LA
BANQUE
DU PEUPLE
(DE- APPELLANT ; *May 4.
FENDANT) ....................................
*May 9.
AND
LOUIS M. TROTTIER (PLAINTIFF).....RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWER CANADA SITTING IN REVIEW AT MONTREAL. 29, ; & V. 3; V. c. 29, Actions or proceedings respecting disputes as to mere personal alimentary pensions or allowancesdo not constitute controversies wherein rights in future may be bound within the meaning of the second sub-section of the twenty-ninth section of " The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act," as amended, which allows appeals to The Supreme Court of Canada from judgments rendered in the Province of Quebec in cases where the controversy relates to annual rents or other matters or things where rights in future might be bound." (Macfarlane v. Leclaire, 15 Moo. P. C. 181, distinguished; Sauvageau v. Gauthier, L. R. 5 P. C. 494, followed). APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Lower Canada, sitting in Review, at Montreal, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, which maintained the plaintiff's action with costs.
The bank had granted a pension to a former cashier, A. A. Trottier, as a retiring allowance at the rate of $3,000 per annum for the first five years, and to be continued after that time at the rate of $2,000 per annum, payable monthly, during his lifetime, and paid the same regularly for some years notwithstanding that he was indebted to the bank in a large amount of money.
It finally became evident that the financial affairs of the bank were so inVDlved that creditors could not be paid in full, and the directors stopped :-Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.