Schmidt v. Ritz

Schmidt v. Ritz

Majority held the amendment (60 Vict. c.4) was intended to refer to Queen's Bench orders and judgments made for sale on County Court judgments and that its retrospective operation was limited: it validated such Queen's Bench orders only from the date the amending Act came into force (30 March 1897) and did not validate prior sales or all proceedings taken under orders made before that date; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the action dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 602
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Peter Schmidt; Appellant (defendant): Diedrich Froese; Respondent (plaintiff): Henry Ritz; Respondent (plaintiff): Eugene Widmeyer
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench (manitoba)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Retroactive Effect of Statute, Sale of Land Under Judgment, Validation of Past Orders and Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Superior Court, Registration of Judgments
Source Language
English
Statutory Interpretation Property Law Civil Procedure Judgments and Orders Retroactivity Retroactive Effect of Statute Sale of Land Under Judgment Validation of Past Orders and Proceedings +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Schmidt

Appellant (defendant)

Diedrich Froese

Appellant (defendant)

Henry Ritz

Respondent (plaintiff)

Eugene Widmeyer

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench (manitoba)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Manitoba amendment (60 Vict. ch. 4) applies to orders and judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench or to County Court orders
  2. 2 Whether the amendment has retroactive effect sufficient to validate an order for sale and subsequent sale proceedings made before the Act came into force
  3. 3 Whether a retroactive enactment can divest vested rights or validate sales made under orders issued without jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the amendment (60 Vict. c.4) was intended to refer to Queen's Bench orders and judgments made for sale on County Court judgments and that its retrospective operation was limited: it validated such Queen's Bench orders only from the date the amending Act came into force (30 March 1897) and did not validate prior sales or all proceedings taken under orders made before that date; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the action dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Action dismissed with costs to appellants in this Court and in the Court below