Majority
the evidence did not show great excess of generosity in allowing the respondents $135.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
The Chief
Judgment of the Court
THE JUSTICE.-Motion to quash upon the ground that, under sec. 29 of the Supreme Court Act, the case is not appealable.
The proceedings in question originated under the enactments of sec. 396 et seq. of the charter of the City of Montreal, by a demand from the city, appellant, calling upon the sheriff to seize in execution and sell certain of the respondents' lands upon which the city claimed the sum of $316.88 for a special assessment thereon.
The total amount of the assessment roll upon all the properties affected thereby exceeds $50,000.
The property seized by the sheriff at the appellants' said demand exceeds $2,000 in value.
The respondents filed an opposition to the said seizure by which they alleged. that the appellants' claim was prescribed, and could not be enforced, and asked that the sheriff's proceedings be therefore set aside. Upon issue joined, the Superior Court maintained the respondents' opposition, and that judgment was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench. The City have brought the present appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench.
We have no jurisdiction to entertain it. There has been and there is nothing more in controversy between the parties than a sum of $316. The whole amount of the roll is not in controversy.
The roll itself is not controverted and the judgment in this case cannot affect in any way the other parties to it. The appellants invoke the righ s of third parties, or rather their own rights against third parties in support of their right to appeal, but those rights inter alios or contra alios cannot be looked at as a criterion of our jurisdiction. It is the amount in controversy between the parties to the record that governs in this case on the subject. Flatt v. Ferland (1) ; Lachance v. La Socidtd de Prdis, etc. (2); Gendron v. McDougall as explained in Kinghorn v. Larue
The value of the land seized in execution is not the amount in controversy, as the appellant would contend. Bank of Toronto v. Les Curd etc. de la Nativitd (5) ; Champoux v. Lapierre ; Flatt v. Ferland (1); The County of Vercheres v. The Village of Varennes Nor does the controversy relate to any title to lands, annual rents and other matters or things where the f. rights in future, ejusdem generis of the parties to the controversy, might be bound.
O'Dell v. Gregory , Raphael v. Maclaren ; Jermyn v. Tew (4); Canadian Mutual Loan and Investment Co. v. Lee (5); Waters v. Manigault (6).
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 sec. 29 of the Act. Toussignant v. Nicolet (7).
Motion to quash granted with costs.
Appeal quashed with costs.