McCorriston and McCorriston v. Hayward, (1980) 9 Sask.R. 379 (QB)

• Judge: Sirois, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 26, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1980), 9 Sask.R. 379 (QB)

McCorriston v. Hayward (1980), 9 Sask.R. 379 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

McCorriston and McCorriston v. Hayward

(Q.B. No. 86)

Indexed As: McCorriston and McCorriston v. Hayward

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Melfort

Sirois, J.

November 26, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of an action by the plaintiffs to recover mesne profits acquired by the defendant after failing to complete an agreement to sell land to the plaintiffs.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Estoppel - Topic 376

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - General principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an estoppel by record - The court further discussed the effect of such judgment on the parties and those claiming under them - See paragraphs 15 and 16.

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - A land buyer brought an action for specific performance or alternatively damages after the buyer failed to give up possession - The buyer was granted specific performance and subsequently brought an action to recover mesne profits during the period that the seller wrongfully withheld possession - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action, because res judicata applied - See paragraph 17.

Sale of Land - Topic 8591

Remedies of purchaser - Mesne profits - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that a claim for mesne profits is one for special damages for withholding possession and that it must be specifically pleaded - See paragraph 7.

Cases Noticed:

Madden v. Brooklyn-Stemwinder Gold Mines Limited et al., [1950] 1 W.W.R. 246, consd. [para. 7].

Lloyd v. Milton and Derkson, [1939] 3 W.W.R. 123, consd. [para. 9].

Wahl v. Nugent, [1924] 2 W.W.R. 1138, consd. [para. 10].

Krause v. York, [1932] S.C.R. 548, consd. [para. 11].

Churchill v. McCrae (1915), 8 W.W.R. 394, consd. [para. 12].

Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Hare 100, consd. [para. 12].

Maynard v. Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346, refd to. [para. 12].

Winter v. Dewar, [1929] 2 W.W.R. 518, refd to. [para. 12].

McAgry v. Gray (1859), 4 N.S.R. 56, consd. [para. 13].

Nokes v. Nokes, [1957] P. 213, refd to. [para. 15].

Bell v. Holmes, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1359, refd to. [para. 15].

Hill v. Hill, [1954] P. 291, refd to. [para. 15].

Woods v. Luscombe, [1966] 1 Q.B. 169, refd to. [para. 15].

Ralli v. Moor Line (1925), 22 Ll. L.R. 530, refd to. [para. 15].

Gordon v. Gordon, [1950] 1 W.W.R. 669 (Man.), refd to. [para. 16].

Johanesson v. C.P.R., [1922] 2 W.W.R. 341, refd to. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bullen, Leake and Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings (9th Ed.), pp. 38, 216 [para. 7].

Counsel:

J.R. Cherkewich, for the plaintiffs;

J.H.W. Sanderson, Q.C., for the defendant.

This case was heard by SIROIS, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Melfort, who on November 26, 1980, delivered the following judgment.