Labelle v. Barbeau, (1889) 16 SCR 390

Supreme Court of Canada

Labelle v. Barbeau, (1889) 16 SCR 390

Date: 1889-03-23

CHARLES LABELLE, et al

Appellant;

And

DAME EMMA BARBEAU

Respondent.

1889: Mar 22; 1889: Mar 23

PRESENT—Strong, Fournier, Taschereau, Gwynne and Patterson jj.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE),

Appeal—Judicial Deposit by Insurance Company—Rival claims as to same—Value of matter in controversy—Jurisdiction—Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act sec. 29.

A life insurance company deposited with the prothonotary of the Superior Court, under the Judicial Deposit Act of Quebec, the sum of $3,000, being the amount of a life policy issued by the company to one E. L, which by its terms had become payable to those entitled to the same, but to one half of which sum rival claims were put in. The appellants, as collateral heirs of the deceased, by a petition claimed the whole of the three thousand dollars, and the respondent (mise-en-cause petitioner), the widow of the deceased, by a counter petition claimed as commune en biens one half; and, in her answer to the appellants' petition, prayed that in so far as it claimed any greater sum than one half, it should be dismissed. After issue joined the Superior Court awarded one half to the appellants, and the other half to the respondent. From this judgment the appellants appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) and that court confirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Held—That the sum or value of the matter in controversy between the parties being only $1,500, the case was not appealable. R. S. C. ch. 135 sec. 29. (Fournier J. dubitante).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (Appeal side) affirming the judgment of the Superior Court.

The question raised in this case was as to whether the collateral heirs of a deceased husband were entitled to claim the whole of the monies accruing from

[Page 391]

an insurance effected on his life, as against his widow, who claimed one half of it, as having been commune en biens with him.

On the 3rd day of April, 1875, Louis Labelle insured his life at the Ætna Life Insurance Company for the sum of $3,000.00, payable ninety days after his death, to his executors, administrators or assigns. Labelle died intestate and without issue, in December, 1886, and the company, to avoid any responsibility arising out of the conflicting claims on the money, deposited the sum of $3,000.00 in the hands of John S. Honey and others, joint prothonotary of the Superior Court.

The appellants who in the absence of children are the collateral heirs of the deceased demanded by their petition that the prothonotary be ordered to pay them the amount so deposited in their hands.

The respondent, Emma Barbeau, widow of the deceased Louis Labelle, resisted their demand, on the ground that the insurance policy on which the sum now in the hands of the prothonotary has been paid, having been effected during the community which existed between her and her late husband and the premiums paid by the community, the sum belongs to the community, and she asked for an order on the prothonotary to pay her one half of the said sum of $3,000.00, viz., $1,500.00.

The respondent's claim to the $1,500 having been maintained by the courts below the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Trenholme for respondent moved to quash the appeal on the ground that the amount claimed and in controversy between the parties was only half of the $3,000 deposited in court.

Laflamme Q.C. contra. The real question is a policy of $3,000, and the court will have to adjudicate upon the whole amount deposited, viz., $3,000. If the company

[Page 392]

had paid the $1,500 to the wife, we would have claimed the $3000.

[TASCHEREAU J.—The contestation in this case is only as to wife's share, and that is under the $2000 necessary to give jurisdiction.]

Trenholme.—The respondent does not dispute the heirs' claim to the $1500 and I cannot see how the case can be brought under section 29 of R. S. C. ch.135.

STRONG J.—In this case the opinion of the majority of the court is that we have no jurisdiction. We need not rest our decision upon Allan v. Pratt ([1]), for it is manifest that the amount in dispute here is $1,500 only. The only doubt is as to costs. The application to quash should have been made at an earlier date to save the cost of printing.

FOURNIER J.-I do not dissent, but there is much to be said in favor of the view taken by Sir A. A. Dorion when he made the order allowing the appeal.

Appeal quashed with costs.

Solicitors for appellants: Laflamme, Madore & Cross.

Solicitors for respondent: Trenholme, Taylor & Buchan.