Ball v. McCaffrey

Ball v. McCaffrey

Appellant could not challenge the Attorney-General's intervention because he abandoned that issue in the lower appellate court; on the merits the respondent was estopped by his long‑continued conduct and agreements from claiming boomage against the appellant, and the amounts claimed were compensated by the repairs and expenditures for which appellant was entitled to set‑off or to free use of the booms.

Citation
(1892) 20 SCR 319
Parties
Appellant/defendant: George Ball; Respondent/plaintiff: Francis McCaffrey; Intervenor: The Attorney-General of Quebec
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 1892
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs; appeal as to Attorney-General's intervention dismissed
Legal Topics
Acquiescence in Judgment, Renonciation Tacite, Estoppel by Conduct, Boomage Charges, Appealability of Intervenor Issues, Compensation/set Off for Repairs
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Property Law Contract Law Equity (estoppel) Civil Procedure Acquiescence in Judgment Renonciation Tacite Estoppel by Conduct +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Ball

Appellant/defendant

Francis McCaffrey

Respondent/plaintiff

The Attorney-General of Quebec

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant could appeal the Superior Court judgment on the Attorney-General's intervention after abandoning that issue in the Court of Queen's Bench
  2. 2 Whether respondent was estopped by his conduct and agreements from collecting boomage from appellant
  3. 3 Whether appellant was entitled to compensation or set-off for repairs he made to the booms

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant could not challenge the Attorney-General's intervention because he abandoned that issue in the lower appellate court; on the merits the respondent was estopped by his long‑continued conduct and agreements from claiming boomage against the appellant, and the amounts claimed were compensated by the repairs and expenditures for which appellant was entitled to set‑off or to free use of the booms.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs; appeal as to Attorney-General's intervention dismissed

Orders

  • Attorney-General's motion to dismiss the appeal as to the intervention allowed with costs
  • Appeal allowed with costs; action dismissed with costs (costs on this appeal and in Queen's Bench against respondent)