Lake Erie and Northern Rway. Co. v. Schooley

Lake Erie and Northern Rway. Co. v. Schooley

The capitalized value of expected savings or additional profits cannot simply be added to the market value of expropriated land; compensation must reflect the value of the land to the owner (what a prudent purchaser would pay), and on the evidence the $20,000 special-value allowance was excessive and is reduced to $4,000, producing a total award of $33,000 (majority).

Citation
(1916) 53 SCR 416
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company; Respondent/defendant: Ignatius Franklin Schooley; Respondent/defendant: The Brantford Ice Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 1916
Procedural Posture
Expropriation / Eminent Domain / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; award reduced; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to appellants.
Legal Topics
Special Value, Market Value, Capitalization of Profits, Compulsory Purchase, Business Disturbance
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Eminent Domain Valuation Damages Special Value Market Value Capitalization of Profits +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company

Appellant/plaintiff

Ignatius Franklin Schooley

Respondent/defendant

The Brantford Ice Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Expropriation / Eminent Domain / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owner is entitled to have capitalized value of special business savings/profits added to market value of land
  2. 2 Proper method for estimating compensation for land specially adapted to a business
  3. 3 Whether the $20,000 allowance for special adaptability was justified by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The capitalized value of expected savings or additional profits cannot simply be added to the market value of expropriated land; compensation must reflect the value of the land to the owner (what a prudent purchaser would pay), and on the evidence the $20,000 special-value allowance was excessive and is reduced to $4,000, producing a total award of $33,000 (majority).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; award reduced; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to appellants.

Orders

  • Reduce total award to respondents to $33,000
  • Dismiss respondents' cross-appeal to restore $800 sawdust item