Elk Lumber Co. v. Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co.

Elk Lumber Co. v. Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co.

Specific performance was refused because there was no evidence that the employee who signed as 'Land Commissioner' had authority to sell the company's lands and the company was not estopped by that title; further, the lands ultimately claimed differed from those in the written memorandum and could not be bound by alleged subsequent oral acts of another officer.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 169
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Elk Lumber Co.; Defendant/respondent: Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co. and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1907
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance of Contract for Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Authority of Agent, Estoppel by Holding Out, Statute of Frauds, Part Performance, Sale of Land
Source Language
English
Property Contract Equity Agency Estoppel Specific Performance Authority of Agent Estoppel by Holding Out +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elk Lumber Co.

Plaintiff/appellant

Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co. and Others

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter signed by a company employee calling himself 'Land Commissioner' constituted a binding agreement to sell company land
  2. 2 Whether the company was estopped by the title 'Land Commissioner' from denying the agent's authority to sell
  3. 3 Whether an oral modification or substitution of the lands by another company officer could be enforced

Ratio Decidendi

Specific performance was refused because there was no evidence that the employee who signed as 'Land Commissioner' had authority to sell the company's lands and the company was not estopped by that title; further, the lands ultimately claimed differed from those in the written memorandum and could not be bound by alleged subsequent oral acts of another officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed.