Dufresne v. Fee

upon his life and has not the certainty required to give us jurisdiction.

The motion to quash is granted and the appeal is POLICE shdwt quashed with costs as if quashed on motion in limine. JUSTICE.-This is a case where the amount demanded by the declaration and the amount recovered are different. Now, the amount demanded was over $2,000.

And the fact that the amount recovered and now in controversy upon the appeal is less than the appealable amount, cannot, under the amendment of 1891 to section 29 of the Supreme Court Act, affect our jurisdiction.

Joyce v. Hart (4); Levi v. Reed (5); Laberge v. The Equitable Assurance Society (6); Kunkil v. Brown (7).

The cases of Cowen v. Evans (1) ; Cowen v. Evans; Michell v. Trenholme; Mills v. Limoges The Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Carrike relied upon by the respondents, in support of their motion, were governed by the law as it stood before that amendment. In Lachance v. La de Prdts et Placements the appeal was quashed because the appellants' interest did not amount to $2,000, and it was not a case where there was a difference between the amount claimed and the amount recovered.

The case of Beauchemin v. Armstrong also invoked by the respondents, is clearly not in point. There, subsection 4 of section 29 did not apply because it was not a case where there was a difference between the amount demanded and the amount recovered, costs not forming part of the amount so as to affect our jurisdiction where the right to appeal is dependent upon the amount in dispute under that subsection.

The motion to quash is dismissed with costs.

Motion dismissed with costs.