Morel v. Lefrancois

Morel v. Lefrancois

The deed's language was not ambiguous; the description bounded on the south by the River Sault à la Puce, together with the other named boundaries, unambiguously defined the tract. The court applied the literal construction in favour of the grantee, excluded extrinsic evidence to alter the clear description, and held the appellant did not exceed the conveyed limits.

Citation
(1906) 38 SCR 75
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Jean Morel; Plaintiff/respondent: Alexandre Lefrancois
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Revendication (ejectment) Concerning Timber License; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Final Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Construction of Deed, Boundary Description, License to Cut Timber, Ambiguitas Latens, Parol Evidence Rule
Source Language
English
Property Real Property Contract Evidence Construction of Deed Boundary Description License to Cut Timber Ambiguitas Latens +1 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Morel

Defendant/appellant

Alexandre Lefrancois

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Revendication (ejectment) Concerning Timber License; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Final Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the description "bounded on the south by a river" rendered the parcel ambiguous for purposes of the timber license
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances may be admitted to vary a clear written description
  3. 3 Whether the appellant cut timber beyond the limits of the tract conveyed

Ratio Decidendi

The deed's language was not ambiguous; the description bounded on the south by the River Sault à la Puce, together with the other named boundaries, unambiguously defined the tract. The court applied the literal construction in favour of the grantee, excluded extrinsic evidence to alter the clear description, and held the appellant did not exceed the conveyed limits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Action dismissed.