Couture v. Couture

Couture v. Couture

The plaintiff lacked the required possessory possession (possession annuelle) because the disputed strip had been in public use as a landing and public way, was separated from the plaintiff's field by a fence and constituted the grève of a navigable river (public domain); government works did not give the plaintiff prescriptive possession; therefore the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Revision (which denied the plaintiff's possessory claim) is reinstated.

Citation
(1904) 34 SCR 716
Parties
Appellant / Defendants: Charles Couture and others; Respondent / Plaintiff: Philoène Couture
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 1904
Procedural Posture
Possessory Action Title to Land (foreshore) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Revision reinstated; plaintiff's possessory claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Possessory Action, Possession Annuelle (prescriptive Possession), Foreshore/public Domain, Navigable Waters, Title to Land, Public Right of Way
Source Language
English
Property Law Possessory Action Possession Annuelle (prescriptive Possession) Foreshore/public Domain Navigable Waters Title to Land Public Right of Way

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Couture and others

Appellant / Defendants

Philoène Couture

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Possessory Action Title to Land (foreshore) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had the continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, public and as-proprietor possession for the year and a day preceding the disturbance
  2. 2 Whether the disputed triangular foreshore (grève) belonged to the plaintiff or formed part of the public/Crown domain because of navigability and public use
  3. 3 Whether government works (jetty/quay) altered the nature of the land so as to permit prescriptive possession by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff lacked the required possessory possession (possession annuelle) because the disputed strip had been in public use as a landing and public way, was separated from the plaintiff's field by a fence and constituted the grève of a navigable river (public domain); government works did not give the plaintiff prescriptive possession; therefore the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Revision (which denied the plaintiff's possessory claim) is reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Revision reinstated; plaintiff's possessory claim dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed without costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Revision reinstated