Demers v. Bank of Montreal

Demers v. Bank of Montreal

The appeal was quashed because the order refusing a jury trial was interlocutory and not a final judgment within the meaning of R.S.C. c.135 and amending acts, and therefore no appeal lay to the Supreme Court; costs were awarded.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 197
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Demers; Defendant/appellant: Bank of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal; Interlocutory Order Refusing Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Judgment, Appealability, Application for Jury Under Arts. 348 350 C.c.p., Interpretation of R.s.c. C.135 S.24
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Jury Trial Banking Law Interlocutory Judgment Appealability Application for Jury Under Arts. 348 350 C.c.p. Interpretation of R.s.c. C.135 S.24

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Demers

Plaintiff/respondent

Bank of Montreal

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal; Interlocutory Order Refusing Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory order refusing a jury trial is a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court under R.S.C. c.135
  2. 2 Whether the action was founded on a mercantile debt, promise or agreement entitling a jury

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the order refusing a jury trial was interlocutory and not a final judgment within the meaning of R.S.C. c.135 and amending acts, and therefore no appeal lay to the Supreme Court; costs were awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs.