Majority
......
Judgment of the Court
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.-In each of these cases the appellant, who had recovered a judgment against the debtor L6vesque & Guinard, Lt6e, seized the property of the *PRESENT: Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Mignault and Malouin JJ.
debtor, consisting of a quantity of pulpwood, and the respondents Desbiens, et al., to whom the property had been pledged, by way of opposition afin de conserver, set up a claim to be paid by preference out of the proceeds. In each case the amount of the plaintiff's claim was much less than $2,000, the combined claims of both amounting to less than $1,000.
The respondents move to quash the appeals on the ground that the amount involved is less than $2,000 and the question thus raised is the point to be decided.
The relevant provision of the " Supreme Court Act " is sec. 39 (a) as enacted by 10-11 Geo. V, c. 32, s. 2. It will be observed that this provision contains nothing corresponding to s.s. 2 of sec. 46 of c. 139 R.S.C., that the
" amount in dispute " shall be sec. 46 having been expressly repealed by sec. 2 of the Act of 1920. Since the amendment the amount or value of the matter in controversy in the appeal must exceed $2,000, unless special leave to appeal is obtained.
The decision of this question, we think is governed by the judgment of this court in Kinghorn vs. Larue (1).
On facts indistinguishable in any pertinent sense it was there held conformably to the principle of Macfarlane vs.
Leclaire (2), that the " amount in controversy " was the amount claimed by the appellant plaintiff and not the amount or value of the claim of the respondent opposant.
Mr. Belcourt relies upon the subsequent decisions in
Cot vs. Richardson (3), and Pulos vs. Lazanis (4).
The first of these decisions is expressly based upon the provision above mentioned of sec. 46 (2).
That provision, it was considered, required the court to resort to the demand in the intervention to determine the " amount in controversy "; and the later decision proceeded upon the authority of the earlier.
We have come to the conclusion that the provision in question having been repealed the last-mentioned decisions are no longer applicable; that the decision in Kinghorn vs.