Supreme Court of Canada
Rouleau v. Pouliot (1905) 36 SCR 26
Date: 1905-03-20
Samuel Rouleau (Plaintiff)
Appellant
And
Trefflé Pouliot and Others (Defendants)
Respondents
1905: March 16; 1905: March 20
Present:—Sedgewick, Girouard, Davies, Nesbitt and Idington JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Future rights—Toll bridge—Exclusive limits—Infringement of privilege—Matter in controversy.
The plaintiff's action was for $1,000 for damages for infringement of his toll bridge privileges, in virtue of the Act, 58 Geo. III. ch. 20 (L.C.), by the construction of another bridge within the limit reserved, and for the demolition of the bridge, etc. The judgment appealed from dismissed the action. On a motion to quash the appeal;
Held, that the matter in controversy affected future rights and, consequently, an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court of Canada. Galarneau v. Guilbault (10 Can. S.C.R. 579) and Chamberland v. Fortier (23 Can. S.C.R. 371) followed.
MOTION to quash an appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Quebec, which dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that he was owner of a toll-bridge over the River Etchemin, to which there was a privilege attached, under the Act, 58 Geo. III. ch. 20, (L.C.), forbidding the erection of any other bridge across that river within certain limits; that the defendants had infringed his rights and caused him damages by erecting a bridge across the river within the privileged limits, and he claimed $1,000 for damages, demolition of the newly constructed bridge, and other appropriate relief. The judgments of the courts below held that the new bridge had not been erected within the reserved limits and dismissed the action.
[Page 27]
The plaintiff asserts the present appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Belcourt K.C. for the motion.
Stuart K.C. contra.
The judgment of the court was delivered by:
GIROUARD J.—The decisions of this court in Chamberland v. Fortier and especially in Galarneau v. Guilbault dispose of this motion to quash. Future rights are clearly at stake.
The motion to quash is rejected with costs.
Motion dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellants: Belleau, Belleau & Belleau.
Solicitors for the respondents: Drouin, Pelletier & Baillargeon.
Email this Content