Murphy v. The King

Murphy v. The King

The Court held that where only one Gold Commissioner had been appointed by the Governor in Council the Gold Commissioner possessed the powers and authority of a mining recorder without a further express direction by the Commissioner, and in any event a necessary directional approval could be presumed from the facts and practice; therefore the Gold Commissioner's adjudication was within jurisdiction and the water grant was valid.

Citation
(1917) 55 SCR 550
Parties
Appellant (defendant): James William Murphy; Appellant (defendant): Robert Sedgwick Gould; Respondent (plaintiff): His Majesty The King
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Information dismissed; water grant upheld
Legal Topics
Water Rights, Authority of Gold Commissioner, Powers of Mining Recorder, Validity of Administrative Grants
Source Language
English
Mining Law Administrative Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Water Rights Authority of Gold Commissioner Powers of Mining Recorder Validity of Administrative Grants

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James William Murphy

Appellant (defendant)

Robert Sedgwick Gould

Appellant (defendant)

His Majesty The King

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Gold Commissioner appointed by the Governor in Council has the powers and authority of a mining recorder without an express direction by the Commissioner when only one Gold Commissioner is appointed
  2. 2 Whether adjudication of a water grant by the Gold Commissioner (or under his direction) rendered the grant void for want of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Proper construction of ss.3-6 of the Yukon Placer Mining Act, R.S.C. 1906, c.64, as amended

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that where only one Gold Commissioner had been appointed by the Governor in Council the Gold Commissioner possessed the powers and authority of a mining recorder without a further express direction by the Commissioner, and in any event a necessary directional approval could be presumed from the facts and practice; therefore the Gold Commissioner's adjudication was within jurisdiction and the water grant was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Information dismissed; water grant upheld

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Information dismissed with costs (this court and below)