Supreme Court of Canada
Beauchemin v. Armstrong, (1904) 34 SCR 285
Date: 1904-02-25
HYACINTHE BEAUCHEMIN (DEFENDANT)
Appellant;
And
CHARLES N. ARMSTRONG (PLAINTIFF)
Respondent.
1904: Feb 16; 1904: Feb 25
PRESENT:—Sir Elzéar Taschereau C.J. and Sedgwick, Girouard, Davies Nesbitt and Killam JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Amount in controversy—Supreme Court Act s. 29, s-s. 4.
Where the Court of King's Bench affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the action but varied it by ordering the defendant to pay a portion of the costs :—
Held, that, though $2,217 was demanded by the action, the defendant had no appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada as the amount of the costs which he was ordered to pay was less than $2,000. Allan v. Pratt (13 App. Cas. 780), and Monette v. Lefebvre (16 Can. S. C. R. 387) followed.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench appeal side, affirming in part the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, which dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs.
The action was for $2,217 and was dismissed with costs by the trial court. On appeal the trial court judgment was affirmed, except as to the condemnation against the plaintiff for costs, and a portion of the costs, amounting with interest to $631, was ordered to be borne by the defendant. The plaintiff acquiesced, in the judgment of the Court of King's Bench and the present appeal was sought by the defendant.
N. K. Laflamme moved to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Perron, contra.
[Page 286]
The judgment of the court was delivered by:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. The respondent, Armstrong, brought the action to recover from the appellant, Beauchemin, a balance amounting to $2,217, claimed for the hire of a locomotive engine and two railway cars. In the Superior Court, the action was dismissed with costs. On appeal the Superior Court judgment was in part affirmed by the court below, but the appeal was allowed as to costs and the present appellant was condemned to bear a portion of the costs incurred in the trial court. The amount of these costs and interest is $631.
The respondent, Armstrong acquiesced in the judgment dismissing his action, but Beauchemin now attempts to assert an appeal from that portion of the judgment in the court below which condemned him to pay $631 of the costs although it had affirmed the dismissal of the action against him.
This is not a case where the amount demanded originally governs as to the jurisdictional pecuniary limitation under subsection 4 of section 29 of the Supreme Court Act, but it is a case falling within the decision of the Privy Council in Allan v. Pratt () which was followed by this court in the case of Monette v. Lefebvre ().
The interest of the party appealing is for a sum less than $2,000 and, therefore, the appeal must be quashed.
Appeal quashed with costs,
Solicitors for the appellant : Archer & Perron.
Solicitor for the respondent : N. K. Laflamme.
Email this Content