The Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company v. Murphy

The Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company v. Murphy

A railway company cannot compulsorily acquire land not shown on a map or plan registered under the Railway Act; having completed the railway as authorised, the company's ordinary compulsory powers to expropriate ceased, so the attempted acquisition of land not on the filed plan was unlawful and injunctions restraining expropriation were justified.

Citation
(1889) 17 SCR 582
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: The Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company; Respondent / Plaintiffs: Catherine Baker Murphy and others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 1889
Procedural Posture
Expropriation (railway) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Map and Plan Filing, Compulsory Acquisition, Deviation From Railway Line, Completion of Works, Injunctions
Source Language
English
Expropriation Railway Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Public Works Map and Plan Filing Compulsory Acquisition Deviation From Railway Line +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company

Appellant / Defendant

Catherine Baker Murphy and others

Respondent / Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Expropriation (railway) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a railway company may expropriate land not shown on the statutory map or plan
  2. 2 Whether a proposed addition/extension constitutes a statutory deviation and is subject to map/plan filing requirements
  3. 3 Whether the company's compulsory power to expropriate ceases upon completion of the railway

Ratio Decidendi

A railway company cannot compulsorily acquire land not shown on a map or plan registered under the Railway Act; having completed the railway as authorised, the company's ordinary compulsory powers to expropriate ceased, so the attempted acquisition of land not on the filed plan was unlawful and injunctions restraining expropriation were justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents
  • Permanent injunction upholding the Chancery Division and Court of Appeal restraining the appellants from expropriating the plaintiffs' land under the statutory process relied upon (i.e. steps under ss.8–9 of 42 Vic. ch. 9)