. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. ^ci::aV 15=5. •i v» V *..- i^'. 280 M0NTR1BAL LAW RKPOHtB. Second—That taking the plaintiff's action altogether, it does not seem to be correct to say that the relation of lessor and lessesi^did not exist bet wen the parties after the first of May, 1889. Such a relation is established either by express contract or tacitly. ' What other explanation can be given of the demand of respondent against appellants for the sum of |46, as th^ price and value of the use and occupation of th^ premises for the fou
. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. ^ci::aV 15=5. •i v» V *..- i^'. 280 M0NTR1BAL LAW RKPOHtB. Second—That taking the plaintiff's action altogether, it does not seem to be correct to say that the relation of lessor and lessesi^did not exist bet wen the parties after the first of May, 1889. Such a relation is established either by express contract or tacitly. ' What other explanation can be given of the demand of respondent against appellants for the sum of |46, as th^ price and value of the use and occupation of th^ premises for the four months of May, June, July and August, than that it constituted an acquiescence on the part of res- pondent that the occupation of appellants during that period should have the character of an occupation as a tenant? * Whatever interpretation can be put upon this allega- tion, one thing is certain, that it limits and establishes tUe: interest of the plaintiff at the time action was brought, and 8|;;as ^mattqr of necessity, governs the jurisdiction. Wtf'would call attention to the following cases : v .Before the 25 Victoria little difficulty could arise in this matter as it was clearly and specially enacted that in suits between^ lessors a^d lessees the anhual value or- rental of the property was to govern the jurisdiction, no ™a*t^yhat might-be the amount of money claimed but thWblso was held to govern only such suits as were taken uiider the lessor and lessees Act. So, in the case of Fisher v. Vachon,4i %. C. J. 189, action was taken for fVOO upon a lease for |200. A declinatory exception was filed, claiming that the action ought to have been in the Circuit Court. Mr. Justice Monk decided that it was properly brought in the Superior Court, because the^dommon law remedy h^ been chosen and not the femldy provided by the lessor and lessees Act. So, in a case of Sarbier x. Vernier, 6 L. C. J. 44, where $250 was demanded in an action in the Circuit Court upon a proceeding b
Size: 1342px × 1861px
Photo credit: © The Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., books, booksubjectdroit, booksubjectjurisprudence, booksubjectlaw
