Majority
MrS-EN-CAUSE. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE
Judgment of the Court
- J.: -This is an action brought by a creditor holding a judgment against the respondent Wilfrid Poulin for $430 and costs to set aside or to have declared void a transfer of an immovable alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by Poulin to his wife, the respondent Yvonne Poulin, through the intermediation of the mis-en-cause. The debtor is not in bankruptcy, nor is there present any form of judicial liquidation, although he is claimed to be insolvent. The question of the jurisdiction of this Court therefore arises.
It is a settled rule that in these circumstances the benefit of a judgment recovered in an action paulienne enures solely to the creditor who is a party to it: Dalloz J.G. (1925) R.P. prem. partie, p. 223, notes 1, 2 and 3. On the other hand, treating the two conveyances as constituting a transfer from the husband to the wife and therefore void, the interest of the appellant is obviously limited to the judgment which he seeks to realize.
Although, then, the immovable may be worth more than $2,000, the test of our competency to hear the appeal is the value of the appellant's interest in it: City of Sydney v. Wright (1); and since that value is below the required amount, we are without jurisdiction.
The appeal must be quashed with costs as of a motion to that effect.
Appeal quashed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Veilleux & Peloquin. Solicitors for the respondent: Talbot & Roberge. Solicitor for the mis-en-cause: Rosaire Beaudoin. *Mar.7 WALTER H. LINK AND HARRY H.
GREEN .........................
T. H. Montgomery for the applicant.
M. Gross for the respondent Link.
M. Gaboury, Q.C. for the respondent Green.
D. H. W. Henry for the Attorney General of Canada. G. Hill, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Quebec. This was an application under s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, 259, for leave to appeal from the refusal of Chief Justice Scott, of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, to issue a warrant for the committal of the respondents under s. 18 of the Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 322.
The Court requested Mr. Montgomery to deal first with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave. At the conclusion of his argument Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada and for the Attorney General of Quebec ,stated that they took no position with reference to that question. Without calling on Counsel for the respondents the Chief Justice announced that the Members of the Court were unanimously of the opinion that there was no jurisdiction, as the refusal 'of Chief Justice Scott was not a judgment, 'as defined by s. 2(d), within the meaning of s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act.
Application refused. S.C.R.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Supreme Court Act
-
- s. 18 of the Extradition Act
- s. 2(d)