Judgment of the Court
J.-The plaintiff, appellant, is the lessee, and the respondent is the lessor in an authentic deed of lease, dated the 14th of October, 1895, for four years and nine months at $250 a year. This action is to set aside that lease on the ground that it was a simulated deed and that the appellant was then, and is now, the owner of the property mentioned in that deed. The Superior Court granted his conclusions, and annulled the lease.
The Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, and dismissed the action. The plaintiff now appeals.
The respondent moves to quash for want of jurisdiction.
It is on the appellant to shew that the Court has jurisdiction ; Dugger v. Bocock (1); and he has failed to do so. The motion must be granted with costs as if made on the first day of this term. There is no pecuniary amount in controversy between the parties amounting to the sum or value of two thousand dollars.
There is no constitutional point involved, and the matter in controversy does not relate to any fee of office, duty, rent, revenue or any sum of money payable to Her Majesty, or to any title to lands or tenements, annual rents or other matters things where the rights in future might be bound. The word "annual rents" we have held to mean " rentes foncitres." And the title to the ownership of the property leased is not the matter directly in controversy ; there is no res judicata thereupon by the judgment of the Court of Appeal ; the matter actually in dispute governs ; the collateral effect of the judg-