Chambly Manufacturing Co. v. Willet

Chambly Manufacturing Co. v. Willet

Under the parties' agreement (clause 11) the respondent's remedy was limited to monetary indemnity for damages caused by the company's works; given the practical difficulty and expense of the protective works and the parties' allocation of risk the court erred in ordering construction of protective works. Further, failure to raise acquiescence under article 1220 at the Court of Appeal precludes raising it later; therefore the appeal is allowed, the order for protective works is struck out, specified items of damage are disallowed, and the award is reduced to monetary damages with costs allocated as stated.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 502
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Chambly Manufacturing Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Samuel T. Willet
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment modified by striking out order for protective works; award reduced to $8,500 plus interest from 18 November 1902; certain items disallowed or referred back; interlocutory judgment of 10 June 1901 reversed with costs on both appeals against the respondent; motion to quash appeal...
Legal Topics
Damages, Indemnity Clause, Riparian Rights, Protective Works, Acquiescence, Appeal Practice, Expert Evidence, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Remedies Damages Indemnity Clause Riparian Rights +5 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chambly Manufacturing Company

Appellant/defendant

Samuel T. Willet

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was limited to monetary indemnity under the parties' contract or entitled to court-ordered protective works
  2. 2 Whether respondent could quash the appeal on ground of acquiescence despite failing to raise the Article 1220 exception in the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Court below erred in decreeing construction of protective works given practical difficulty and party agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Under the parties' agreement (clause 11) the respondent's remedy was limited to monetary indemnity for damages caused by the company's works; given the practical difficulty and expense of the protective works and the parties' allocation of risk the court erred in ordering construction of protective works. Further, failure to raise acquiescence under article 1220 at the Court of Appeal precludes raising it later; therefore the appeal is allowed, the order for protective works is struck out, specified items of damage are disallowed, and the award is reduced to monetary damages with costs allocated as stated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment modified by striking out order for protective works; award reduced to $8,500 plus interest from 18 November 1902; certain items disallowed or referred back; interlocutory judgment of 10 June 1901 reversed with costs on both appeals against the respondent; motion to quash appeal...

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Order for construction of protective works struck out.