Lachance v. La Société de Prêts et de Placement de Québec, (1896) 26 SCR 200

Supreme Court of Canada

Lachance v. La Societe De Prets Et De Placement De Quebec, (1896) 26 SCR 200

Date: 1896-05-06

FRANÇOIS LACHANCE (CONTESTANT)

Appellant;

And

LA SOCIETE DE PRÊTS ET DE) PLACEMENTS de Q U È B E C(CLAIMANTS)

Respondent.

1896: May 5; 1896: May 6

PRESENT :—Sir Henry Strong C.J. and Taschereau, Sedgewick, Kings and Gwynne JJ.

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

Appeal-Amount in controversy—Pecuniary interest of appellant—Arts. 746 747 C, C. P.

L. having proved a claim of $920 against an insolvent estate contested a claim for which respondents had been collocated against the same estate amounting to $2,044.66. The contestation having been decided in favour of respondents L. appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held that to determine whether or not there was a sufficient amount in controversy to give jurisdiction to the Supreme Court the pecuniary interest of the appellant only could be taken into consideration, and his interest being under $2000 the appeal would not lie, although the consequence of the appellant's contestation might result in bringing back to the insolvent estate a sum of over $2,000.

MOTION to quash an appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side), sitting' at Quebec, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court in the District of Kamouraska.

The company, respondents, proved a claim for $2,788.22 against an insolvents estate based upon an obligation by the insolvents in their favour affecting certain lands by hypothec as security; the contestant held from the insolvents another hypothec upon the same lands under which they proved a claim of $920 against the estate. Upon the sale of the lands the net amount of $2044 26 was realized for distribution by the curator and he made thereupon his second

[Page 201]

report of distribution, collocating the whole of the balance in his hands to the respondents on account of priority 01 their hypothec.

The appellant contested the report alleging that the hypothecs were void and constituted no privileged claim upon the lands and claiming that the balance so ^remaining in the curators hands ought to have been distributed proportionately amongst all the creditors of the estate, whose claims altogether aggregated $10,-893.07.

The respondents joined issue and judgment was rendered by the trial judge in favour of the contestant, setting aside the collocation and ordering the curator to make another report distributing the balance for distribution in his hands irrespective of the hypothecs and treating the hypothecary creditors as chirographic claimants only. Upon appeal this judgment was reversed with costs and the report of distribution and collocation made by the curator maintained and from this decision an appeal was sought to the Supreme Court of Canada. The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the ground that the pecuniary amount of the contestant's interest was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

Turcotte on behalf of the respondents for the motion. Only the appellant's interest can be looked at to determine the amount in controversy. See Flatt v. Ferland

([1]); Kinghorn v. Larue ([2]).

Geoffrion Q.C. for the appellant contra. Under art. 742 C.C.P the appellant represents all the creditors of the insolvent estate and the amount in controversy is the value of respondent's claim of which the estate would get the benefit if the contestation succeeded.

The judgment of the court was delivered by :

[Page 202]

TASOHEREAU J. This motion must be allowed. It is the well settled jurisprudence of this court that in cases where our jurisdiction is based on the pecuniary amount in controversy it is the pecuniary interest of the party appealing that has alone to be taken into consideration. Flatt v. Ferland ([3]) Kinghorn v. Larue ([4]). See Allan v. Pratt ([5]). Here, the appellant's interest does not amount to $2,000, and consequently we have no jurisdiction. True it is that the consequence of the appellant's contestation of the respondent's collocation might result in bringing back to the insolvent's estate a sum of over $2,000, but our jurisdiction does not depend on the possible consequence of a possible judgment. Rodier v. Lapierre ([6]). Mr. Geoffrion, in answering the motion, endeavored to support the appeal on arts. 746 and 747 of the Code of Procedure. But these articles have not that effect. There is only one contestation here of the order of collocation, and we have not to determine whether the result of this motion would be different or not if there had been more than one contesting party, the united interests of whom would amount to $2000- It will be time enough to determine that point when such a case comes up. Here this appellant, having a pecuniary interest to an amount less than the appealable amount, has no right to invoke other parties rights to support his appeal. It is impossible to entertain it without overruling the jurisprudence of the court, a result which he cannot expect.

Appeal quashed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant : Pouliot & Pouliot.

Solicitor for the respondent : H. A Turcotte.