Majority
payment of the pension, retaining the monthly instalments as they became due in compensation of the debt due to the bank. Mr. A. A. Trottier then assigned his claim for pension to one Bousquet, who afterwards assigned it to the plaintiff who brought the action to recover $1,166.69 for seven of the monthly payments alleged to be due up to the time of the suit. The bank set up their claim of over $30,000, against A. A. Trottier, in compensation to the extent of the amount claimed by the plaintiff's action, and upon issues joined, the trial court rendered a decision in favour of the plaintiff, and dismissed the plea set up by the defendant. This judgment was affirmed by the Court
Review, and from this judgment the present appeal is taken.
MOTION by the respondent to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the case did not involve any matter in controversy amounting to the sum or value of .$2,000, and did not come within the exceptions stated in the 29th section of " The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act."
Judgment of the Court
GIROUARD J.-This motion must be granted, and the appeal quashed with costs. The amount claimed by the action is for less than £500 sterling, in fact it for only $1,166.
The appellant alleges that it affects future rights, but the jurisprudence of this court has been laid down in several cases that mere personal alimentary pensions or allowances do not constitute future rights within the meaning of the Supreme Court Act.
A decision of the Judicial Committee the Privy Council, in Macfarlane v. Leclaire has been quoted by the appellant as binding upon us, and determining this question in its favour as the bank bas an interest in the case exceeding £500 sterling, in fact exceeding $25,000. The bank may have such an interest against A. A. Trottier, but the latter is not in the case. The appellant has no interest against the respondent except to the amount of the plea of compensation in issue, or as alleged in the pleas "jusqu'A due concurrence en compensation A la pr~sente action."
The case of Sauvageau v. Gauthier quoted by the appellant, and likewise decided by the Privy Council, is contrary to his pretention.
Appeal quashed with costs.