Murdock v. O'Sullivan

AND INTERVENANT).

Feb.1. AND

ALICE FORGUES (PLAINTIFF) .......

.

RESPONDENT; AND

ALEXANDRE NADEAU

(DEFENDANT

AND PLAINTIFF IN WARRANTY)

AND

J.

(DEFENDANT

IN WAR- RANTY

AND

PLAINTIFF

IN

SUB-WAR- RANTY)

ON APPEAL FROM THE KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE

Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act provides that "where the right of appeal * * * is dependent on the amount or value of the matter in controversy such amount or value * * * shall not include * * * any costs". These "costs" are the costs of the action which a party to that action is condemned to pay. The costs of other suits, connected with the main action, which costs a party is condemned to pay in addition to the amount granted by the main action, really form part of, and should be added to, that amount in order to determine the "amount or value of the matter in controversy".

In the present case, the amount granted to the plaintiff by the main action was a sum of $1,882; but the appellant, defendant in subwarranty, besides being condemned to pay that amount, was also ordered to indemnify in full the defendant in warranty and indirectly the principal defendant. The costs incurred by these two defendants, which the appellant was thus obliged to pay, should be added to the principal amount for the purpose of determining "the amount or value of the matter in controversy". With such addition, the amount in this case exceeded a sum of $2,000, and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal de plano.

CJ. and Davis, Kerwin, Hudson, Taschereau and Rand JJ.

98966-1