Majority
QUEBEC AND THE CITY OF k APPELLANTS; HU L..
'2*
HULL.............................
PPLANS AND
JANET
LOUISA
SCOTT
AND
RESPONDENTS. OTHERS ...
.....................
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Judgment of the Court
GIROUARD J.-This is a motion to quash an appeal for two reasons: First, because the security was not put in within sixty days after the rendering of the judgment appealed from and; Secondly, because the judgment does not come within the provisions of the Supreme Court Act.
As to the first point, it is sufficient to say that notice of security was given on the 3rd November, 1903, to be put in on the 10th.
Parties appeared on that day, but after hearing them, the judge took the application en dlibrd till the 25th November, that is one day after the sixty days, when the security was allowed. We have already held in a case like this that parties cannot be prejudiced by the delay of the court in rendering judgment which should be treated as having been given on the day that the case was taken ddlibgrj. Couture v. Bouchard
As to the second point, we are also against the respondents.
An action in the nature of 'a petitory action was taken against respondents claiming, under a graRt from the Quebec Government of the 2nd April, 1902, a certain bed of a creek known as Brigham's Brewery creek, in the City of Hull. The Attorney J. General of Quebec was allowed to intervene in the case and to take fait et cause for the City of Hull, the plaintiffs, and thereby became plaintiff in the case without waiting till he was called in warranty. The City of Hull has appealed and the respondents admit that this appeal exists, but contend that the Attorney General has no such appeal.
The authorities quoted by them have no application.
There is nothing in dispute in this case between the Government and the respondents but a title to land.
The fact that this land may possibly remain in the hands of the respondents which would render the Quebec Government liable only for the reimbursement of the purchase money, namely, $1,000, and probably interest, is of no consequence, for this is not the point in dispute between the parties. The sole point in issue is the title to the bed of the creek.
The motion, therefore, is dismissed with costs.
Motion dismissed with costs.