Attrill v. Platt

Attrill v. Platt

The court held that block F extended to the river; the plaintiff failed to prove a legal easement over the appellant’s lands or an express reservation in the 1871 conveyance. Legal easements had been extinguished by unity of ownership and no implied reservation arose when the servient tenement was conveyed (absent necessity). The plaintiff also failed to establish prescriptive title for the dam/race claimed. Accordingly the appellant was justified in abating the obstruction and the bill was dismissed.

Citation
(1884) 10 SCR 425
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Henry Yarwood Attrill; Plaintiff/respondent: Samuel Platt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 1884
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario, Challenging Decree of Court of Chancery
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of Court of Chancery and Court of Appeal reversed; plaintiff's bill dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Reservation Vs Implied Grant, Merger of Title/extinguishment of Easements, Prescription and Limitation, Boundary Interpretation and Plan Evidence, Diversion of Water, Quasi Easements, Dominant and Servient Tenements
Source Language
English
Property Law Easements Riparian Rights Real Property Implied Reservation Vs Implied Grant Merger of Title/extinguishment of Easements Prescription and Limitation Boundary Interpretation and Plan Evidence +3 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Yarwood Attrill

Defendant/appellant

Samuel Platt

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario, Challenging Decree of Court of Chancery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether block F extended to the river (boundary question)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff had a legal easement to maintain the dam and head-race
  3. 3 Whether easements were impliedly reserved by vendor when servient tenement was conveyed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that block F extended to the river; the plaintiff failed to prove a legal easement over the appellant’s lands or an express reservation in the 1871 conveyance. Legal easements had been extinguished by unity of ownership and no implied reservation arose when the servient tenement was conveyed (absent necessity). The plaintiff also failed to establish prescriptive title for the dam/race claimed. Accordingly the appellant was justified in abating the obstruction and the bill was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of Court of Chancery and Court of Appeal reversed; plaintiff's bill dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant
  • Decree of the Court of Chancery for Ontario and affirming judgment of Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed