Robin and Bovet v. Gutwirth et al.

Robin and Bovet v. Gutwirth et al.

Clause 7, inserted in contemplation of imminent expropriation, must be construed to include both land and buildings; accordingly the expropriation indemnity deposited into court is to be applied as a credit against the unpaid purchase price in favour of the purchasers, and the appellants' claim that the portion attributable to buildings should not be credited fails.

Citation
[1963] SCR 295
Parties
Appellants: Edmond Robin Jr. and Lucien Bovet; Respondents: Aaron Gutwirth and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 1963
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Real Property (deed Interpretation/expropriation) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Deed Interpretation, Expropriation Indemnity, Privilege of Bailleurs De Fonds, Hypothec (mortgage)
Source Language
English
Property Law Expropriation Contract Law Deed Interpretation Expropriation Indemnity Privilege of Bailleurs De Fonds Hypothec (mortgage)

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

Parties

Edmond Robin Jr. and Lucien Bovet

Appellants

Aaron Gutwirth and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Real Property (deed Interpretation/expropriation) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 7 of the deed required the expropriation indemnity to be applied as credit against the unpaid purchase price
  2. 2 Whether the term 'terre' in the deed includes buildings
  3. 3 Whether purchasers are entitled to be credited with the full indemnity despite privileged creditors' rights

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 7, inserted in contemplation of imminent expropriation, must be construed to include both land and buildings; accordingly the expropriation indemnity deposited into court is to be applied as a credit against the unpaid purchase price in favour of the purchasers, and the appellants' claim that the portion attributable to buildings should not be credited fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and Superior Court affirmed: the sum of $173,204.16 deposited into court to be paid as claimed and credited to the respondents on the unpaid purchase price, subject to the conventional hypothec releases and main-levée conditions specified in the deed.