BRODEUR J.-This is a motion to quash for want of jurisdiction.
*PRESENT:-Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
(1) 24 R.L.N.S. 482.
An action had been instituted several years ago by the appellant Pulos, against the defendants Lazanis, for a sum of $1,807.56.
Judgment was rendered in 1912 for that sum with interest.
In 1916, a writ of saisie-arrdt after judgment was issued in the ordinary way to recover money in the hands of the firm of Sperdakos & Lerikos.
The tierssaisis declared in substance that the defendant, Denis Lazanis, was a member of their firm and that they owed him money.
The wife of Denis Lazanis then fyled an intervention and claimed that it be declared that the defendant Lazanis, her husband, had no share in the partnership of Sperdakos & Lerikos, but that she herself be declared the sole proprietor of one-third share in that partnership.
That intervention was contested by the plaintiff, Pulos. The Superior Court dismissed the intervention but that judgment was reversed on-appeal.
Then the real controversy on that intervention was whether their share in the firm belonged to the defendant or to his wife.
The respondent contends that the jurisdiction of this court should be determined by the amount originally claimed on the main action, and relies on Champoux v. Lapierre(1) ; Kinghorn v. Larue(2) ; and Gendron v. McDougall (3).
On the other hand, the appellant claims that the value of the share in dispute should determine our jurisdiction.
It is now the well-settled jurisprudence of this court that an intervention is a "judicial" proceeding within the meaning of section 46 of the "Supreme Court Act;" and where the appeal depends upon the amount in controversy there is an appeal to this court if the amount in controversy upon the intervention amounts to the value of $2,000. King v. Dupuis (1); C6td v. Richardson Co. (2).
The intervening party, the respondent, stands in the same position as a plaintiff, and her proceeding is to all intents and purposes an action in revendication of her rights in the partnership.
The amount of money she claims to have put in the partnership is $2,000.
In the Court of Appeal, the so much regretted late Chief Justice (Sir Horace Archambeault) stated in his reasons of judgment that her partners offered her husband $5,500 for her share and that the husband asked for $7,000.
The affidavits fyled proved beyond doubt that the value of that share exceeds $2,000.
In those circumstances, we have jurisdiction and this motion to quash should be dismissed with costs. Motion dismissed with costs.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- section 46