Creese v. Fleischman

Creese v. Fleischman

The appeal was dismissed: the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Territorial Court's discretionary refusal to amend its formal judgment, and in this mining boundary dispute the placer mining regulations rendered the proposed amendment unnecessary.

Citation
(1903) 34 SCR 279
Parties
Defendants/appellants: F. D. Creese and Others; Plaintiffs/respondents: Tobias Fleischman and Others; Third Party Purchaser: Berry
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1903
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Territorial Court of Yukon; Motion to Amend Certificate of Judgment Refused
Outcome
Appeal dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Boundary Dispute, Amendment of Judgment, Discretion of Trial Court, Mining Regulations, Formal Judgment
Source Language
English
Property Law Mining Law Civil Procedure Appeal Boundary Dispute Amendment of Judgment Discretion of Trial Court Mining Regulations +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. D. Creese and Others

Defendants/appellants

Tobias Fleischman and Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Berry

Third Party Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Territorial Court of Yukon; Motion to Amend Certificate of Judgment Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appellate court should interfere with a territorial court's refusal to amend its formal judgment
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of judgment could be amended in the absence of a third-party purchaser (Berry)
  3. 3 Whether mining regulations made formal amendment unnecessary by fixing the legal effect of the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed: the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Territorial Court's discretionary refusal to amend its formal judgment, and in this mining boundary dispute the placer mining regulations rendered the proposed amendment unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs in this Court and in the court appealed from.