Webb v. Marsh

Webb v. Marsh

Marsh’s possession was not proved to predate the crown patent, so the Statute of Limitations did not bar the plaintiffs; even if the 1841 grant could be impeached by a possessor, the grant was not absolutely void as to all and was effectively validated by Marsh’s assent and subsequent conduct, creating an equitable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1893) 22 SCR 437
Parties
Defendants/appellants: Thomas Webb and Others; Plaintiffs/respondents: George H. Marsh and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 1893
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Title to Land / Ejectment / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Prior Divisional Court and Trial Court Decisions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Crown Grant, Statute of Maintenance (32 Hen. 8 C. 9), Statute of Limitations, Adverse Possession, Disseisin, Estoppel, Conveyance to Married Woman, Attornment
Source Language
english
Property Law Real Property Equity Crown Grant Statute of Maintenance (32 Hen. 8 C. 9) Statute of Limitations Adverse Possession Disseisin +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Webb and Others

Defendants/appellants

George H. Marsh and Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Title to Land / Ejectment / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Prior Divisional Court and Trial Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Marsh’s possession began before or after the crown patent (impacting statute of limitations)
  2. 2 Whether the 1841 conveyance by King’s College grantee (Greenshields) was void under the Statute of Maintenance
  3. 3 Whether a conveyance to the wife procured by the husband is void where the husband was in possession and signed the conveyance

Ratio Decidendi

Marsh’s possession was not proved to predate the crown patent, so the Statute of Limitations did not bar the plaintiffs; even if the 1841 grant could be impeached by a possessor, the grant was not absolutely void as to all and was effectively validated by Marsh’s assent and subsequent conduct, creating an equitable estoppel that upheld the 1849 conveyance to his wife; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs