what it. is if due consideration had been given by Her
Majesty in Her Privy Council to the limitation which it is assumed that section imposed upon the jurisdiction of the Privy Council.
Dufresne v. Guivremont (1) must be conclusive upon COMrAY the point in this court, and in cases like the present parties who may not be satisfied with that judgment Gwynne J. must be remitted to raise the question as they may be advised before Her Majesty in Her Privy Council.
SEDGEWICK, KING and GIROUARD JJ. concurred in the reasons given by Mr. Justice Taschereau.
Solicitors for the appellant: Smith dy MacKay.
Solicitors for the respondent : Charbonneau 4- Pelletier. THOMAS RAPHAEL, 9s qualitd
APPELLANT;
(PLAINTIFF)
.................................
*May 12. AND
DAVID MACLAREN AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS.
(DEFENDANTS).................
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR
LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE).
Appeal - Jurisdiction-Appealable amount-Future rights-Alimentary allowance-"Other matters and things"-R. S. C. c. 135,'s. 29 (b)- 56 V. (D.) c. 29.
The classes of matters which are made appealable to the Supreme
Court of Canada under the provisions of section 29, subsec. b of
''The Supreme and Ezchequer Courts Act," as amended by 56 Vict.
ch. 29, do not include future rights which are merely pecuniary in their nature and do not affect rights to or in real property or rights analagous to interests in real property.
Bodier v. Lapierre (21 Can. S. C. R. 69) and O'Dell v. Gregory (24 Can. S. C. R. 661)
followed.
(1) 26 Can. S. C. R. 216.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 29
- section 29