Stephens v. Gordon

Stephens v. Gordon

The purchasers (defendants) possessed the right under the timber sale and way‑leave to remove timber by the most direct and available routes, including across the vendor’s cleared land, provided they acted in good faith and reasonably and did not cause wanton or unnecessary damage; the vendor’s reservation of use did not negate this right. The purchaser’s use was therefore within his rights subject to the limitation of reasonableness; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.

Citation
(1893) 22 SCR 61
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: William H. Stephens; Defendant / Respondent: Aaron Gordon; Defendant / Respondent: John Gordon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1893
Procedural Posture
Appeal (property/timber Sale) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Wayleave, Timber Removal, Construction of Contract, Injunction, Damages, Implied Right of Way
Source Language
English
Property Contracts Easements Equity Wayleave Timber Removal Construction of Contract Injunction +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William H. Stephens

Plaintiff / Appellant

Aaron Gordon

Defendant / Respondent

John Gordon

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (property/timber Sale) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser of timber had a right under the contract to haul timber across the vendor’s cultivated land
  2. 2 Whether any right of way over the cleared land was granted expressly or impliedly (way of necessity)
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser’s use of cleared land was reasonable and in good faith or amounted to wanton/unreasonable damage

Ratio Decidendi

The purchasers (defendants) possessed the right under the timber sale and way‑leave to remove timber by the most direct and available routes, including across the vendor’s cleared land, provided they acted in good faith and reasonably and did not cause wanton or unnecessary damage; the vendor’s reservation of use did not negate this right. The purchaser’s use was therefore within his rights subject to the limitation of reasonableness; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents