up on a motion to quash the appeal.
This motion must clearly be allowed. The appellant claims the right of appeal, and obtained leave before one of the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the ground that rights in future may be bound by the judgment against him. This is again what happens so often unfortunately for the liti-