List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases originating in Canada, 1867–69

For links to lists of cases decided in other decades, see List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada. For information about counsel appearing on Canadian appeals, see List of counsel appearing in Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

This page lists all cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originating in Canada, and decided in the years 1867 to 1869.


1867–1869

Case name Citation Subject Presiding Justices (decision written by justice whose name is bold) Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained? Court of Origin
Gugy v. Brown (1867), L.R. 1 P.C. 411, [1867] UKPC 1 (P.C.). This case is an Appeal from the Decree of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Lower Canada, dated the 19th of December, 1862. By this Decree a Judgment dated the 2nd of November, 1861, of the Superior Court of the District of Quebec was reversed. That Judgment was pronounced by a single Judge (Taschereau) on a motion made by the present Appellant to review the Prothonotary’s taxation of a bill of costs which had been submitted to him to be taxed by the Appellant, under a prior Judgment of the last-mentioned Court upon a proceeding called “an opposition,” awarding him costs as against the Respondent generally by the words ”avec dépens.” The question, and the only question, raised and decided in the two Courts was, whether the Appellant, who was an advocate and attorney duly admitted therein, and had appeared personally in Court and conducted his own case as attorney on record, was entitled under the said Judgment to charge in his bill of costs, and to have allowed, on the taxation thereof against the Respondent, certain fees claimed and charged by him in respect of his character of attorney. Judge Taschereau decided in the affirmative; the Court of Queen’s Bench in the negative. Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley		 Overturned Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Herrick v. Sixby (1867), L.R. 1 P.C 436, [1867] UKPC 15 (P.C.). The action in which these Judgments were given was an action en bornage by the Appellant, to have the boundaries between two contiguous properties of the Appellant and the Respondent ascertained and determined. Sir William Erle
Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley		 Overturned Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
The Bank of Upper Canada v. Bradshaw and others (1867), L.R. 1 P.C. 479, [1867] UKPC 20 (P.C.). This decision dealt with the scope of authority of the manager of the Bank; action by banking company against the late manager and cashier for negligence and misconduct in application of funds. Lord Cairns
Lord Justice Turner
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley		 Sustained Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Macdonald v. Lambe (1867), L.R. 1 P.C. 539, [1867] UKPC 30 (P.C.). The actions in which these Appeals are brought were petitory actions to recover possession of two pieces of ground in the fifth range of Russeltown in the Seigniory of Benuharnois. Lord Cairns
Lord Justice Turner
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley		 Sustained Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Scott v. Paquet (1867), L.R. 1 P.C. 552, [1867] UKPC 26 (P.C.). In an action brought by the Appellant against the Respondents, and in which the question to be determined was whether a marriage between William Henry Scott, Esq., deceased, and the Respondent, Marie Marguerite Maurice Paquet, on the 16th December, 1851, was valid or void. Present at the First Argument:

Lord Kingsdown
Judge of the Admiralty
Lord Chief Baron Pollock
Sir George Jessel, M.R.

Present at the Second Argument:

Sir John Coleridge
Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Fitz-Roy Kelly, The Lord Chief Baron
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley

 Sustained Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Renaud v. Tourangeau (1867), L.R. 2 P.C. 4 (P.C.). The Appellant was a judgment creditor of the Respondent. The appeal was brought to decide the right to certain lands and tenements in the possession of the Respondent which were taken in execution by the Sheriff of Quebec, under a writ of Fieri Facias issued upon the Appellant's judgment, under the following circumstances. Lord Romilly, M.R.
Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley		 Overturned Quebec Court of Queen's Bench
Wallace v. McSweeney (1868), L.R. 2 P.C. 180, [1868] UKPC 10 (P.C.). In this case their Lordships are not called upon to pronounce any opinion upon the real merits of the cause. It appears that the Appellant and the Respondent, and another Gentleman, now deceased, were co-Executors and Trustees of a Roman Catholic priest of the name of Dunphy, and various sums of money, part of the estate, having been collected, a portion of which were in the hands of the present Appellant, some dissatisfaction arose on the part of his co-Executors. Lord Romilly, M.R.
Sir Fitz-Roy Kelly, The Lord Chief Baron
Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams		 Overturned Nova Scotia Supreme Court
Kierzkowski v. Dorion (1868), L.R. 2 P.C. 291, [1868] UKPC 23 (P.C.). This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Lower Canada, reversing a Judgment of the Superior Court of that Province in an action by the Appellant against the Respondent. Lord Chelmsford
Sir James W. Colvile
Lord Justice Wood
Lord Justice Selwyn		 Dismissed Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Evanturel v. Evanturel (1869), L.R. 2 P.C. 462, [1869] UKPC 28 (P.C.). The question raised upon this appeal related to the Will of the late Madame Evanturel, domiciled in Lower Canada, the validity of which depended upon the regularity of its execution, as required by the 289th Article of the Coutume de Paris. The Appellants insisted, in the court below, that the Will was invalid, upon two grounds; first, that the Testatrix had not legal capacity to make such Will, and that it was obtained by fraud and undue influence practised on her by the Respondent. This latter ground was abandoned in the course of the proceedings in Canada. And secondly, that it was not validly passed and executed according to the Law of Lower Canada. Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Robert Phillimore, High Court of Admiralty
Lord Justice Selwyn
Lord Justice Giffard		 Sustained Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench
Ryland v. Delisle [1869] UKPC 44 The Canadian Act, 14th and 15th Vict., c. 51, consolidating and regulating the general clauses relating to Railways enacts by sect. 19, cl. 1, that “each Shareholder shall be individually liable to the Creditors of the Company, to an amount equal to the amount unpaid on the Stock held by him, for the debts and liabilities thereof, and until the whole amount of his Stock shall have been paid up; but shall not be liable to an action therefore before an execution against the Company shall have been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, and the amount due on such execution shall be the amount recoverable with costs against such Shareholders.” Sir James W. Colvile
Sir Joseph Napier
Lord Justice Giffard		 Quebec Court of Queen’s Bench

See also

Sources

    This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 5/10/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.