McGoey v. Leamy

McGoey v. Leamy

The agreement of November 1889 was a binding contract between the neighbours to accept the third party's on‑the‑ground determination of the boundary; it was not a submission to arbitration requiring the formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore the surveyor Farley's proces‑verbal and plan fixed the boundary between the properties and the respondent was bound to accept it; the appeal is allowed and the Superior Court judgment restored.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 545
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: James McGoey; Respondent / Defendant: Sarah E. Leamy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 1897
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (property Boundary Dispute) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) Following Judgment of Superior Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Superior Court restored and decision of Court of Queen's Bench reversed.
Legal Topics
Boundary (bornage), Submission to Third Party Decision, Formalities for Arbitration Awards, Possession and Title
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Real Property Title Boundary (bornage) Submission to Third Party Decision Formalities for Arbitration Awards Possession and Title

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James McGoey

Appellant / Plaintiff

Sarah E. Leamy

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (property Boundary Dispute) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side) Following Judgment of Superior Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement between adjoining landowners to accept a third party's surveyor-determined boundary is a binding contract enforceable without complying with formal arbitration (C.C.P.) formalities
  2. 2 Whether the surveyor's proces-verbal and plan constituted a formal award under C.C.P. arts. 1341 et seq.
  3. 3 Whether long possession by fence defeated the contractual boundary determined by the surveyor

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement of November 1889 was a binding contract between the neighbours to accept the third party's on‑the‑ground determination of the boundary; it was not a submission to arbitration requiring the formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore the surveyor Farley's proces‑verbal and plan fixed the boundary between the properties and the respondent was bound to accept it; the appeal is allowed and the Superior Court judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Superior Court restored and decision of Court of Queen's Bench reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Superior Court restored