Horton v. Casey
Court headnote
Horton v. Casey Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1893-06-24 Report (1893) 22 SCR 739 Judges Henry, William Alexander; Strong, Samuel Henry; Fournier, Télesphore; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Gwynne, John Wellington; Sedgewick, Robert On appeal from Ontario Subjects Property law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Horton v. Casey, (1893) 22 S.C.R. 739 Date: 1893-06-24 Horton and Casey Horton and Humphries 1893: May 10, 12; 1893: June 24. Present: Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Fournier, Taschereau, Gwynne and Sedgewick JJ. Title to land—Boundaries—Evidence—Title by possession—Acts of ownership. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirming the judgment at the trial in favour of the respondent in each case. The respective respondents in these appeals brought actions against the appellant for trespass to land which were defended on the ground of want of title in the plaintiffs and title by possession in the defendant. At the trial evidence was given by plaintiff of a survey of the lands, and defendant’s land adjoining, made in 1809, by one Burwell, a provincial land surveyor, in which, as he reported to the Crown Land Department, he had made a mistake owing to abend in the circumference of his compass and which he corrected by moving the posts he had planted as the line was traced. The defendant claimed that the line as first run by Brunwell was the true line. As to possession the evidence was that defendant had cut timber on the land in dispute for ma…
Read full judgment
Horton v. Casey Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1893-06-24 Report (1893) 22 SCR 739 Judges Henry, William Alexander; Strong, Samuel Henry; Fournier, Télesphore; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Gwynne, John Wellington; Sedgewick, Robert On appeal from Ontario Subjects Property law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Horton v. Casey, (1893) 22 S.C.R. 739 Date: 1893-06-24 Horton and Casey Horton and Humphries 1893: May 10, 12; 1893: June 24. Present: Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Fournier, Taschereau, Gwynne and Sedgewick JJ. Title to land—Boundaries—Evidence—Title by possession—Acts of ownership. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirming the judgment at the trial in favour of the respondent in each case. The respective respondents in these appeals brought actions against the appellant for trespass to land which were defended on the ground of want of title in the plaintiffs and title by possession in the defendant. At the trial evidence was given by plaintiff of a survey of the lands, and defendant’s land adjoining, made in 1809, by one Burwell, a provincial land surveyor, in which, as he reported to the Crown Land Department, he had made a mistake owing to abend in the circumference of his compass and which he corrected by moving the posts he had planted as the line was traced. The defendant claimed that the line as first run by Brunwell was the true line. As to possession the evidence was that defendant had cut timber on the land in dispute for many years and also tapped maple trees for sugar, but had not fenced the land until some six or seven years prior to the action. The trial judge found that plaintiffs had respectively proved title to their land and that the acts of ownership shown by defendant were mere acts of trespass committed either wilfully or in ignorance as to boundaries and not such as would enable his possession to ripen into a title. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal in both cases and dismissed the appeals. Appeals dismissed with costs. Glenn & Tremear for appellant Horton. J.A. Robinson for appellant Warner. Macdougall Q.C., & Robertson for respondents.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca