Parks v. Cahoon

Parks v. Cahoon

Because the grantee lacked clear documentary title and did not manifest or exercise possession of the Lunenburg parcel, the father (Benjamin Cahoon) retained exclusive actual possession of the Lunenburg land; that uninterrupted possession for over twenty years vested title by prescription in the respondent, so the appellant's claim founded on the unexercised conveyances failed.

Citation
(1894) 23 SCR 92
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Allan Parks; Respondent / Plaintiff: Waity Cahoon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 1894
Procedural Posture
Appeal Title to Land (trespass) / Final Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Disseisin, Title to Land, Prescription, Statute of Limitations, Paper Title, Joint Possession
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort Adverse Possession Disseisin Title to Land Prescription Statute of Limitations Paper Title +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Parks

Appellant / Defendant

Waity Cahoon

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal Title to Land (trespass) / Final Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant (as guardian of grantee's heirs) could rely on the 1866 documentary conveyance to establish possession and defeat the respondent's claim to title by adverse possession to the Lunenburg portion
  2. 2 Whether an unexercised/documentary title recorded only in another county (Queen's) interrupted or converted the grantor's actual possession into possession held under the grantee (constructive possession)
  3. 3 Whether continuous exclusive possession by the occupant for the statutory period gave title by prescription despite paper deeds in favour of others

Ratio Decidendi

Because the grantee lacked clear documentary title and did not manifest or exercise possession of the Lunenburg parcel, the father (Benjamin Cahoon) retained exclusive actual possession of the Lunenburg land; that uninterrupted possession for over twenty years vested title by prescription in the respondent, so the appellant's claim founded on the unexercised conveyances failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiff below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirming trial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.