Toussignant v. County of Nicolet

de 1'intimbe est renvoy~e avec d~pens devant toutes les cours.

It must be allowed. The constant jurisprudence of this court is against our right to entertain the appeal.

The fact that the procds-verbal attacked by the appellants' action may have the result to put upon them the cost of the work in question, alleged to be over $2,000, does not make the controversy one of $2,000.

There is no pecuniary amount in controversy; in other words there is no controversy as to a pecuniary amount or a pecuniary nature.

It is settled law that neither the probative force of a judgment, nor its collateral effects, nor any contingent loss that a party may suffer by reason of a judgment are to be taken into consideration when our jurisdiction depends upon the pecuniary amount or upon any of the subjects mentioned in section 29 of the Supreme Court Act.

Fr6chette v. Simnoneau and cases there cited. Compare Ross v. Prentiss

And there is here no title to lands or other matters or things of that nature, ejusdem generis, sIwhere the rights in future might be bound that the controversy relates to as these words of that section of the Act have been authoritatively construed.

Dubois v. The Village of Ste. Rose (2) is a direct authority upon that point.

See the jurisprudence to the same effect in analogous cases in the United States Courts, vol. 2, Cyc. of Law & Prac. page 552.

The fact that the lands of the appellants will be assessed for the cost of the work does not make the controversy one relating to the title to these lands nor to anything of that nature. That is the consequence of the judgment, but that is not the judgment. The consequence of any judgment for a sum over $40 is that a defendant's lands may be seized in execution thereof, or mortgaged by proper registration of the judgment, but that does not make the controversy one relating to the title to these lands, though it may have the consequence to affect it. An hypothecary action affects the land bypothecated, but, under the jurisprudence, is not a controversy relating to the title to the land under the Act; no one contests, in such a case, that the title is in the defendant.

The case of Reburn v. Parish of Ste. Anne relied upon by the appellants, is not a governing authority since the Dubois Case, (ubi supra.), ; and the cases

Les Eccldsiastiques de St. Sulpice v. City of Montreal

(4); Stevenson v. City of Montreal (5); Murray v. Town of Westmount and Delorme v. Cusson have no application.

The amendment to section 29 made by

56 Vict., ch. 29 does not help the appellants. Upon this and the various reasons which they have invoked in support of their claim to this appeal, I refer to O'Dell v

Gregory (1); Raphael v. Maclaren (2); Macdonald v. Galivan (3); Noel v. Chevrefils (4); Talbot v. Guilmartin (5); The County of Verchdres v. The Village of Varennes (6); FlaIl v. Fertand (7) Waters v. Manigault and Cully v. Ferdais The cases of-City of Sherbrooke v. McManamy (10), and of The Bell Telephone v. The City of Quebec (11), with the Dubois Case (12), and The County of Vercheres v. The Village of Varennes, (ubi supra), (6) are governing authorities against appellants' claim to this appeal based upon subsec. (g) of sec. 24 of the Act.

Then this is not a case of a by-law, but of a procdsverbal. And it is a private action, not a petition to annul under the Municipal Act. The distinction between these two proceedings was made in Webster v. The City of Sherbrooke (13), and McKay v. The Township of Hinchinbrooke (14).

Appeal quashed with costs.