The City of Quebec v. United Typewriter Co.
16 Vict., c.233 and art.310 of the City of Quebec charter create a statutory liability for property damage caused by mobs which is not displaced by subsequent charter provisions; the six‑month prescription and thirty‑day notice provisions of art.561 do not apply to that statutory right (and cannot operate to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- (1921) 62 SCR 241
- Parties
- Appellant / Defendant: City of Quebec; Respondent / Plaintiff: United Typewriter Co.
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 June 1921
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (municipal Law) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 30 K.B. 281) affirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Riot Damages, Notice of Action, Statutory Construction, By Law and Charter Interpretation
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
City of Quebec
Appellant / Defendant
United Typewriter Co.
Respondent / Plaintiff
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (municipal Law) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether 16 Vict., c.233 (1853) was repealed or rendered inapplicable by subsequent municipal charter provisions (29 Vict., c.57)
- 2 Whether the six‑month prescription and thirty‑day notice provisions in art.561 of the City of Quebec charter (6 Geo. V, c.43, s.11) apply to statutory liability for riot damages under 16 Vict., c.233 and art.310 of the charter
- 3 Whether the city is liable for property damage caused by a mob without fault or negligence when statutory conditions are met
Ratio Decidendi
16 Vict., c.233 and art.310 of the City of Quebec charter create a statutory liability for property damage caused by mobs which is not displaced by subsequent charter provisions; the six‑month prescription and thirty‑day notice provisions of art.561 do not apply to that statutory right (and cannot operate to extinguish a right that only arises after six months), therefore the plaintiff's action was properly maintainable; appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 30 K.B. 281) affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 30 K.B. 281) affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment