VOL. XVII.] , EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. ~ ` 155 ON APPEAL FROM THE TORONTO ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. 191'7 Dec. 1. FRED JOHNSON, • (PLAINTIFF) APPELLANT, AND ADAM BROWN MAcKAY, 4 RESPONDENT, v. THE STEAMSHIP "CHARLES S. NEFF" (No. 1.) ' Shipping Admiralty law—Appeal—Jurisdiction—Leave of Court. The Exchequer Court, sittin g in appeal, cannot entertain an appeal from an interlocutory decree without leave havin g previously been obtained from either the local Judge in Admiralty or from the Judg e of the'Exchequer Court, as required by sec. 20 'of the Admiralty Act (R.S.C. 1906, c. 141). APPEAL from the Toronto Admiralty District. .The appeal came on for hearing before the Honourable Mr. Justice Audette at Ottawa, Decémber 1st, 1917. J. A. H. Cameron, K.C., for Johnson. Langs, for MacKay. M. J. O'Reilly and Scott, for the Ship.
156 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVII. 1917 At the conclusion of the argument the following JOHNSON V. judgment was delivered. , S.S. "CHARLES S. NEFF." AUDETTE, J. (December 1, 1917) Reasons for Judgment. I do not see that there will be anything gained by my taking this case under advisement. The matter is so clearly before me, and the question that I will bave now to decide is succinctly boiled down to one as to whether or not under sec. 20 of the Admiralty Act (1), this court, sitting in appeal from a lôcal Judge in Admiralty, can be seized of an appeal from an interlocutory decree without leave having previously been obtained from either the local Judge in Admiralty or from the Judge of this Court. This is a statutory enactment whereby I am bound, and failing to have such leave this court is not seized' with the proper jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Moreover, under the jurisprudence of this court, the expression jurisprudence taken as used in the Province of Quebec, I have to follow the decision of • my colleague, who has already passed upon a similar subject in the case of 251 Bars of Silver v. Canadian Salvage Association (2), wherein he decides that when a mode of appeal is prescribed by statute, the same must be followed in its entirety, citing in support of such decision Brown on Jurisdiction, wherein it is stated : "The mode of appeal must fol-"low the statute, and when the statute requires that "the appeal shall be taken in a specified manner, it "must be followed as to time, manner, and the ful-"filing of all the statutory directions." See also Supervisors v. Kennicott (3). (1) R.S.C. 190G, c. 141. (2) 15 Can. Ex. 367. (3) 94 U.S. 498.
VOL. XVII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. Following this decision and finding myself bound by the statute, I dismiss. the appeal with costs. Solicitor for plaintiff: J. A. H. Cameron. Solicitors for MacKay: Langs & Binkley. Solicitor for Ship "Charles S. Neff": O'Reilly. . 157 1917 T0HNsoN v. S. S. "CHARLES . S. NESS: " Appeal dismissed. / Ee..on for Jndirment. M. J.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.