On the appeal the judgment of the court en banc was not attacked but the appellant urged that on the evi- ' dence given at the trial, she should have had a verdict. The court however agreed with the trial judge that there was not sufficient evidence and dismissed the appeal.
Russell, Q.C., and Congdon for the appellant.
Gormully, Q. C., for the respondant.
BENJAMIN
ETHIER et al. (PE- APPELLANTS;- TITIONERS) . . .........
. . ..................
' AND
SAMUEL H. EWINGr et al. AND
RESPONDENTS. THE CITY OF MONTREAL.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWER CANADA SITTING IN REVIEW, AT MONTREAL. Appeal-Court of Review-Right of appeal to Privy Council-Construction of statute-Final judgment-R. S. C. c. 135, ss. 24 (j), 28 & 29-54 & 55 V. c. 25 s. 3 (D).
Certain ratepayers of the City of Montreal having objections to one of the commissioners named in proceedings taken for the expropriation of land required for the improvement of a public street, in which they were interested, presented a petition to the Superior Court demanding his recusation.
The petition was dismissed; on an appeal to the Court of Review, the judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed, and further appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. On motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction ;- Held, that no appeal de plano would lie from the judgment of the Court of Review to Her Majesty's Privy Council, and consequently there was no appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of Canada under the provisions of the Act, 54 & 55 Vict. ch. 25, see. 3, amending The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act.
Held, further, that the judgment of the Court of Review was not a final judgment within the meaning of section 29 of The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act.
:-Sir Henry Strong C.J. and Taschereau, Gwynne, King and Girouard JJ.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- ss. 24
- s. 3
- section 29 of The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act