Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec, affirming the judgment of the trial judge and maintaining the respondent's action for damages.
The respondent was the owner of a farm at St. Hilaire, county of Rouville, comprising approximately sixty-six acres of land, of which thirty acres was in orchard, six acres in sugar bush and thirty acres in cultivation.
On or about the 26th of April, 1923, a fire which had been started on the appellant's right of way overran a part of the respondent's farm, and destroyed the orchard and sugar bush. At the trial the appellant declared that it would not contest the fact that the fire had been set by its employees and that the question to be decided was the quantum of damages suffered by the respondent.
The trial judge awarded to the respondent the sum of $10,000 as damages, and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench, Howard J. dissenting.
On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the judgment of the appellate court was varied by reducing the amount of the damages from $10,000 to $7,826.
Monty K.C. and Delage K.C. for the respondent.
*Js APPEAL from the decision of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court and dismissing the appellant's action. The appellant, a judgment creditor of La Compagnie G6n6rale d'Entreprises Publiques took action to set aside as fraudulent as against him a transfer by it to the Banque Nationale, as general collateral, of $150,000 of its bonds secured by a trust mortgage upon all its assets. In order to succeed the appellant had to establish by satisfactory proof that at the time the transfer of the bonds was made the debtor was insolvent in fact and was so to the knowledge of the bank.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appeal was dismissed with costs, the court, in its judgment, as delivered by Anglin C.J.C., stating that it had " been unable to find in the record any evidence which would warrant overruling the unanimous judgments of the provincial courts that on neither point is the contention of the appellant established."
Appeal dismissed with costs. Perron K.C. and Genest K.C. for the appellant.
Laurendeau K.C. and Garneau for the respondent La Banque Nationale.
S.C.R.
Canada, Audette J. fixing the indemnity to be paid to the respondents for the expropriation of certain lands in the city of Quebec required for the enlarging of the terminals of the Canadian National Railways in that city.
The indemnity had first been fixed by a judgment of the Exchequer Court of. Canada on the 21st December, 1923, at $135,153.30.
Upon appeal to this court, the case was referred back to the Exchequer Court of Canada for reconsideration, on the 27th May, 1924, as it was open to doubt whether a piece of land which the trial judge had excluded from a certain property sold to respondents was not comprised in that sale. The Exchequer Court of Canada, on the 12th January, 1925, fixed the indemnity at $135,011.30, or $142 less than had been formerly awarded.
On this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court allowed the appeal with costs. Finding that there was error in the second judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada and that there should be a reduction of $18,714.54 in the valuation made by the judgment of the trial judge, the court held that the total compensation should be $116,438.76.
Roy K.C. for the appellant.
St. Laurent K.C. for the respondent.
Canada, Audette J. (1) maintaining the respondent's action and dismissing the appellant's counter-claim, and thus determining priority between two conflicting applications for patents.
The applications concern the use of glauconite or greensand in the softening of hard water.
On behalf of the appellant it was charged that the respondent's application was the result of the discovery by it that glauconite was the material used by the appellant.
The trial judge upheld the respondent company's contentions; but, on the appeal by the appellant to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court allowed the appeal, dismissing the action and maintaining the counter-claim. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of the court as delivered by Duff J. was as follows:
"This appears to be one of those cases in which the reasons given by the trial judge in themselves shew that he has misunderstood the evidence and overlooked the weight and importance of facts either undisputed or indisputa'bly established, by documents or otherwise. In such circumstances it is the duty of the appellate tribunal to review the findings in light of the whole evidence." Tilley K.C. and W. L. Scott K.C. for the appellant.
Lafleur K.C., R. S. Smart and J. L. McDougall for the respondent.