regular course of the ordinary procedure of the Court may be reviewed and
appealed from: Held, also, that if the merits of the case were properly
before the Court, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed: Held,
per Gwynne and Patterson, JJ., that the case was appealable, and, on the
merits, it appearing from the evidence that the servants of the company
liad done everything required by the statute to give notice of the approach
of the train, the appeal should be allowed and a judgment of nonsuit en-
tered. 31 X.B.R. 318, affirmed.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fleming (1893), 22 Can. S.C.R. 33.
[Applied in Quebec & Lake St. John Ry. Co. v. Girard, 15 Que. K.B. 56 :
followed in Champaigne v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 9 O.L.R. 589; referred to
in Voigt v. Groves, 12 B.C.R. 180.]
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT DISPUTE OF TITLE UNDER LEASE RULING OF MAS-
Where a master, on a reference under the Vendor and Purchaser Act to
settle the title under a written agreement for a lease, ruled that evidence
might be given to shew what covenants the lease should contain, an appeal
does not lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment affirming such ruling,
it not being a final judgment and the case not coming within the provisions
of s. 24 (e) of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act relating to pro-
ceedings in equity, Gwynne, J., dissenting.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Toronto, 30 Can. S.C.R. 337.
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL.
Where the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada to entertain an
appeal was in doubt, but it was considered that the appeal should be dis-
missed on the merits, the Court heard and decided the appeal accordingly.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. The King, 38 Can. S.C.R. 137.
RIGHT TO APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.
The plaintiff claimed $1,500 damages for delay in delivery of iron. The
defendants, besides denying the charge of nondelivery in due time, coun-
terclaimed for $1,223 demurrage. At the trial judgment was given for
plaintiff for $1,000 and the counterclaim was dismissed. Upon appeal to
the Court of Appeal, the judgment was varied by limiting the damages to
the fall in the price of iron during a considerably shorter time than that
fixed in the Court below, the amount to be ascertained on a reference.
Upon a motion by the defendants to allow a bond given by them as secur-
ity upon an appeal by them to the Supreme Court of Canada, the plaintiff's
counsel stated that the plaintiff's claim on the reference would be less than
$1,000, and contended that no appeal lay: Held, however, that as the
plaintiff claimed $1,500 and was not limited by the judgment of the Court
of Appeal to any particular sum, the matter in controversy on the appeal
exceeded the sum of $1.000, so that the appeal lay: Held, also, that upon
the counterclaim the sum of $1.223 wa* involved, and that an appeal lay
in respect thereof. The Court of Appeal declined to grant, ex eautela. leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the ease not being one in which
leave, if it were necessary, ought to he granted.
Frankel v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 3 O.L.R. 703 (CJL).
TO SlTREME COURT OF CANADA - AMOUNT OF CONTROV7KST.
A judgment for 1.000 damages with interest from a date before action
brought i> appealable under 60-61 Viet. (Can.) e. 34. s. 1 (ft.
Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Co. T. McXevin, 32 Can. S.C.R.
PRIVY COUNCIL MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDING 4.000.
On a motion by the plaictijfs for the allowance of the security on an ap-
peal from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council, in an action hi '
by the corporation of a city against two eW-tric light companies to have
it declared that they had forfeited their rights under certain agreement*
with the city, under which they held their franchises, on the grand that
they had amalgamated contrary to the terms of such agreements, which
action had been dismissed: Held I Meredith. J.A.. dissenting i . that the
whole matter in controversy at the trial (being the destruction, not the
acquisition of the defendants" franchise* was whether the companies hal
forfeited their right by amalgamation, and this clearly did not come within
the last branch of s. 1 of R.S.O. l-St'7. c. 43. and that there was nothing
before the Court to shew that such matter was of value to the plaintiff* of
more than $4.000. or of any sum or value capable of being ascertained or
defined. Per Meredith. J.A.: The matter in controversy much exceeded
4.000. and if controverted leave should be given to the appellants to
prove their value.
Toronto v. Toronto Elec. Light Co.. 11 O-L.R. 310 (C.A.).
COMPENSATION ACT. B.C. ARBITRATOR.
Xo appeal lies from the decision of an arbitrator appointed by a Supreme
Court Judge under clause 2 of the second schedule to the Workmen's Com-
pensation Act, 1902. Lee v. Crow's Xest Pas* Coal Co- 11 B.C.R. 323.
COURT OF REVIEW JURISDICTION OF REVIEW OF MERITS OF CASE RESERVED.
The Court of Review has absolute and unrestricted power to decide the
merits of a cause reserved for its consideration, without regard to the
\frdiet of the jury (Art. 496 C.C.P.).
Ferguson v. Grand Trunk Ry. COL, 2 Can. Ry. C*s. 420. 20 Que. S. C.
[Referred to in Miller v. Grand Trunk Ry- Co., 21 Que. S.C. 350. 2
Can. Ry. Cas. 449. 34 Can. S.CJL 70.]
MISDIRECTION CORRECTION AFTER SPECIFIC OBJECTION PRACTICE,
Where, on a specific objection to his charge, the trial Judge recalled the
jury and directed them as requested, the contention that the directions
thus given were erroneous should not be entertained on an appeal.
Can. Pac. B. Co. T. Hansen. 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 441. 40 Can. S.C.R. 194.
RIGHT TO ADDrno*AL RELIEF INJUNCTION CHOICE or REMEDIES.
Quaere per Stuart. J.: Whether or not a dissatisfied litigant who has
the right to appeal must appeal and is not at liberty to bring the same
matter before the Court in a different wav. but: HeW, that when the right
of appeal was doubtful and the plaintiff had given notice of appeal, and
at the same time brought an action for injunction, in which action the
validity of the order appealed from would have to be inquired into, the
matter was properly before the Court: Held, also, that the Court will not
be bound by agreements of counsel in a stated case as to the effect upon
the rights of parties to the action by determination of certain questions
submitted in certain specified ways.
Marsan v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 341, Alta.
[Followed in Girouard v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 354,
2 Alta. L.R. 54; considered in Sanders v. Edmonton Dunvcgan & B. C.
Ry. Co. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 142.]
MATTERS APPEALABLE QUESTION NOT RAISED ix LOWER COURT ESTOPPEL.
Where a matter relied upon to support the action was not urged at the
trial nor asserted on an appeal to the Provincial Court it is too late to
put it forward for the first time on an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Laidlaw &. Laurie v. Crow's Xest Southern Ry. Co., 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 32,
42 Can. S.C.R. 355.
[Judgment appealed from, 14 B.C.R. 169, 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 27, affirmed,
Idington, J., dissenting.]
REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT.
Upon an appeal from the findings of a Judge who has tried a case with-
out a jury, the Court appealed to does not and cannot abdicate its right
and its duty to consider the evidence. And if it appear from the reasons
given by the trial Judge that he has misapprehended the effect of the evi-
dence of failed to consider a material part of it, and the evidence which
has been believed by him, when fairly read and considered as a whole,
leads the Appellate Court to a clear conclusion that the findings of the
trial Judge are erroneous, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to re-
verse the findings.
Beal v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 37, 19 O.L.R. 502.
[Approved in Gordon v. Goodwin, 20 (XL.R. 327; Ryan v. Mclntosh,
20 O.L.R. 31.]
REVIEW OF FACTS ON APPEAL.
Under the British Columbia Railway Act, R.S.B.C. 1911, c. 194, s. 68,
upon an appeal from the award of arbitrators fixing damages under eminent
domain proceedings, the Court will not supersede the arbitrators but will
review the award as it would review the judgment of a subordinate Court
in a case of original jurisdiction, considering the award on its merits, both
as to the facts and the law. [Atlantic and Xorth-West Ry. Co. v. Wood,
, A.C. 257, 64 L.J.P.C. 116, followed, under which a similar ques-
tion under subs. 2 of s. 161 of the Railway Act, 1888, being s. 168 of 3
Kdw. VII. (D) c. 58, was decided.]
Canadian Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dominion Glazed Cement Pipe Co.,
7 D.L.R. 174, 22 W.L.R. 335, 14* Can. Ry. Cas. 265.
REVIEW OF FACTS VERDICT.
On appeal to the appellate division of the Ontario Supreme Court from
the judgment of a trial Court, based upon the findings of a jury in favour
of the plaintiff, who was the sole witness for himself, though the Appel-
late Court may doubt the plaintiff's story or disbelieve him, they have no
right to substitute their own opinion of the facts for that of the jury,
but if there is some evidence to support the finding of the jury, it cannot
be disturbed. (Per Garrow. JJL
Stevens v. Can. Pae, Ry. Co., 10 D.LJL 88, 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 28.
MOTION TO AFTIKVl JURISDICTION FlXALITY OF JCDGMEXT.
A preliminary motion to affirm the jurisdiction on an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada will be dismissed and the parties left to their
rights on the hearing, if the facts shewn on the preliminary motion are
insufficient to enable the Court to finally determine whether the judgment
or order appealed from was final and so subject to appeal or was inter-
locutory only and, therefore, not subject to appeal. [Clarke v. Goodall.
44 Can. S.C.R. 2$4; Crown Life v. Skinner. 44 Can. S.C.R. 616. and Mc-
Donald T. Belcher.  A.C. 429, specially referred to.]
Windsor. Essex 4 Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co. v. Xelles. 1 D.L.R. 39.
[Referred to in 2 DJL.R. 732: Yanbnskirk T. McDermott. 5 D.L.R. 5,
46 X.SJL 98.]
LJMITATIOX OF TIME OF APPEAL
The limitation of sixty days for appealing to the Supreme Court of
Canada under s. 69 of the Supreme Court Act. RJ5.C. 1906. c. 139. may.
under & 71 of that Act, be extended by the Court appealed from, but not
by the Supreme Court of Canada. [Windsor. Essex 4 L.S. Rapid Ry. Co.
v. Xelles (1912*. 1 D.L.R. 156. affirmed on this point.]
Windsor. Essex 4 Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co. v. Xelles. 1 D.L.R. 309.
[Referred to in 2 DJLR. 732: Yanlmskirk v McDermott. 5 DJLR. 5. 46
NOTICE OF APPEAL
An appeal from the judgment of the provincial Court of la?t resort af-
firming the judgment given at the trial of the action disposing of the right-
of the parties and directing a reference to determine the amount of dam-
ages, is not an appeal from "a judgment upon a motion to enter a verdict
or nonsuit upon a point reserved at the trial" within the terms of s. 70 of
the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1906. c. 139. so as to require a notice of
appeal within twenty days after the decision of the Court of Appeal of the
Windsor. Essex 4 Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co. v. Xelles. 1 D.L.R. 156.
[Referred to in 1 D.L.R. 309, 2 D.L.R." 732: Vanbnskirk T. McDermott.
5 D.L.R. 5. 46 X.S.R. ML]
RIGHT TO APPEAL FTXAUTT OF JUDGMENT.
Where the judgment sought to be appealed from is that of the highest
provincial Court of final resort upon an appeal from a judgment which
varied the report of a Referee or Master upon an appeal from his report
in a reference which had been directed at the trial to assess the damages
in the action, such judgment of the highest provincial Court is not a final
judgment appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada, but an appeal lies
from the judgment on further directions afterwards given upon the varied
report. [Clarke v. Goodall (1911 1. 44 Can. S.C.R. 284. followed.]
Windsor. Essex and Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co. v. Xelles. 1 D.L.R. 156.
[Referred to in 1 D.L.R. 309. 2 D.L.R. 732: Vanbuskirk v. McDermott.
5 D.LJL 5. 46 X.S.R. 98.]
EXTEXSIOJC OF TIME FOR APPEALING.
Where a judgment of the Court of Appeal has given to the plaintiff in
an action for specific performance of an agreement to deliver stock and
bonds his choice between specific performance and a reference as to dam-
ages, and the defendant has not appealed from such judgment to the Su-
preme Court of Canada, being under the impression that no appeal would
lie, and the plaintiff has elected to take a reference, and appeals have
been taken from the Referee's report, the Court of Appeal should not, at
the instance of the defendant, extend the time for appealing to the Supreme
Court of Canada from its original judgment.
Nelles v. Hesseltine; \Yindsor, Essex & L.S. Rapid Ry. Co. v. Nelles (No.
4), 6 D.L.R. 541, 27 O.L.R. 97.
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
A judgment of a provincial Court of last resort varying the judgment
given on the trial of an action for damages for alleged breach of contract,
and affirming the plaintiff's right of recovery with certain limitations as to
damages as to which a reference was directed, is not a "final judgment"
from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada, within the
statutory definition of that term contained in s. 2 of the Supreme Court
Act, R.S.C. 1906, c. 139, as a judgment order or decision "whereby the ac-
tion is finally determined and concluded." [Clarke v. Goodall, 44 Can.
S.C.R. 284, and Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Skinner, 44 Can. S.C.R. 616,
specially referred to.]
Nelles v. Hesseltine; Windsor, Essex & L.S. Rapid Ry. Co. v. Nelles
(Xo. 2), 2 D.L.R. 732, 3 O.W.N. 862.
[Referred to in Vanbuskirk v. McDermott, 5 D.L.R, 5, 46 N.S.R. 98.]
LFAVE TO APPEAL FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
S. 71 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1906, c. 139, providing that the
Court proposed to be appealed from, or any Judge thereof, may, under
special circumstances, allow an appeal although the same is not brought
within the time prescribed by the Act, applies only to judgments other-
wise appealable, and does not confer power to grant leave to appeal from
a judgment which is interlocutory only or which is not a "final judgment"
within the definition of that statute. [Vaughan v. Richardson, 17 Can.
S.C.R. 703, and News Printing Co. v. Macrae, 26 Can. S.C.R. 691, specially
Nelles v. Hesseltine; Windsor, Essex & L.S. Rapid Ry. Co. v. Nelles,
2 D.L.R. 732, 3 O.W.N. 862.
[Referred to in Vanbuskirk v. McDermott, 5 D.L.R. 5, 46 N.S.R. 98.]
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUFFICIENCY OF.
A notice of appeal is insufficient where the grounds stated therein
are: (1) That the judgment appealed from is against the law, evidence,
and the weight of evidence; (2) that the trial Judge erroneously admitted
and excluded evidence; and (3) that the judgment was erroneous "upon
such other grounds as may appear in the pleadings and proceedings, such
alleged grounds being too indefinite." (Per Beck, J.)
Alfred v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 5 D.L.R. 154, 20 W.L.R. 111.
[Affirmed in 5 D.L.R. 471; referred to in Alfred v. G.T.P. (No. 2), 6
AMENDMENTS ON APPEAL.
A question not going to the merits of a case and not raised by the
notice of appeal, cannot be brought to the attention of the Court by a
supplementary or "explanatory" notice of appeal. (Per Beck, J.)
Alfred v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 5 D.L.R. lf>4, 20 W.L.R. 111.
[Affirmed in 5 D.L.R. 471; referred to in Alfred v. G.T.P. (No. 2), 6
STAY OF FBOCEEDOCGS PEXDLXG APPEAL.
Where the plaintiffs in an action hare succeeded at the trial and in the
provincial Appellate Court, and the defendants have elected to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada, in which also they have been unsuccessful,
and. while the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction over the case, a Judge
of that Court has refused a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the
Privy Council, and it appears that there has not been any miscarriage of
justice through accident, mistake or otherwise, but that every question in
dispute has been fully considered, and that the case involves merely a ques-
tion of fact and nothing: of public importance, and that the Privy Council
is likely to refuse leave to appeal, a Judge of the provincial Court of first
instance should not grant a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the
Privy Council [Alfred v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.. 5 D.L.R. IS*. and
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Alfred. 5 D.LJL 471. specially referred
Alfred v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 6 D.L.R. 147. 22 WJL^R. 65.
IXSCRXPTIOX rx LAW REVIEW OF FACTS.
By an inscription in law. defendant cannot raise questions of facts, nor
deny the facts alleged, but the same must be presumed to toe true. In the
present case the evidence alone of the divers circumstances and facts alleged
in plaintiff's declaration will shew whether the responsibility and com-
pensation for the accident in question in this cause, are to be determined
by the Workmen's Act. 9 Edw. VII. c. 66. or by the common law, and under
such circumstances the Court will order -preuve avant faire droit" on
defendant's inscription in law.
Biggs v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. IS Rev. de Jnr. 383.
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Leave to appeal to a Divisional Court from order of Judge in Chambers
Swaisland v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co^, 2 D.LR. S98 ? 3 O.W.X. 1083.
LEAVE TO APPEAL. ORDEB GRAXTTXG XEW THAI.
Where a party appeals to a Divisional Court from a judgment after
trial with a jury, and contends that he is entitled to judgment upon the
findings of the jury, but does not ask for a new trial, and the Divisional
Court nevertheless grants a new trial without disposing of the motion for
judgment, it is a proper case for granting leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeal, but such leave should be upon the terms that the party appealing
shall abandon his right to a new trial.
Dart T. Toronto Ry. Co., 3 D.L.R. 776. 3 O.W.X. 1202.
POWER TO REVIEW MERITS OF CASE.
Although an appellate Court may think that the preponderance of testi-
mony is in favour of the unsuccessful party in an action tried with a jury.
it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the jury, or interfere with the
jury's conclusions except upon some error or other substantial ground.
Zufelt T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 7 D.L.R. 81. 4 O.W.X. 39.
IXADVERTEXCE OF SOLICITOR - FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL-
Helson v. Morrisey. Fernie 4 Michel R. Co. (Xo. 2), 7 D.LJL 822.
REVIEW OF FACTS ox xoxsrrr.
On an appeal from a judgment of a County Court (Man.i. ordering a
nonsuit, the Manitoba Court of Appeal may draw its own conclusions from
plaintiff's evidence brought out at the trial, where there are no conflicting
statements nor any contradictory evidence.
Stitt v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 333, 23 Man. L.R. 43,
10 D.L.R. 544.
COSTS ONLY INVOLVED REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN STATUTORY RIGHT TO COSTS
WRONG ORDER OF COURT BELOW DUTY OF COURT TO REVERSE.
While the Supreme Court of Canada ordinarily refuses to entertain an
appeal which merely involves costs, where a party entitled by statute to re-
ceive his costs of certain proceedings from his opponent has been ordered
to pay that opponent's costs it is the duty of the Court to reverse such
order. [Gavin v. Kettle \ 7 alley Ry. Co., 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 379, 43 D.L.R.
Gavin v. Kettle Valley Co., 25 Can. Ry. Cas. , 47 D.L.R. 65.
CRIMINAL APPEAL PRIVY COUNCIL NUISANCE.
S. 1025 of the Criminal Code, which purports to limit the right of appeal
to the Privy Council in criminal matters, does not apply to a prosecution
by indictment for a noncriminal offence such as the class of noncriminal
nuisances referred to in Criminal Code, s. 223.
Toronto Ry. Co. v. The King. 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 183,  A.C. 630, 38
QUESTION NOT RAISED BELOW CAUSE OF ACTION.
A question not raised in the Court appealed from will not be considered
by the Supreme Court of Canada when not mentioned in the factum, and
Avhen all evidence pertaining to such question had, by consent of the par-
ties, been omitted from the appeal book.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kerr, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 2,"), 49 Can. S.C.R. 33, 14
EXPROPRIATION APPLICATION TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR PERSONA DESIGNATA
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY JURISDICTION.
A railway company served notice of expropriation of land on the owner,
offering $25,000 as compensation. It later served a copy of said notice
on S.. lessee of said land for a term of ten years. On application to a
Superior Court Judge for appointment of arbitrators S. claimed to be en-
titled to a separate notice and an independent hearing to determine his
compensation. The Judge so held and dismissed the application and his
ruling was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench. The company sought to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was dismissed. Per
Fitzpatrick, C.J., and Idington, J. : That the Judge was persona designata
to hear such applications as the one made by the company, that the case
did not therefore originate in a Superior Court and the appeal would not
lie. Can Pac. Ry. Co. v. Little Seminary of Ste. TheYese, 16 Can. S.C.R.
006; St. Hilaire v. Lambert, 42 Can. S.C.R. 264, followed. Per Davies,
Duff, Anglin, and Brodeur, JJ., that as there was nothing in the record
to shew that the amount in dispute was $2,000 or over, and no attempt
had been made to establish by affidavit that it was, the appeal failed.
Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co. v. Smith, 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 98, 50 Can.
S.C.R. 476, 22 D.L.R. 265.
B. From Orders of Railway Board.
APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL APPLICATION TO ALLOW SECURITY.
Where the sole question in two actions was as to the validity of an
order of the Railway Committee requiring the plaintiffs to build a bridge:
Held, refusing an application to allow the security upon a proposed
appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of thi Court of Appeai
that an appeal did not lie as of right under R.S.O. 1897, e, 48, s. L
Can. Pae, Ry. Co. v. Toronto, 19 OJL.R. 663.
JUDGE rx CHAVBFKS APPEAL TO FOX COCT.
Xo appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada from an order of a
judge of that Court in Chamber* granting or refusing leave to appeal
from a decision of the Board under s. 44 <3 of the Railway Act. 19O3.
Williams v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 4 Can. Ry. Cas. 30*. 36 Can! S.C.R.
[Relied on in Re Richard, 38 Can. S.CJL 398; referred to in Re Telford,
11 B.CJL 365.]
JcMSDicnox PUBLIC IMPOTAXCE.
Where the judge entertained doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Board
to make the order complained of and the questions raised were of public
importance, special leave for an appeal was granted, on terms, under the
provisions of s. 44 (3$ of The Railway Act, 1903.
Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Montreal Terminal Ry. Co. and Board of
Railway Commissioners for Canada, 4 Can. Rv. Ca& 369. 35 Can. S.C.R.
OMB rUPOSIXG TEEMS.
The Board granted an application of the James Bay Ry. Co. for leave
to carry their line under the track of the G.T. Ry. Co.. but, at the request
of the latter, imposed the condition that the masonry work of such under-
crossing should be sufficient to allow of the construction of an additional
track on the line of the G.T. Ry. Co. Xo evidence was given that the
latter company intended to lay an additional track in the near future or
at any time. The James Bay Co.. by leave of a Judge, appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada from the part of the order imposing such tenn>.
contending that the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board:
Held, that the Board had jurisdiction to impose said term-: Held, per
Sedgewick. Davies and Maclennan. J.J.. that the question before the Court
was rather one of law than of jurisdiction, and should have come up on
appeal by leave of the Board or been carried before the Governor-General-
James Bay Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co^ 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 164, 37
Can. S.C.R. 372."
JCWSDICTIOXAI. jLMorvr COSTS or FARM C*OSSIXG.
An application to have the appeal quashed on the grounds that the cost
of the establishing the crossing demanded, together with the damages
sought to be recovered by the plaintiff, would amount to less than 2,000.
and that the case did not come within the provisions of the Supreme
Court Act permitting appeals from the Province of Quebec, was dismissed.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Perrault, 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 2*3. 36 Can. S.C.K.
LJUTTATIOX OF TIME JUKISDICTIOX.
Except in the case mentioned in rule 50. there i< no limitation of the
time within which a Judge of the Supreme Court may grant leave to
appeal under a. 56 (2 of the Railway Act. 1!06. on a question of the