Hobbs v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co.

Hobbs v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co.

Majority held that the written agreement was expressed in plain unambiguous terms, the purchaser had no notice of any reservation of minerals, and the company through its officers ratified and affirmed the sale; a unilateral mistake by the company as to the legal effect of its form did not justify rescission, therefore specific performance was ordered and the company must execute a deed without reservations of minerals.

Citation
(1899) 29 SCR 450
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Frank Vicker Hobbs; Defendant/respondent: Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 1899
Procedural Posture
Sale of Land Specific Performance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); decree for specific performance in favour of appellant; dissent by Taschereau J.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Mutual Mistake, Reservation of Minerals, Construction of Written Contract, Ratification of Agent Acts
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Equity Agency Law Specific Performance Mutual Mistake Reservation of Minerals Construction of Written Contract +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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Vicker Hobbs

Plaintiff/appellant

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Sale of Land Specific Performance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a written agreement to sell land entitled purchaser to surface and mineral rights or whether the vendor could reserve minerals in the conveyance
  2. 2 Whether vendor's unilateral mistake as to legal effect of contract (reservation of minerals) defeated specific performance
  3. 3 Whether the company ratified the land commissioner's agreement and thereby was bound

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the written agreement was expressed in plain unambiguous terms, the purchaser had no notice of any reservation of minerals, and the company through its officers ratified and affirmed the sale; a unilateral mistake by the company as to the legal effect of its form did not justify rescission, therefore specific performance was ordered and the company must execute a deed without reservations of minerals.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); decree for specific performance in favour of appellant; dissent by Taschereau J.

Orders

  • Decree directing the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company to execute and deliver to Frank Vicker Hobbs a deed to the specified lot without the mineral reservations contained in the tendered deed
  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant