. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. ''" * / Ml : #â ft" 284 â¢â s^.'T^'" MONTREAL LAW BEPOBTS. ^UDtirfmmt ofthe rent. The distinction however is very clear. MeBiwi By^he present action the respondent does not seek the cancellation ofthe lease by reason ofthe non-payment of $46 ; if thiat wiere so, to abandon the demand of $46 would be to abandon the action, but on the contrary he asks for the possession of the leased premises because the lease is already terminated-^';'^''^i|< The jurisdiction of the Court
. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. ''" * / Ml : #â ft" 284 â¢â s^.'T^'" MONTREAL LAW BEPOBTS. ^UDtirfmmt ofthe rent. The distinction however is very clear. MeBiwi By^he present action the respondent does not seek the cancellation ofthe lease by reason ofthe non-payment of $46 ; if thiat wiere so, to abandon the demand of $46 would be to abandon the action, but on the contrary he asks for the possession of the leased premises because the lease is already terminated-^';'^''^i|< The jurisdiction of the Court is fixed by the sum or yalue of the thing in controversy between the parties; so that, wheD the rescission of a lease is asked for by reason of rent unpaid or of damages sufiTered, the amount alleged always represents the interest of the party asking for the rescission and represents also the sum in dispute, and the jurisdiction ofthe Court is rightly determined by thai^toonnt. But in the present case, the lease is already terminated and what we ask is not its cancel- lation but the recovery of our property, so thiat the sum alleged can in no way effect that demand, it is not the measure of our interest, and does not represent the amount in controversy, Sqch reasoning leads us to this position, that the res- pondent, having a good right of action in the Superior Court to recover possession of his premises, has by adding thereto a further claim for $46, brought his claim dovoi within the delusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Quod est absurdum. This is also well illustrated by the appellants' plea to the merits in which they claim to have purchased the property in â question, so that if their pretension were maintained the title to an immovable property valued at |8,000 would be decided without appeal by the Circuit Court. Another pretension urged by counsel for the, first time in appeal, was that the respondent having joined a claim for |46 damages to his action for p
Size: 1275px × 1960px
Photo credit: © The Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., books, booksubjectdroit, booksubjectjurisprudence, booksubjectlaw
