King v. Bailey

King v. Bailey

Because the adultery was a continuing cohabitation that persisted into the six years before commencement of the action, the Statute of Limitations did not operate as a complete bar; the jury were properly confined to consider only wrongful acts within the six years and the plaintiff had proved the marriage sufficiently, so the trial judgment was affirmed.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 338
Parties
Defendant Appellant: A.T. King; Plaintiff Respondent: Charles Bailey
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (criminal Conversation) on Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Final Judgment on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Criminal Conversation, Adultery, Statute of Limitations, Damages, Evidence (proof of Marriage)
Source Language
English
Torts Family Law Limitation Periods Criminal Conversation Adultery Statute of Limitations Damages Evidence (proof of Marriage)

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.T. King

Defendant Appellant

Charles Bailey

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (criminal Conversation) on Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Final Judgment on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statute of Limitations bars an action for criminal conversation where the adulterous intercourse continued into the six years before the action
  2. 2 Whether the limitation period begins at the first act of adultery or when the adulterous intercourse ceases
  3. 3 Whether recoverable damages are limited to acts occurring within six years before commencement of the action

Ratio Decidendi

Because the adultery was a continuing cohabitation that persisted into the six years before commencement of the action, the Statute of Limitations did not operate as a complete bar; the jury were properly confined to consider only wrongful acts within the six years and the plaintiff had proved the marriage sufficiently, so the trial judgment was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Trial judgment affirmed