ROSARIO GUfRARD, iS-NOM ET iS- RESPONDENT. *Feb. 2.
QUAL. (PLAINTIFF)
....................
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
A petition in revocation of judgment '(requSte civile) has not the effect, ipso facto, of suspending the proceedings in the case wherein the petition is presented, and more particularly the hearing before an appellate jurisdiction.-Stay of execution is the only consequence to result from the mere filing of the petition in revocation; and, moreover, such consequence does not follow as a matter of course, but only upon an order to that effect granted by a judge. A fortiori, the filing of a petition in revocation of judgment does not operate as a stay of proceedings in appellate jurisdictions as a matter of course.
As to the appellant company's application that, in view of the fact that a petition in revocation has been duly filed in the Superior Court in Montreal, the record ought to be returned to that Court for hearing on the petition, held that, such matter being entirely within the discretion of this Court, such application should be refused as, under the circumstances of this case, the respondent having been awarded damages by the judgment appealed from, the balance of inconvenience would be entirely on the respondent's side if the application was granted. Kowal v. New York Central Railroad Co. ([1934] S.C.R. 214) dist. On the merits of the case, the judgment appealed from, affirming the judgment of the trial judge with a jury and awarding the respondent damages resulting from an accident due to collision, should be affirmed.-The jury's answer to the question, whether the accident has been the result of the sole fault of the appellant company and if so in what consisted that fault, was " Yes, excessive speed and negligence of the watchman." Although the last underlined part of the answer should be disregarded, being clearly insufficient and irregular as not being "special, explicit and articulated" (art. 483, C.C.P.), the other part of the answer " excessive speed," taken separately-as it must be under the circumstances-is sufficient to meet the requirements of that article of the Code and render the verdict valid; and it is not the function of this Court under the circumstances of this case to review such finding (art. 501 C.C.P.). *PRESENT:-infret, Crocket, Davis, Kerwin and Hudson JJ.
Cases cited
- Kowal v. New York Central Railroad Co. scr-1934-214