Caverhill v. Robillard

Caverhill v. Robillard

Because plaintiffs had long, public, peaceful possession of the wharf and its gangway and the evidence did not show the wharf was a public or private nuisance or that defendant had lawful authority to destroy the gangway, defendant was not justified; plaintiffs were entitled to damages despite subsequent decay or remedial measures, and the proper award was $50 plus costs.

Citation
(1878) 2 SCR 575
Parties
Appellants / Plaintiffs: John Caverhill et al.; Respondent / Defendant: Ulysse J. Robillard
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1878
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort — Nuisance / Trespass) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed in part
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Trespass, Possession and Prescription, Riparian Rights, Damages, Puis Darrein Continuance
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort Public / Administrative Law Nuisance Trespass Possession and Prescription Riparian Rights Damages +1 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Caverhill et al.

Appellants / Plaintiffs

Ulysse J. Robillard

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort — Nuisance / Trespass) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs who built and possessed a wharf and gangway in navigable waters without express royal permission can maintain an action for wrongful destruction by a third party
  2. 2 Whether defendant was justified in destroying the gangway as abating a public or private nuisance
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' subsequent failure to restore the wharf or their remedial measures after suit barred recovery or reduced damages

Ratio Decidendi

Because plaintiffs had long, public, peaceful possession of the wharf and its gangway and the evidence did not show the wharf was a public or private nuisance or that defendant had lawful authority to destroy the gangway, defendant was not justified; plaintiffs were entitled to damages despite subsequent decay or remedial measures, and the proper award was $50 plus costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench reversed in part

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Appellants $50 damages
  • Respondent to pay costs in all Courts