Cox v. Hourigan

Cox v. Hourigan

The trial judge’s finding that an oral accord and satisfaction discharged the sealed contract was supported by the defendant’s credible testimony and by corroborating circumstances (delay, subsequent conduct and partial payments); s.11 corroboration requirement was satisfied by circumstantial evidence; appellate court erred in substituting its view on credibility — therefore the cause of action was discharged and judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Citation
[1941] SCR 251
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Charles W. Cox; Plaintiff/assignee: George F. Hourigan; Original Plaintiff/assignor: James Horrigan Company Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1941
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Trial Judgment Restored
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing the action restored.
Legal Topics
Accord and Satisfaction, Corroboration Under Evidence Act S.11, Credibility and Appellate Deference, Laches/delay, Assignment of Claim
Source Language
English
Contract Evidence Accord and Satisfaction Corroboration Under Evidence Act S.11 Credibility and Appellate Deference Laches/delay Assignment of Claim

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles W. Cox

Defendant/appellant

George F. Hourigan

Plaintiff/assignee

James Horrigan Company Ltd.

Original Plaintiff/assignor

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Trial Judgment Restored

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral accord and satisfaction discharged the cause of action arising from a sealed agreement
  2. 2 Whether defendant’s evidence required corroboration under s.11 of The Evidence Act, R.S.O., 1937 and, if so, whether such corroboration existed
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge’s credibility finding

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s finding that an oral accord and satisfaction discharged the sealed contract was supported by the defendant’s credible testimony and by corroborating circumstances (delay, subsequent conduct and partial payments); s.11 corroboration requirement was satisfied by circumstantial evidence; appellate court erred in substituting its view on credibility — therefore the cause of action was discharged and judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge dismissing the action restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of Urquhart J. dismissing the action restored.
  • Costs awarded to appellant throughout.