Shaw v. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Shaw v. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company

The appeal was quashed because the judgment allowing the demurrer to the replication did not dispose of the whole or any part of the action or defence and therefore was not a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada; accordingly the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Citation
(1892) 16 SCR 703
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Charles A. E. Shaw; Respondent (defendant): The Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1889
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba; Appeal From Judgment Allowing Demurrer to Replication
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Judgments, Demurrer to Replication, Replication Vs. Plea (contract V. Tort), Limitation of Liability Under Special Contract, Statutory Exception for Negligence (consolidated Railway Act 1879 S.25(4))
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Contract Law Tort Law Transport Law Appealability of Interlocutory Judgments Demurrer to Replication Replication Vs. Plea (contract V. Tort) +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles A. E. Shaw

Appellant (plaintiff)

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba; Appeal From Judgment Allowing Demurrer to Replication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a provincial court judgment allowing a demurrer to a replication to one of several pleas is a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's replication alleging negligence under Consolidated Railway Act 1879 s.25(4) was a permissible traverse of a special contract limiting liability
  3. 3 Whether the replication was a departure from the declaration by converting a contract claim into a tort claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the judgment allowing the demurrer to the replication did not dispose of the whole or any part of the action or defence and therefore was not a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada; accordingly the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs.