Supreme Court of Canada
La Banque Du Peuple v.Trottier, (1898) 28 SCR 422
Date: 1898-05-09
LA BANQUE DU PEUPLE (DEFENDANT)
Appellant;
And
LOUIS M. TROTTIER (PLAINTIFF)
Respondent.
1898: May 4; 1898: May 9
PRESENT :—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWER CANADA SITTING IN REVIEW AT MONTREAL.
Appeal-Jurisdiction—Future rights—Alimentary allowance-R.S.C c. 135, sec. 29, ss. 2; 54 & 55 V. c. 25, s. 3; 56 V. c. 29, s. 2.
Actions or proceedings respecting disputes as to mere personal alimentary pensions or allowances do not constitute controversies wherein lights in future may be bound within the meaning of the second sub-section of the twenty-ninth section of "The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act," as amended, which allows appeals to The Supreme Court of Canada from judgments rendered in the Province of Quebec in cases where the controversy relates to "annual rents or other matters or things where rights in future might be bound." (Macfarlane v. Leclaire, 15 Moo. P. C. 181, distinguished; Sauvageau v. Gauthier, L. R. 5 P. C. 494, followed).
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Lower Canada, sitting in Review, at Montreal, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, which maintained the plaintiff's action with costs.
The bank had granted a pension to a former cashier, A.A. Trottier, as a retiring allowance at the rate of $3,000 per annum for the first five years, and to be continued after that time at the rate of $2,000 per annum, payable monthly, during his lifetime, and paid the same regularly for some years notwithstanding that he was indebted to the bank in a large amount of money. It finally became evident that the financial affairs of the bank were so involved that creditors could not be paid in full, and the directors stopped
[Page 423]
payment of the pension, retaining the monthly instalments as they became due in compensation of the debt due to the bank. Mr. A. A. Trottier then assigned his claim for pension to one Bousquet, who afterwards assigned it to the plaintiff who brought the action to recover $1,166.99 for seven of the monthly payments alleged to be due up to the time of the suit. The bank set up their claim of over $30.000, against A. A. Trottier, in compensation to the extent of the amount claimed by the plaintiff's action, and upon issues joined, the trial court rendered a decision in favour of the plaintiff, and dismissed the plea set up by the defendant. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Review, and from this judgment the present appeal is taken.
MOTION by the respondent to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the case did not involve any matter in controversy amounting to the sum or value of $2,000, and did not come within the exceptions stated in the 29th section of "The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act."
Madore for the motion, cited Rodier v. Lapierre (); O'Dell v. Gregory (); Raphael v. Maclaren (); Mac donald v. Galivan ().
Geoffrion, Q.C., contra. The plea of compensation sets up a claim for $30,000 which is the amount brought in controversy as a set off against the present and all future claims for pension until that amount may be fully satisfied by compensation. Again, the demand is for an annual rente, or pension in the nature of an alimentary allowance, payable by installments so long as Mr. A. A. Trottier may live, and the decision in this suit will have binding effect upon the right of the bank to set off its debt against any future instalments
[Page 424]
of the pension accruing to their debtor. The appellant's position is supported by the decisions in Macfarlane v. Leclaire (); Sauvageau v. Gauthier (); Gilbert v. Gilman (); The Gitizens' Light and Power Company v. Parent ().
The judgment of the court was delivered by:
GIROUARD J.-This motion must be granted, and the appeal quashed with costs. The amount claimed by the action is for less than £500 sterling in fact it is for only $1,166. The appellant alleges that it affects future rights, but the jurisprudence of this court has been laid down in several cases that mere personal alimentary pensions or allowances do not constitute future rights within the meaning of the Supreme Court Act. A decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in Macfarlane v. Leclaire (1), has been quoted by the appellant as binding upon us, and determining this question in its favour as the bank bas an interest in the case exceeding £500 sterling, in fact exceeding $25,000. The bank may have such an interest against A. A. Trottier, but the latter is not in the case. The appellant has no interest against the respondent except to the amount of the plea of compensation in issue, or as alleged in the pleas "jusqu'à due concurrence en compensation à la présente action." The case of Sauvageau v. Gauthier (2), quoted by the appellant, and likewise decided by the Privy Council, is contrary to his pretention.
Appeal quashed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Geoffrion, Dorion & Allan.
Solicitors for the respondent: Madore, Guerin & Perron.
Email this Content