Wood v. LeBlanc

Wood v. LeBlanc

The appellant failed to prove the requisite open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession of at least part of the land under colour of title for the statutory period; intermittent winter lumbering and isolated acts do not constitute continuous possession, so the jury verdict for the defendant was supported and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 627
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Josiah Wood; Respondent/defendant: Henry S. LeBlanc
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1904
Procedural Posture
Replevin; Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick After Verdict for Defendant and Refusal of New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; verdict for defendant affirmed; motion for new trial refused.
Legal Topics
Colourable Title, Constructive Possession, Possession, Statute of Limitations, Title to Land, Replevin
Source Language
English
Property Law Colourable Title Constructive Possession Possession Statute of Limitations Title to Land Replevin

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josiah Wood

Appellant/plaintiff

Henry S. LeBlanc

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Replevin; Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick After Verdict for Defendant and Refusal of New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of part of land under colour of title constitutes constructive possession of the whole
  2. 2 Whether intermittent winter lumbering and isolated acts constitute continuous, open, exclusive possession sufficient to give title
  3. 3 Who bears the onus of proof in replevin where title is disputed

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove the requisite open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession of at least part of the land under colour of title for the statutory period; intermittent winter lumbering and isolated acts do not constitute continuous possession, so the jury verdict for the defendant was supported and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; verdict for defendant affirmed; motion for new trial refused.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Verdict for defendant in Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed