Paulson v. Beaman et al.

Paulson v. Beaman et al.

The court held that (1) the plan required by s.37 of the Mineral Act need not be based on an actual prior survey performed by the Provincial Land Surveyor who signs it; (2) filing the plan and affidavit is not a condition precedent to the adverse claimant's right to commence the adverse action; and (3) the absence of a date in the jurat of the affidavit is not a fatal defect and is cured by the Oaths Act and Rule 415. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judgment below reversed (dissent by Taschereau J.).

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 655
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Harvey M. Paulson; Respondent/defendant: James Beaman and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (court of appeal) reversed; matter remitted to trial judge for completion of trial
Legal Topics
Adverse Claim, Statutory Interpretation, Form and Sufficiency of Plan and Affidavit, Condition Precedent, Jurat Formalities, Survey Requirements
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Claim Statutory Interpretation Form and Sufficiency of Plan and Affidavit Condition Precedent Jurat Formalities +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvey M. Paulson

Appellant/plaintiff

James Beaman and Others

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plan filed under s.37 of the Mineral Act must be based on an actual prior survey by the Provincial Land Surveyor who signs it
  2. 2 Whether filing the plan and affidavit under s.37 is a condition precedent to the adverse claimant's right to bring an adverse action
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a date in the jurat of the affidavit is a fatal defect

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that (1) the plan required by s.37 of the Mineral Act need not be based on an actual prior survey performed by the Provincial Land Surveyor who signs it; (2) filing the plan and affidavit is not a condition precedent to the adverse claimant's right to commence the adverse action; and (3) the absence of a date in the jurat of the affidavit is not a fatal defect and is cured by the Oaths Act and Rule 415. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judgment below reversed (dissent by Taschereau J.).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (court of appeal) reversed; matter remitted to trial judge for completion of trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Case remitted to the trial judge to complete the trial of the adverse action