| Case name: |
Victoria (City) v. Bailey |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Moody, Thomas Gage |
|
Claimant |
| |
Victoria (City) |
|
Authority |
| |
Bailey, Samuel Oscar |
|
Other |
| |
British Columbia (Attorney General) |
|
Other |
| |
Cameron Investment and Securities Co. Ltd. |
|
Other |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Eberts, David MacEwan |
J.A. |
| |
Galliher, William Alfred |
J.A. |
| |
Macdonald, James Alexander |
C.J.A. |
| |
Martin, Archer Evans Stringer |
J.A. |
| |
McPhillips, Albert Edward |
J.A. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Green, J.R. |
|
Claimant |
| |
Taylor, William John |
|
Claimant |
| |
Hannington, Robert Wetmore |
|
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Appeal by the mortgagee from a lower court decision which held that part of the property securing the mortgagee's loan was a public highway. The Authority had adopted an expropriation by-law in 1912 for the purpose of widening Pandora Street in the City of Victoria. However, it failed to publish the by-law as required by the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1911 c. 170. The Authority paid compensation to the fee simple owner, Moody, and obtained a signed transfer document. However, when the Authority later attempted to register the transfer, registration was refused because a mortgage had been registered in the meantime. The Authority applied to the lower court for an order determining whether the expropriation was valid such that it held title to the land in question in priority to the mortgage. The lower court held that the expropriation was not valid but the land had later become a public highway through dedication and acceptance. The appeal was dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1919] EXLAW 1 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
[1919] B.C.J. No. 81 |
| |
(1919) 27 B.C.R. 313 |
| |
1919 Can LII 644 |
| |
[1919] 3 W.W.R. 19 |
|
|
|
