Sedgwick v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co.

Sedgwick v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co.

The appeal succeeded: the provincial statutory increase in appealable amount did not apply retroactively so the Court had jurisdiction; s.70 notice was not mandatory where the motion below was for judgment non obstante veredicto with a new trial only in the alternative; the correct legal test for constructive total loss is that in Macbeth (break-up value may be added to repair cost) and the trial judge misdirected the jury by applying article 2522 and the Angel test, so the jury finding that the vessel was a constructive total loss must be set aside and the matter remitted for a partial new trial to determine break-up value and constructive total loss under Macbeth; appellants entitled to...

Citation
(1909) 41 SCR 639
Parties
Defendant Appellant: H. B. Sedgwick and Others; Plaintiff Respondent: The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Review of the Superior Court of Quebec (sitting in Review)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment of Court of Review reversed insofar as it upheld jury finding of constructive total loss of the vessel; action remitted for partial new trial.
Legal Topics
Constructive Total Loss, Notice of Appeal, Jurisdiction, Trial by Jury, Mistrial, Retroactivity of Statute, Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto
Source Language
English
Marine Insurance Maritime Law Civil Procedure Appeals Insurance Law Constructive Total Loss Notice of Appeal Jurisdiction +4 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. B. Sedgwick and Others

Defendant Appellant

The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Review of the Superior Court of Quebec (sitting in Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal given statutory amendment raising appealable amount
  2. 2 Whether notice under s.70 Supreme Court Act was required where motion below was primarily for judgment non obstante veredicto with alternative new trial
  3. 3 Proper legal test for constructive total loss of a vessel under a marine insurance policy

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded: the provincial statutory increase in appealable amount did not apply retroactively so the Court had jurisdiction; s.70 notice was not mandatory where the motion below was for judgment non obstante veredicto with a new trial only in the alternative; the correct legal test for constructive total loss is that in Macbeth (break-up value may be added to repair cost) and the trial judge misdirected the jury by applying article 2522 and the Angel test, so the jury finding that the vessel was a constructive total loss must be set aside and the matter remitted for a partial new trial to determine break-up value and constructive total loss under Macbeth; appellants entitled to...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment of Court of Review reversed insofar as it upheld jury finding of constructive total loss of the vessel; action remitted for partial new trial.

Orders

  • Vacate the judgment of the Superior Court below insofar as it rests on the jury finding that the vessel was a constructive total loss
  • Set aside the jury's 10th finding