City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway Co.

City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway Co.

The majority held that clause 36, read in context with the contract, the plan, related municipal contracts and legislative confirmation, covers the gross earnings of the single integrated railway system operated by the company; therefore the City is entitled to the contractual percentages on the total gross earnings of the railway including suburban lines when operated as one system, and clause 37 supports inspection and accounting to make clause 36 workable.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 459
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: City of Montreal; Respondent/defendant: The Montreal Street Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 1904
Procedural Posture
Municipal Franchise Contract Dispute / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench reversed
Legal Topics
Franchise, Contract Interpretation, Gross Earnings/apportionment, Annexation, Accounting/mixed Receipts
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Contract Law Administrative Law Property/franchise Law Franchise Contract Interpretation Gross Earnings/apportionment Annexation +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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Montreal

Appellant/plaintiff

The Montreal Street Railway Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Municipal Franchise Contract Dispute / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the city is entitled to percentages under contract clause 36 on the company's gross earnings from the entire railway system including lines outside municipal limits
  2. 2 Proper construction of clauses 36 and 37 of the contract and effect of the by-law and annexed plan
  3. 3 Whether blended/mixed receipts can be apportioned or whether the company must bear consequences of mixing accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that clause 36, read in context with the contract, the plan, related municipal contracts and legislative confirmation, covers the gross earnings of the single integrated railway system operated by the company; therefore the City is entitled to the contractual percentages on the total gross earnings of the railway including suburban lines when operated as one system, and clause 37 supports inspection and accounting to make clause 36 workable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Court of King's Bench reversed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench, appeal side, reversed and conclusion of appellant's demand maintained in principal, interest and costs as prayed for