Judgment of the Court
J.-This motion must be allowed. It is the well settled jurisprudence of this court that in cases where our jurisdiction is based on the pecuniary amount in controversy it is the pecuniary interest the party appealing that has alone to be taken into consideration.
Flatt v. Ferland (1); Kinghorn v. Larue See Allan v. Pratt
Here, the appellant's interest not amount to and consequently have no jurisdiction. True it is that the consequence of the appellant's contestation of the respondent's collocation might result in bringing back to the insolvent's estate a sum of over $2,000, but our jurisdiction does not depend on the possible consequence of a possible judgment.
Podier v. Lapierre
Mr. Geoffrion, in answering the motion, endeavoured to support the appeal on arts. 746 and 747 of the Code of Procedure. But these articles have not that effect.
There is only one contestation here of the order of collocation, and we have not to determine whether the -result of this motion would be different or not if there had been more than one contesting party, the united interests of whom would amount to $2,000.
It will be time enough to determine that point when such a case comes up.
Here this appellant, having a pecuniary interest to an amount less than the appealable amount, has no right to invoke other parties' rights to support his appeal.
It is impossible to entertain it without overruling the jurisprudence of the court, a result which he cannot expect.
Appeal quashed with costs.