The Ontario Reports; Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court of Justice for Ontario Volume 21

The Ontario Reports; Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court of Justice for Ontario Volume 21

List price: US$10.25

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1892 edition. Excerpt: ...appear from the judgment of Fnacvson, J. The action came on for trial at Barrie, on March 9th, 1891, before MACMAHON, J., and ajury, and resulted in judgment for the defendant. The plaintifis now moved by way of appeal before the Divisional Court, and the motion was argued on June 20th, 1891, before Fnneuson and MEREDITH, J J. W. Nesbitt, for the plaintiffs. The question is as to the true construction of R. S. O. 1887, ch. 25, secs. 10, 11. We contend that a locatee cannot cut the pine without clearing as he goes along. Under the Act pine trees are reserved: Pwrlcer v. Maxwell, 4 O. R. 239; Bloomfield Peerage Case, 2 D. & C. 344. Aylesworth, Q. C., for the defendant. No hard and fast Argumentrule can be laid down. We rely on Cockburn v. M uslcoka Mills and Lumber Co., 13 O. R. 343; Langmaid v. Mtclcle, 16 O. R. 111; and on Pa/rlce'r v. Maxwell, cited for the plaintiffs. The policy of section 11 was to take from the patentee his rights in the pine, and give him only a restricted right. No distinction exists between a locatee selling and removing where there is a bond fide intention to clear, as there was here _: and his cutting before selling. It is plain the defendant had the right to sell if he had first cut; can it make any difference that he should have sold when the timber was still on the soil? MER.EDITH, J. He is going on his statutory rights, which are " may cut and dispose of." Here he disposed of and cut. MEREDITH, J.--No, he disposed of and did not cut. N esbitt, in reply. The Goclcbun-n Case emphasizes the point that the defendant is acting under the statute or he is not. His right only arises when in the course of actual clearing he puts his axe to the root of the tree. It is not a. mere question of intention....show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 248 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 449g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236854950
  • 9781236854957