Knight Sugar Co. v. Webster

Knight Sugar Co. v. Webster

Majority: On construction of the written agreement the operative printed covenant excepting "all coal mines and other minerals" governs; the isolated handwritten interlineation (referring to an overriding royalty of oil/gas) is ambiguous and cannot be clarified by recourse to words intentionally struck out; deleted printed form cannot be used to vary the final executed instrument; there was no evidence of coal or that working would require surface occupation, and the respondent failed to prove any necessity for Crown working rights to extend beyond the exception – therefore specific performance is appropriate and the counterclaim fails.

Citation
[1930] SCR 518
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Knight Sugar Company; Respondent/defendant: William B. Webster
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1930
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division reversed; specific performance ordered for vendor; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Interpretation of Deed, Mineral Rights, Crown Reservation, Admissibility of Deleted Words, Waiver
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Evidence Real Property Specific Performance Interpretation of Deed Mineral Rights +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knight Sugar Company

Appellant/plaintiff

William B. Webster

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor agreed to convey coal mines and mineral rights including the right to work them
  2. 2 Whether deleted/struck-out printed words may be considered to interpret the agreement where a handwritten interlineation appears
  3. 3 Whether the Crown's reservation of working powers prevents specific performance because vendor cannot convey essential title

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: On construction of the written agreement the operative printed covenant excepting "all coal mines and other minerals" governs; the isolated handwritten interlineation (referring to an overriding royalty of oil/gas) is ambiguous and cannot be clarified by recourse to words intentionally struck out; deleted printed form cannot be used to vary the final executed instrument; there was no evidence of coal or that working would require surface occupation, and the respondent failed to prove any necessity for Crown working rights to extend beyond the exception – therefore specific performance is appropriate and the counterclaim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division reversed; specific performance ordered for vendor; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in all courts
  • Decree for specific performance reinstated (vendor's claim granted)