La Ville de Chateauguay v. Vigneault

La Ville de Chateauguay v. Vigneault
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1925-10-20
Report
[1926] SCR 3
Judges
Anglin, Francis Alexander; Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
La Ville de Chateauguay v. Vigneault, [1926] S.C.R. 3
Date: 1925-10-20
La Ville De Chateauguay (Defendant) Appellant;
and
Dame Marie Vigneault (Plaintiff) Respondent.
1925: October 6; 1925: October 20.
Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcom’be and’ Rintfet JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Appeal—Leave to appeal—Matter in controversy—Debentures over $2,000—Action for interest coupons—Future rights—Amount exceeding $1,000—Supreme Court Act, 10-11 Geo. V, c. 32, s. 41.
MOTION for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of King’s Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec[1], affirming the judgment of the Superior Court and maintaining the respondent’s action for $180.
The respondent brought an action against the appellant for the recovery of the sum of $180, representing the value of six interest coupons due on two debentures of $1,000 each issued by the appellant.
The appellant moved for special leave to appeal on the ground that, although the amount claimed by the action was only $180, the interest of the parties to the action and the amount in controversy was far in excess of this amount and comprised implicitly the capital amount of the two debentures and the interest coupons from March, 1923, to September, 1955; and that accordingly, “the matter in controversy on the appeal” involved “matters by which rights in future of the parties may be affected” and also consequentially an amount exceeding $1,000.
The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel and reserving judgment, dismissed the motion with costs, the court being of opinion that the circumstances of the case did not justify the granting of special leave to appeal.
Motion dismissed with costs.
Lafleur K.C. and Desbois K.C. for motion.
Perrault K.C. contra.
[1] [1925] Q.E. 39 K.B. 136.