March 14. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE).
Sir W. J. C.J.-The present appellants in their factum say they desire to submit to this court but one question, namely: Admitting that the servitude in question exists and has been duly registered, does the record show, or is there any proof, that the present appellants, as owners of the servient land, have done any act tending to diminish the use- of the servitude or render its exercise more inconvenient? This was the only question submitted to the court that rendered the judgment appealed from and the only one submitted to this court.
I think it clearly appears that the defendants have erected upon and over the site of this drain a building which, in my opinion, tends to diminish the use of the servitude and renders its exercise more inconvenient. It would seem that repairs are now necessary, and that the barn is an obstacle which actually interferes with making such repairs.
If any damage was sustained by reason of the stoppage of this drain the person whose duty it was to repair it would be liable; at any rate, he has necessarily the right to enter and repair and is entitled to the opportunity and means doing so whenever the necessity should arise, and, in my opinion, the erection of this barn over this drain, as the evidence shows it to have been constructed, .necessarily obstructs the plaintiffs' right and deprives them of the same reasonable means of access that they would have had if the barn had not been erected. I cannot think the right to enter and repair this drain can, as is contended, depend on consent to be obtained for that purpose. Suppose the defendants or their tenant refused leave, is the plaintiffs' cellar to remain full of water until the termination of a lengthy litigation? And where is the duty imposed on the plaintiffs to enter the defendants' barn, incur the -expense of removing pro- H C. perty that may be therein, taking up the floor, and generally removing all obstructions before being in a position to examine or open up the drain for repairs ? Or, should repairs not be necessary for a lengthened period, and the plaintiffs allow the obstructions to remain for a sufficiently long time, are the defendants to be permitted to acquire by prescription or otherwise the right to maintain the barn as it is, and so to be in a, position to resist any interference with it by the plaintiffs, or whoever may be the proprietor of the servitude ?
Under these circumstances I think the appeal should be dismissed.
J.-I am also of opinion, for the reasons given by the majority of the court below, that the appeal should be dismissed.
I cannot agree with the dissenting judgment of Mr. Justice Ramsay.
The law governiing this case is precisely identical with the law of England as appears by the case of Goodhart v. Hlyett
That decision is entirely in point, and the law it lays down is precisely similar to that of the Province of Quebec.
FOURNIER, J. :-L'action confessoria servitutis intent6e en cour inf6rieure par les presents Intim6s, avait pour but de faire d6clarer que le lot de terre des Appelants d6crit en la declaration en cette cause 6tait assuj6ti au profit du lot des Intimbs a une servitude d'egout, en vertu d'un acte de vente consenti en 1843 par Pierre Dubeau a feu John Black, cr6ant cette servitude dans les termes suivants:
Cet acte de vente, 6tablissant la servitude en question, fut enregigtr6 par sommaire le 6 octobre 1843, et le canal d'6gout fut construit conform6ment A la stipulation contenue au dit acte, traversant la propri6t6 de Pierre Dubeau pour aller d6boucher dans le canal Chambly. Par acte de vente du 11 mars 1880, A eux con senti par un nomm6 John Hugh Wise, les Intimbs achethrent le lot de terre, pour le service duquel Pierre Dubeau avait cr66 la servitude en question en faveur de feu John Black.
Cet acte fut aussi enregistr6. Leur vendeur Wise 6tait propridtaire en vertu de bons et valables titres.
Le 7 mars 1880, Louis Dubeau vendit aux Appelants le lot que Pierre Dubeau avait assuj6ti A la servitude d'6gout en faveur de feu John Black. Les Intim6s, depuis leur acquisition et leurs auteurs avant eux, out toujours joui de leur droit de servitude sur ce dernier jusqu'A l'automne 1880, 6poque A laquelle les Appelants out construit sur l'all~e passe 1'6gout une grange, qui les empichait de faire au dit 6gout les r6parations ncessaires. Ils ont conclu a des dommages et la d6molition de 1'obstacle mis A leur paisible jouissance de la dite servitude.
Plusieurs plaidoyers out 6t produits contre cette demande, mais les seuls qui m6ritent consid6ration sont les suivants:-Que l'un des d6fendeurs, Coker, ayant cess6 d'Atre l'un des propri6taires de 1'immeuble servant, 1'action ne pouvait Atre dirig6e contre lui. 2o. Que l'acte de vente du 22 aofit 1843, n'avait pas cr66 une servitude r6elle sur le lot des d6fendeurs, parce que les propri6t6s en question n'6taient pas contigues, mais, qu'au contraire, elles 6taient s6par6es par un chemin public, et qu'en consequence les Intim6s et leurs auteurs n'avaient acquis qu'un droit personnel. 3o. Que la servitude en question 6tant un droit reel, -n elle devait Atre enregistr6e, et 1'enregistrement d'icelle renouvel6e dans les d61ais fix6s par la loi, mais que le renouvellement n'avait pas eu lieu, que le drain en question est inutile.
Les diffirentes questions soulev~es par ces plaidoiries sont abandonn6es par les Appelants, qui out formellement dbclar6 ne soumettre A. la consideration de la cour que la seule question de savoir s'ils ont commis quelque acte tendant iL diminuer la jouissance du droit de servitude on A en rendre 1'exercice plus incommode.
Leur factum contient A ce sujet la d6claration suivante:- La cause se trouve ainsi r~duite A une seule question de fait, savoir, si la preuve a 6tabli que le trouble apport6 & la jouissance des Intim6s par la construction d'une grange au-dessus du canal d'6gout a en l'effet de diminuer l'6tendue de leur droit de servitude on d'en rendre l'exercice plus incommode.
Sur ce point de fait plusieurs t6moins ont 6t entendus de part et d'autre.
Le passage dans lequel Pierre Dubeau avait accord6 le droit de construire le canal d'6gout est aujourd'hui entiarement obstru6 par la construction d'une grange de 35) pieds de largeur sur environ 90 A 100 pieds de longueur. Cette grange se trouve au-dessus du canal et doit partant n6cessairement dimninuer les facilits des Intim6s pour la r6paration et I'entretien de ce canal. Le tUmoin Oscame Pr&vost s'exprime ainsi A ce sujet:- ..
est possible qu'on pourrait lever le canal sous la grange en Fournier J- creusant en dessous de la grange, mais ce serait bien dispendieux; i faudrait d'abord vider ce qu'il y avait dans cette partie de la grange qui couvre le canal; ensuite it faudrait d6faire le plancher, s'il y en a un, enlever la terre de surplus et la mettre en dehors de la grange, et refaire ensuite le plancher et remettre dans la grange les marchandises qui auraient pu en avoir enlev6es i et c'est lU le surcroit de d6pense que la reparation de ce canal occasionnerait; ii faudrait renouveler ces d6penses lIA chaque fois que le canal viendrait en mauvais ordre.
Joseph Arpin dit:- Si la grange 6tait vide au moment on aurait besoin de faire des r6parations dans ce canal, je considre que cette grange n'apporterait aucun obstacle A ces r6parations pourvu qu'on en permit l'entr~e ainsi que 1'ouvrage; mais si le canal se trouvait A passer vis-A-vis une porte, sous une batterie, alors ce serait un obstacle s&rieux A la confection de ces r6parations."
Fran9ois Dufour dit positivement que le canal d'6gout de la maison de brique des Intim6s passe sous la grange dans toute sa profondeur.
Les t6moins des Appelants, parmi lesquels se trouve le pare de Wheeler, disent qn'il serait facile, malgr6 cette construction, de r6parer le canal. Wheeler dit:- It would be very easy to take off that floor (le plancher de la grange). It would not cost more than ten cents.
Pierre Joubert dit:- En dtant le plancher de la grange, je pense qu'il serait facile de creuser en dessous de la grange pour y d~couvrir un canal qui serait lU; et il serait facile d'6ter le plancher.
Israel Daniel dit- Qu'il serait facile suivant moi de creuser en dessous de la grange pour lever le canal d'6gout, attendu qu'il n'y a pas sole et qu'il n'y a qu'une 6paisseur de planche, et du moment qu'il n'y a pas de four. rage dans la grange ce ne sera pas plus difficile de creuser dans la grange que dehors.
C'est li toute la preuve offerte par les parties sur le seul point en contestation devant cette cour. Il en resort bien clairement qu'un changement consid6rable SUPREAiE COURT OF CANADA.
dans 1'6tat du terrain sujet A la servitude d'6gout a 6t6 fait par les Appelants.
Au lieu d'exercer leur droit sur un terrain vacant, n'offrant aucun obstacle aux excavations A faire pour d6couvrir le canal au cas de P r6parations A y faire, les Intim~s a-uraient maintenant a p~nbtrer dans la grange des Appelants-ce qu'ils ne pourraient jamais faire sans une permission sp6cialeet avant de faire aucune excavation ils auraient 6 lever le plancher de la grange, et si alors la grange contenait du foin on autres effets, il faudrait avant d'y d6poser la terre provenant de l'excavation, enlever ces articles, et remettre les choses dans le mme 6tat apris les r6parations faites.
est 6vident que 1'ouvrage serait plus considerable et plus dispendieux fait dans cette bitisse que s'il devait 6tre fait sur un terrain vacant. L'exercice du droit de servitude a et6 certainement diminu6 et rendu plus difficile par la construction de la grange.
Le droit des Intim6s de faire disparaltre les obstacles apport6s A leur jouissance est 6tabli par Particle 557, C. C. Demolombe (1) dit A cc ujet:ne me parait pas douteux que l'appel doit 6tre renvoy6 avec d6pens.
.- I am of the same opinion.
It has been proved that the drain was stopped. There is a crossstreet and it is true that the stoppage may have been on that street, but while the barn remained over the drain the plaintiffs were prevented from opening it so as to ascertain where the stoppage really was, and I do not think it could be said that they were not entitled to damages, because it was not proved that the stoppage was in the drain.
The law is perfectly plain. The party would be entitled to remove the barn and everything in the way of opening the drain. But if he removed it he would have to do it at his own expense, and such a removal is very expensive.
It makes no difference if the barn was so built as to be easily removed. That is not the question.
We are trying the legal rights of the parties. They could agree on that themselves, but not having done so, the plaintiffs are entitled to the judgment of this court upon the legal question submitted.
Under all the circumstances, I think the plaintiffs are entitled to recover, because the use of the drain has been hindered. The only question is as to the amount of damages.
As to the demolition, I think the court had a right to make the order. There is no other way of getting at the drain until the barn is removed.
The plaintiffs would have the right to remove it themselves, and if so, the court has a right to order its removal. It may be a hardship, but we have nothing to do with that. We must decide the case without regard to hardship. Although it was the defendants' own land, the record shows that the other party had the right of access without any interference whatever.
J.-The respondents, claiming to be the owners of immoveable property to which was attached a right of drainage through the property of the appellants, and to have been deprived of the enjoyment and possession of the said servitude by the construction of a large barn over the said drain, brought the present action against the appellants to recover the sum of $300 damages for the loss and injury sustained thereby, and to have the property of the appellants declared to have been, and to be still subject to the said servitude, and the said appellants ordered to demolish the portion of the said barn which tends to diminish the use of the servitude and to render its exercise more inconvenient.
The judgment of the court below granted the prayer of the complaint against the defendant Wheeler, but the other defendant
Coker having sold to said Wheeler his undivided half in the property before the commencement of the action, but after the construction of the barn, only that portion of the-prayer of the complaint against Coker was granted which asked that the defendants be condemned jointly and severally to pay damages to plaintiffs, by reason of both having erected the building which deprived them of the said servitude.
The appellants appealed from this judgment to the
Court of Queen's Bench, which confirmed it with a slight modification in the manner of executing it.
Only one question was submitted to this court by the appellants.
Does the record show, or is there any proof that the appellants, as owners of the servient land, have done any act tending to diminish the use of the servitude or render its exercise more inconvenient ? So that the appellants rest their case .purely and simply on a question of fact, upon which they have against them the finding of the two courts below. The law of the case is so clear that they could not but admit it.
"The proprietor of the servient land, (says art. 551 C.
can do nothing which tends to diminish the use of
"the servitude or to render its exercise more inconve- "nient."
Does the proof establish that by building the barn in question the appellants have rendered for the respondents' the exercise of the servitude in question more inconvenient ? The consid~rant of the Superior Court on this head is as follows
6tait This finding is entirely supported by the evidence, and I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. J.-The judgment of the Court of Appeal appears to me to go further than is warranted by the evidence.
The evidence, in my opinion, fails to establish any right in the plaintiffs to have a judgment in their favor, ordering the demolition of any part of the barn which has been erected on the servient land. It fails to establish that there has as yet arisen any necessity for the plaintiffs to open the drain under the barn for the purpose of repairing the drain in question. It may be that the obstruction in the drain which causes the damages to the plaintiffs' house of which they complain is, as it has been before found to be, in that part of the drain which is under the street, between the plaintiffs' tenement and that of the defendant Wheeler, so that there may have as yet arisen no necessity whatever for opening the drain under the barn; and if upon further investigation it should prove to be necessary to open and inspect that part of the drain, the evidence I think fails to establish that the barn, as it stands, would offer any obstruction which could not easily be overcome without the demolition of any part of it, or which could be said to abridge or impair the plaintiffs' power to exercise their right of servitude. The floor of the barn is said to be made of loose boards not nailed down, at least in that part which is over the drain, which boards could be easily removed; and if the barn should be empty, or that part of it which is over the drain, when the plaintiffs should require to repair the drain in that part which passes under the barn, the evidence seems to show that the barn would offer no obstruction to the plaintiffs making all necessary repairs.
No case is, I think, established to warrant at present the demolition of any part of the barn. Nor has any case been made out, in my opinion, to support the judgment for damages against the defendants for the mere erection of the barn.
These damages can only be sustained upon the assumption that the mere erection of the barn, although it should offer no obstruction to making repairs in the drain has caused and constitutes an abridgment of the plaintiffs' right of servitude.
This appears to me to be erroneous. If, when a necessity arises for repairing the drain under the barn, it shall be found that all necessary repairs can be made, and so that the servitude which the plaintiffs claim a right to can be fully exercised with the barn as it stands, it cannot be said that the barn has diminished the plaintiff's-use of the servitude has rendered its exercise more inconvenient. The award of damages is, in my opinion, altogether premature.
I am of opinion, therefore, that the defendant Coker was, and is entitled to judgment in his favor, dismissing the plaintiffs' action against him with costs; and as to defendant Wheeler, I am of opinion that the ends of justice would be satisfied by a judgment simply declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the drain in question, and to have free access to the piece of land of the defendant Wheeler in question for the purpose of making all necessary repairs in the drain, as occasion may require, without any impediment or obstruction to their so doing being caused by the barn, which has been erected over the drain or otherwise; and as the defendant Wheeler has upon the record contested this right he should pay the costs of the action; but this appeal should be allowed, in my opinion, to the extent of making the above alteration in, and modification of, the judgment. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for appellants: Robertson, Ritchie 4- Fleet. Solicitors for respondents: Geoffrion, Dorion, Lafleur 4- Rinfret.
GEORGE
H.
FIELDING
AND
ANTHONY J. MANLEY
(PLAIN- ..........................
.........
CHARLES
F. MOTT, EDWARD ]
ARCHIBALD,
GEORGE
W. I
STUART, ALEXANDER KENT E ARCHIBALD, AND GEORGE. A.
LESLIE ..............
for-Right of Pasme-Sir Nova Scotia refusing to set aside a verdict for the defendants and order a new trial.
The action in this case was one of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs to obtain possession of certain mining lands in Nova Scotia of which they were lessees. The defendants also held leases of the lands in question and claimed also to be owners of the soil. The several grounds of objection to the leases granted to the defendants and also the grounds upon which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to possession of the lands are fully set out in the judgment of the court below delivered by Mr. Justice Thompson and reported in 6 Russ. p Geld. page 339.
Archibald for the appellants cited Shipp v. Miller's Ileirs (2) ; Burke v. Niles (3); Finlay v. Williams (4). Graham Q.O. and Sedgwic4 Q.C. for the respondents. Sir W. J. RITCHIE C.J.-I think the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, as delivered by Thompson J. in this case, conclusive against the appellants. It appears to me that the law and the merits of the case are alike with the respondents. I had not on the argument, and have not now, any doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the court below and do not think I can, with advantage, add anything to what has been so clearly, forcibly and conclusively put forward by Mr. Justice Thompson in delivering the judgment in the court below.
9 Cranch