Lefeunteum v. Beaudoin

Lefeunteum v. Beaudoin

The appeal was allowed because the courts below erred in their assessment of the evidence by placing undue weight on testimonies of interested parties and on common rumour; independent and disinterested evidence established that the Larocque purchasers were in bad faith at acquisition and therefore could not acquire ten‑year prescription against the true owner; accordingly the appellant was declared owner and entitled to restitution of possession and compensation as ordered.

Citation
(1897) 28 SCR 89
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): YVON LEFEUNTEUM; Respondent (defendant): CORDELIE BEAUDOIN
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Petitory (recovery of Possession) Action / On Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Acquisitive Prescription (ten Years), Good Faith (bonne Foi), Nullity of Sheriff's Sale/deed, Admissibility and Weight of Evidence, Res Judicata, Interested Witnesses
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Prescription (limitation) Title to Land Acquisitive Prescription (ten Years) Good Faith (bonne Foi) Nullity of Sheriff's Sale/deed +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YVON LEFEUNTEUM

Appellant (plaintiff)

CORDELIE BEAUDOIN

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Petitory (recovery of Possession) Action / On Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellate court may reassess questions of fact where lower courts erred in admission or appreciation of evidence
  2. 2 Whether ten years prescription can be acquired against the true owner where the underlying sheriff's title is null for informality
  3. 3 Whether the purchasers (Larocque) were in good faith at time of acquisition

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the courts below erred in their assessment of the evidence by placing undue weight on testimonies of interested parties and on common rumour; independent and disinterested evidence established that the Larocque purchasers were in bad faith at acquisition and therefore could not acquire ten‑year prescription against the true owner; accordingly the appellant was declared owner and entitled to restitution of possession and compensation as ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Appellant declared owner of the immovable in dispute
  • Respondent ordered to return the immovable to appellant in its present state within one month of service of the judgment