Lafrance et al. v. Lafontaine

Lafrance et al. v. Lafontaine

Because appellants and their predecessors expressly consented in deeds and by long acquiescence to the respondent's use of the flume and shared maintenance obligations, they are estopped from claiming exclusive rights to the chute, mill-race, canal and water power; furthermore, portions constructed on a floatable river or its bed cannot be exclusively owned under art. 400 C.C.; accordingly the appeal is dismissed except for a declaration of ownership of the land.

Citation
(1899) 30 SCR 20
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Amédée Lafrance and Arthur Lefebvre; Respondent/defendant: Tiburce Lafontaine
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 1899
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Property and Water Rights / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appellate Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; appellants declared owners of about one quarter arpent of lot no. 509 but not entitled to exclusive rights to the chute, mill-race, canal or water power.
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Acquiescence, Riparian Rights, Floatable Waters, Water Power, Joint User, Servitude, River Improvements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Water Law Obligations/servitudes Estoppel Acquiescence Riparian Rights Floatable Waters +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amédée Lafrance and Arthur Lefebvre

Appellants/plaintiffs

Tiburce Lafontaine

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Property and Water Rights / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appellate Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants could claim exclusive ownership and require removal of a flume and exclusive enjoyment of river improvements despite prior written agreements and long acquiescence
  2. 2 Whether riparian ownership extends to chaussée and canal across a floatable river and its bed
  3. 3 Effect of prior deeds, written agreements and conduct (acquiescence) on servitude or joint rights to water power

Ratio Decidendi

Because appellants and their predecessors expressly consented in deeds and by long acquiescence to the respondent's use of the flume and shared maintenance obligations, they are estopped from claiming exclusive rights to the chute, mill-race, canal and water power; furthermore, portions constructed on a floatable river or its bed cannot be exclusively owned under art. 400 C.C.; accordingly the appeal is dismissed except for a declaration of ownership of the land.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; appellants declared owners of about one quarter arpent of lot no. 509 but not entitled to exclusive rights to the chute, mill-race, canal or water power.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Declaration that appellants are owners of approximately one quarter arpent of lot no. 509