Davis v. Roy

Davis v. Roy
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1903-05-06
Report
(1903) 33 SCR 345
Judges
Davies, Louis Henry; Girouard, Désiré; Mills, Davis; Sedgewick, Robert; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Davis v. Roy, (1903) 33 SCR 345
Date: 1881-06-10
MICHAEL PATRICK DAVIS (DEFENDANT)
Appellant;
And
MARIE ROY ET VIR (PLAINTIFFS)
Respondent.
1903: May 5; 1903: May 6
PRESENT :—Sir Elzéar Taschereau C J. and Sedgewick, Girouard, Davis and Mills JJ
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT SITTING IN REVIEW, AT QUEBEC.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Matter in controversy—Right of appeal—Personal condémnation—Action possessoire.
In a possessory action with conclusions for $200 damages, the defendant admitted plaintiff's title and claimed the right of occupying the premises as her tenant. The judgment appealed from affirmed the trial court judgment, dismissing the possessory conclusions and adjudging $200 for rent of the premises in question.
Held, that the defendant had no right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
MOTION to quash an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Review, at Quebec, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Quebec, on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Belcourt K.C. for the motion
Alex. Taschereau contra.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. This case originated in a possessory action by the respondent against the appellant with conclusions for $200 damages. To this action the appellant pleaded that it was as the respondent's tenant that he occupied the premises in question.
The judgment of the Superior Court, affirmed in review, maintains the appellant's plea and dismisses the respondent's possessory conclusions but condemns the appellant to pay the respondent two hundred dollars for the rent of the premises from the 25th of October, 1900, to the 9th of February, 1901.
The appellant, under these circumstances, has clearly no right to appeal from that judgment. The Court maintained the appellant's contention that he was the respondent's tenant and dismissed the principal conclusions of the action, but condemned him to pay rent, and he now claims the right to appeal from a mere personal condemnation for $200, the amount of the rent. His contention is untenable.
Motion to quash allowed with costs and appeal quashed with costs.
Appeal quashed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Fitzpatrick, Parent, Taschereau, Roy & Cannon.
Solicitors for the respondents : Drouin, Pelletier & Baillargeon.