Majority
MICHAEL PATRICK DAVIS) APPELLsNT; (DEFENDANT)
................................
*May 5, 6. AND
MARIE ROY ET VIR (PLAINTIFFS).......RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT, SITTING IN REVIEW, AT QUEBEC.
Judgment of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE.-This case originated in a possessory action by the respondent against the appellant with conclusions for $200 damages. To this action the appellant pleaded that it was as the respondent's tenant that he occupied the premises in question. The judgment of the Superior Court, affirmed in review, maintains the appellant's plea and dismisses * PRESENT :-Sir Elzdar Taschereau C.J. and Sedgewick, Gironard, Davis and Mills JJ.
the respondent's possessory conclusions but condemns DTis the appellant to pay the respondent two hundred R.
dollars for the rent of the premises from the 25th of October, 1900, to the 9th of February, 1901.
Justice.
The appellant, under these circumstances, has clearly no right to appeal from that judgment. The Court maintained the appellant's contention that he was the respondent's tenant and dismissed the principal conclusions of the action, but condemned him to pay rent, and he now claims the right to appeal from a mere personal condemnation for $200, the amount of the rent. His contention is untenable.
Motion to quash allowed with costs and appeal quashed with costs.
Appeal quashed with costs.