Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Canada· 1928

Miller v. The King

[1928] SCR 318
PropertyJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Miller v. The King Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1928-02-21 Report [1928] SCR 318 Judges Anglin, Francis Alexander; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert On appeal from Canada Subjects State Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Miller v. The King, [1928] S.C.R. 318 Date: 1928-02-21 Miller v. His Majesty The King 1928: February 20, 21. Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Newcombe, Lamont and Smith JJ. APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA Petition of right—Expropriation—Injurious affection—Acquiescence—Equitable rights—Building restrictions—Restrictive covenant—Statutory limitations APPEAL by the suppliants from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, sitting at Halifax, Maclean J.[1], dismissing the appellants’ petition of right to recover from the Crown, for injurious affection to certain lands of the suppliants by reason of the operation of a railway on lands adjoining thereto, and which were expropriated by the Crown, and obtained from suppliants for this purpose. After hearing counsel as well for the respondent as for the appellants, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada gave judgment orally, dismissing the appeal with costs. The judgment of the court said in part, as follows: “* * *, the appellants must establish that they had an interest in the property taken by the respondent in order to give them a status to maintain this action for injurious affection of nearby property retained by…

Read full judgment
Miller v. The King
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1928-02-21
Report
[1928] SCR 318
Judges
Anglin, Francis Alexander; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert
On appeal from
Canada
Subjects
State
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Miller v. The King, [1928] S.C.R. 318
Date: 1928-02-21
Miller v. His Majesty The King
1928: February 20, 21.
Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault, Newcombe, Lamont and Smith JJ.
APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA
Petition of right—Expropriation—Injurious affection—Acquiescence—Equitable rights—Building restrictions—Restrictive covenant—Statutory limitations
APPEAL by the suppliants from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, sitting at Halifax, Maclean J.[1], dismissing the appellants’ petition of right to recover from the Crown, for injurious affection to certain lands of the suppliants by reason of the operation of a railway on lands adjoining thereto, and which were expropriated by the Crown, and obtained from suppliants for this purpose.
After hearing counsel as well for the respondent as for the appellants, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada gave judgment orally, dismissing the appeal with costs.
The judgment of the court said in part, as follows:
“* * *, the appellants must establish that they had an interest in the property taken by the respondent in order to give them a status to maintain this action for injurious affection of nearby property retained by them.
We are unable to find that there was any such interest. * * *.
“It would, therefore, appear that the appellants have failed to establish anything in the nature of a real right in any part of the property taken by the respondent such as is admittedly necessary to enable them to maintain an action for injurious affection of neighbouring property.
“Upon the other grounds on which the learned trial judge rested his conclusion, we find it unnecessary to express any opinion; and we desire it understood that neither approval or disapproval of them is to be inferred from this judgment.”
Appeal dismissed with costs.
W. G. Ernst for the appellants.
C. J. Burchell K.C. and J. E. Rutledge for the respondent.
[1] [1927] Ex. C.R. 52.

Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca

Related cases