Baker v. La Société de Construction Métropolitaine

Baker v. La Société de Construction Métropolitaine

There was sufficient oral and documentary evidence that the respondents had actual knowledge of the appellants' registered bailleur de fonds hypothec at the time they acquired the property in May 1876, which established bad faith and prevented them from invoking the ten‑year prescription; additionally the plaintiffs should have been permitted to amend their declaration to make the possession allegation conform to the evidence.

Citation
(1893) 22 SCR 364
Parties
Appellants: Joel C. Baker et al.; Respondents: La Société de Construction Métropolitaine
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1893
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgments of the lower courts reversed in part; respondents' plea of ten‑year prescription rejected; plaintiffs' motion to amend declaration granted.
Legal Topics
Bailleur De Fonds Privilege, Translatory Title (dation En Paiement), Good Faith of Purchaser, Ten Year Prescription, Judicial Admission, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
English
Property Civil Procedure Security Interests Prescription Bailleur De Fonds Privilege Translatory Title (dation En Paiement) Good Faith of Purchaser Ten Year Prescription +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel C. Baker et al.

Appellants

La Société de Construction Métropolitaine

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents acquired the property in good faith under a translatory title and can claim ten years prescription to extinguish prior hypothec
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs could amend their declaration to correct the alleged date of defendants' possession and whether their prior allegation constituted an irrevocable judicial admission

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient oral and documentary evidence that the respondents had actual knowledge of the appellants' registered bailleur de fonds hypothec at the time they acquired the property in May 1876, which established bad faith and prevented them from invoking the ten‑year prescription; additionally the plaintiffs should have been permitted to amend their declaration to make the possession allegation conform to the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgments of the lower courts reversed in part; respondents' plea of ten‑year prescription rejected; plaintiffs' motion to amend declaration granted.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench and Superior Court reversed in part