Lapointe v. Montreal Police Benevolant & Pension Society

dismiss the appeal because the judgment is the only one that the court a quo could, in law, possibly give. Shaw v. St. Louis (1).

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.-The motion to quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction must be allowed. The appeal is by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench dismissing his action by which he claimed from the society, respondent, a life pension of seven hundred and fifty dollars per annum, payable at the rate of sixty-two' dollars and fifty cents per month. His statement alleges, in substance, that as a member of the Montreal Police Force he has been a member of the respondent benefit society since its incorporation until the thirty-first of March, 1902; that his resignation was accepted to date from the first April, 1902; that he has paid his contributions up to the thirty-first of March, 1902 ; that, according to the by-laws and rules of the society, he then became entitled to a life pension of sixty-two dollars and fifty cents per month, but that the society refused to admit his claim and to inscribe him on its list of pensioners. His conclusions are :

Pourquoi le demandeur conclut & ce que la d6fenderesse soit condamnde h payer au demandeur la somme de soixante-deux piastres et cinquante cents pour la pension due du premier avril au trente avril,

(1902) ; h ce que par le jugement & intervenir il soit de plus d~clar6 que le demandeur & le droit d'6tre reconnu comme pensionnaire de la dWfenderesse et d'8tre inscrit our la liste des dits pensionnaires aux termes de Particle 33 des rbglements, comme ayant droit sa vie durant une somme de $62.50 ; et A ce qu'ordre soit donn6 h la dWfenderesse

The Chief J ustice. d'inscrire le dit d6mandeur sur la dite liste sous toutes peines que de droit ; h ce que par le jugement & intervenir, la d6fenderesse soit de plus condamne h payer au dit demandeur la dite somme de $62.50 durant la vie du demandeur, et ce au fur et & mesure que la dite pension deviendra bchue ; le premier paiement devant se faire le premier juin prochain et ainsi continuer de mois en mois durant la vie du dit demandeur.

Under the authority of Rodier v. Lapierre (1) ; Macdonald v. Galivan (2); La Banque du Peuple v. Trottier

(3) ; O'Dell v. Gregory (4) ; Talbot v. Guilmartin (5) ;

and numerous other cases in the same sense, the case is clearly not appealable.

Mr. Beaudin, in support of the right to appeal, whilst conceding that, under the authorities, he could not invoke the future rights of the appellant, yet contended that the case is appealable upon the ground that the matter in controversy exceeds two thousand dollars in value, the conclusions of the action, as he argued, asking that the appellant be inscribed on the respondents' list of pensioners and the assurance companies' mortality tables shewing that, at his age, as appears by affidavits produced, the cost of an annuity equal to what would be his pension would be over seven thousand dollars.

But that contention cannot prevail. The assurance tables are not guides for us in the matter of ascertaining the pecuniary value of the demand. That value is a contingent one depending

(2) 28 Can. S., C. R. 258.