Consumers' Cordage Co. Ltd. v. St. Gabriel Land & Hydraulic Co. Ltd.

respondent, who was the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, moved to quash the appeal to this Court from the Court of King's Bench on the ground that the -amount, or value, of the matter in controversy in the appeal does not exceed the sum of $2,000, as provided in section 39 of the Supreme Court Act.

By its action the respondent claimed from the appellant the sum of $2,000 for five unpaid rental instalments under the terms of a lease of water rights and property rights. The trial judge held that the instrument in question was a lease in perpetuity and, as such, a violation of the laand that in consequence the instrument was void and 0. no effect. - However, he held that the appellant was in peaceable possession of the leased property up to the 1st of March, 1940, and that it must pay reasonable value for that use and occupation and he, therefore, gave judgment in favour of the respondent for $1,066.66, with interest from the date of the institution of the action and costs.

The present appellant did not appeal from this judgment, but the respondent appealed from it to the Court of King's Bench and the latter Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that

As a consequence, the court of appeal maintained the action as brought and condemned the present appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of $2,000, with interest from the date of the service of the action.

The appellant then appealed to this Court and the respondent now moves to quash the appeal for want of HeI.Lc jurisdiction. He argues that the amount of the matter in controversy is merely the difference between the sum of Rinfret CJ. $2,000, claimed in the action and awarded by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side), and the sum of $1,066.66 awarded by the judgment of the Superior

Court, or altogether $933.34, which would be insufficient to clothe this Court with jurisdiction.

We cannot agree with such a view of the appeal.

The judgment appealed from, and which will have to be considered by this Court, is the judgment of the Court of

King's Bench, which held that the lease subsisted until

1956 and, on account of that holding, condemned the appellant to pay the sum of $2,000, with interest from the date of the service of the action.

By that judgment the decision of the Superior Court was set aside and is no longer in controversy in the appeal before this Court. The matter upon which we will have to pronounce is whether at the time of the action the lease in question was still subsisting and the amount claimed for in the declaration was due by the appellant to the respondent. The amount vof that matter is more than $2,000, since the appellant is

,entitled to add the interest from the date of the service of the action up to the date of the judgment' in the Court of

King's Bench.

This is not similar to a case where the plaintiff only recovers part of the amount claimed for in the Superior

Court and succeeds in having the amount increased in the

Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side). In those cases the amount in controversy is only the amount of the increase, but in the present instance the respondent succeeded on an entirely different ground from that on which the

Superior Court judgment was rendered, and we think that the true controversy in the appeal before this Court is the full amount of the condemnation pronounced by the

Court of King's Bench.

S.C.R.]

This case must be distinguished from that of Berthiaume v. Laurier (1), where, as a result of the judgment of the court of- appeal, the only amount of the matter in controversy on the appeal to this Court was the sum of $1,000 awarded by way of credit, or set-off, by the court of appeal. IY&uuc

For these reasons, the motion to quash should be dism issed w ith costs.

Motion dismissed with costs.