McIsaac v. McDonald

McIsaac v. McDonald

Occupation of part of the land under colour of a void or defective deed did not create constructive possession of the four acres that had been previously conveyed away; intermittent acts were trespass and could not found title by limitation, especially where the deed relied on was void and inconsistent with the grantor's warranty covenant.

Citation
(1905) 37 SCR 157
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Angus D. McIsaac; Respondent / Plaintiff: Daniel J. McDonald
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Constructive Possession, Adverse Possession, Colourable Title, Warranty of Title, Sheriff's Sale
Source Language
English

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angus D. McIsaac

Appellant / Defendant

Daniel J. McDonald

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

  1. 1 Whether possession of part of land under colour of title constitutes constructive possession of a parcel previously conveyed away
  2. 2 Whether intermittent acts (cutting hay, pasturing cattle) constitute possession sufficient under the Statute of Limitations
  3. 3 Effect of a void sheriff's sale and subsequent void deed on a claim of constructive possession

Ratio Decidendi

Occupation of part of the land under colour of a void or defective deed did not create constructive possession of the four acres that had been previously conveyed away; intermittent acts were trespass and could not found title by limitation, especially where the deed relied on was void and inconsistent with the grantor's warranty covenant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs