Turnbull Estate Co. v. The King / Corkery et al. v. The King / Debury et al. v. The King

Turnbull Estate Co. v. The King / Corkery et al. v. The King / Debury et al. v. The King
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1903-10-06
Report
(1903) 33 SCR 677
Judges
Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Sedgewick, Robert; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Nesbitt, Wallace
On appeal from
Federal Court of Appeal
Subjects
Expropriation
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Turnbull Real Estate Co. v. The King. And Corkery et al. v. The King. And DeBury et al. v. The King. (1903) 33 SCR 677
Date: 1903-10-06
The Turnbull Seal Estate Company v. The King.
Corkery et al. v. The King.
DeBury et al. v. The King.
1903: June 8; 1903: Oct. 6.
Present:—Sir Elzéar Taschereau C.J. and Sedgewick, Girouard, Davies and Nesbitt JJ.
Expropriation of lands—Damages—Mode of assessment—Valuation rolls—Present uses—Prospective value—Evidence.
Appeals from three judgments of the Exchequer Court of Canada awarding damages and increasing the compensation offered by the Crown, based on valuations by appraisers, on the expropriations of the appellants' lands taken for a Biffe Range at St. John, N.B., as follows, respectively, to the Turnbull Real Estate Company $7,425[1], to David Corkery and Johanna Corkery, $2,500, and to Lucy Gertrude Visart DeBury, $850.
The matters at issue in the three cases were of a similar nature and the cases were submitted together at the arguments. In the Exchequer Court the decision was, in effect, that as the lands at the time of the expropriation had a prospective value for residential and other purposes beyond that which then attached to them as lands used for agricultural and other similar purposes, such prospective value should be taken into consideration in the assessment of the sufficient and just compensation that ought to be paid by the Crown upon the expropriations for public purposes to be used in such a manner as would, in various ways, affect the lands injuriously and diminish their prospective values. In assessing the increased compensation awarded the Exchequer Court Judge looked at the assessed valuation of the lands as shewn upon the municipal assessment rolls, not as a determining consideration, but as affording some assistance in arriving at a fair valuation of the property taken.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court of Canada reserved judgment and, on a subsequent day, dismissed the appeals with costs.
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Pugsley K.C. and Alward K.C. for appellants, The Turnbull Real Estate Company.
Pugsley K.C. for the appellants, Corkery et al.
Coster K.C. for the appellants, DeBury et al.
McAlpine K.C. for the respondent.
[1] 8 Ex. C. R. 163.